Mathematics – Logic
Scientific paper
Sep 1995
adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=1995metic..30q.567r&link_type=abstract
Meteoritics, vol. 30, no. 5, page 567
Mathematics
Logic
1
Barringer Meteorite Crater, Craters, Impacts, Conditions, Meteor Crater
Scientific paper
Meteor Crater in northern Arizona represents the most abundant type of impact feature in our Solar System, i.e., the simple bowl-shaped crater. Excellent exposures and preservation of this large crater and its ejecta blanket have made it a critical data set in both terrestrial and planetary cratering research. Recognition of the value of the crater was initiated in the early 1900's by Daniel Moreau Barringer, whose 27 years of exploration championed its impact origin [1]. In 1960, Shoemaker presented information that conclusively demonstrated that Meteor Crater was formed by hypervelocity impact [2]. This led the U.S. Geological Survey to use the crater extensively in the 1960-70's as a prime training site for the Apollo astronauts. Today, Meteor Crater continues to serve as an important research site for the international science community, as well as an educational site for over 300,000 visitors per year. Since the late 1950's, studies of this crater have presented an increasingly clearer view of this impact and its effects and have provided an improved view of impact cratering in general. To expand on this data set, we are preparing an upgraded summary on the Meteor Crater event following the format in [3], including information and interpretations on: 1) Inferred origin and age of the impacting body, 2) Inferred ablation and deceleration history in Earth's atmosphere, 3) Estimated speed, trajectory, angle of impact, and bow shock conditions, 4) Estimated coherence, density, size, and mass of impacting body, 5) Composition of impacting body (Canyon Diablo meteorite), 6) Estimated kinetic energy coupled to target rocks and atmosphere, 7) Terrain conditions at time of impact and age of impact, 8) Estimated impact dynamics, such as pressures in air, meteorite, and rocks, 9) Inferred and estimated material partitioning into vapor, melt, and fragments, 10) Crater and near-field ejecta parameters, 11) Rock unit distributions in ejecta blanket, 12) Estimated far-field rock and meteorite ejecta parameters, 13) Inferred and estimated cloud-rise and fall-out conditions, 14) Late-stage meteorite falls after impact, 15) Estimated damage effect ranges, 16) Erosion of crater and ejecta blanket, 17) New topographic and digital maps of crater and ejecta blanket, 18) Other. (Suggestions are welcome) This compilation will contain expanded discussions of new data as well as revised interpretations of existing information. For example in Item 1, we suggest the impacting body most likely formed during a collision in the main asteroid belt that fragmented the iron-nickel core of an asteroid some 0.5 billion years ago. The fragments remained in space until about 50,000+/-3000 yrs ago, when they were captured by the Earth's gravitational field. In Item 3, the trajectory of the impacting body is interpreted by EMS as traveling north-northwest at a relatively low impact angle. The presence of both shocked meteorite fragments and melt spherules indicate the meteorite had a velocity in the range of about 13 to 20 km/s, probably in the lower part of this range [4]. In Item 4, the coherent meteorite diameter is estimated to have been 45 to 50 m with a mass of 300,000 to 400,000 tons, i.e., large enough to experience less than 1% in both mass ablation and velocity deceleration. During this time, minor flake-off of the meteorite's exterior produced a limited number of smaller fragments that followed the main mass to the impact site but at greatly reduced velocities. In Item 6, we estimate the kinetic energy of impact to be in the range of 20 to 40 Mt depending on the energy coupling functions used and corrections for angle of oblique impact. At impact, terrain conditions were about as we see them today, a gently rolling plain with outcrops of Moenkopi and a meter or so of soil cover. In Item 18, EMS estimates production of a Meteor Crater-size event should occur on the continents about every 50,000 years; interestingly, this is the age of Meteor Crater. References: [1] Barringer D. M. (1906) Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 57, 861-886. [2] Shoemaker E. M. (1960) Intl. Geol. Congress, Rept. 18, 418-434. [3] Roddy D. J. (1978) Proc. LPS 9th, 3891-3930. [4] Roddy D. J. et al. (1980) Proc. LPSC 11th, 2275-2307.
Roddy David J.
Shoemaker Eugene M.
No associations
LandOfFree
Meteor Crater (Barringer Meteorite Crater), Arizona: Summary of Impact Conditions does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.
If you have personal experience with Meteor Crater (Barringer Meteorite Crater), Arizona: Summary of Impact Conditions, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Meteor Crater (Barringer Meteorite Crater), Arizona: Summary of Impact Conditions will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-830257