3 ms·
1) I'm surprised that meteorites would end up on the surface rather than embedded in the ground. I'd have thought that a hunk of metal or stone falling from t
by nkurz 11y ago
1) I'm surprised that meteorites would end up on the surface rather than embedded in the ground. I'd have thought that a hunk of metal or stone falling from the sky would penetrate rather than bounce. Is it a matter of the angle that it comes in at? Is the terminal velocity just that slow? Or do most of them bury themselves and it is only the ones that remain on the surface that are found?
2) There was an interesting story that came out a couple months ago about a new "trove" of meteorites being found in Antarctica. While quite a few have been found on the surface, there was a recent realization that more should have melted their way in after being heated by the sun: http://www.universetoday.com/127492/does-antarctica-have-a-hidden-layer-of-meteorites-below-its-surface/ http://www.universetoday.com/127492/does-antarctica-have-a-h...
- jacquesm 11y agoWhether they bury themselves or not depends on impact speed, soil conditions and angle.
- xyzzyz 11y agoIt's actually pretty interesting that the impact speed is not that crucial when it comes to how deep the projectile is embedded. Isaac Newton was the first to explain it and to approximate how deep a projectile can go -- it boils down to the density ratio of the impactor and the target material. Additionally, penetrating the atmosphere itself can be thought of as equivalent to penetrating 10 meters of water, so the projectile already loses a lot of energy to push through it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_depth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_depth for more explanation.
- mathattack 11y agoI suspect that terminal velocity is the issue. For a skydiver it's 120 MPH. I'm not sure if this [0] source is true, but it suggests 100-200MPH. (It's on the internet, how can it be wrong?) [0] http://www.meteoritemarket.com/metid2.htm http://www.meteoritemarket.com/metid2.htm