Stardust vs. Meteors

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19437

It is interesting to note that as fast as Stardust is travelling. it sure
doesn't hold a candle to meteorites. If I saw a meteor travelling like that
I would have to conclude it probably isn't one but could be. some 90% of
meteors travel at least twice more than Stardust did.

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:49:10 GMT, "EP Guy" wrote:

It is interesting to note that as fast as Stardust is travelling. it sure
doesn't hold a candle to meteorites. If I saw a meteor travelling like that
I would have to conclude it probably isn't one but could be. some 90% of
meteors travel at least twice more than Stardust did.

Stardust's initial entry was at 12.8 km/s. The slowest possible meteor
is 11 km/s, but most are much faster. Meteors that produce meteorites
typically have the basic characteristics of the Startdust entry: slow
speed and a shallow path. This combination allows the object to slow
down while still quite high, before the ram pressures and drag forces
become too high.

While Stardust somewhat resembled a natural meteor, the way it
brightened looked wrong. A natural meteor would produce a much more
impressive trail, since over 90% of its mass would be lost to ablation.
Obviously, that didn't occur with Stardust!

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:49:10 GMT, "EP Guy" wrote:

It is interesting to note that as fast as Stardust is travelling. it sure
doesn't hold a candle to meteorites. If I saw a meteor travelling like
that
I would have to conclude it probably isn't one but could be. some 90% of
meteors travel at least twice more than Stardust did.

Stardust's initial entry was at 12.8 km/s. The slowest possible meteor
is 11 km/s, but most are much faster.

Is there an echo in here?