Geology Reference
In-Depth Information
1. An oblique and/or stereo photos should be taken of
each meteorite
in situ.
Detailed information should be
recorded on its field occurrence, its degree of weathering,
completeness of fusion crust, and, if possible, its magnetic
orientation as found.
2. Meteorites should be altered as little as possible
during collection, storage, and transport. A specimen must
not be touched by hands or gloves; it must be collected in
cleaned containers, such as glass jars, teflon bags, polyeth-
ylene bags, or aluminum cans or foil. They must be shipped
to the U.S. to avoid having them x-rayed at airport security.
For carbonaceous chondrites, exposing them to Pb-bearing
helo exhaust must be avoided (assuming that they can be
identified in the field.)
3. Meteorites, and subdivided parts of them, must be
maintained in a chemically non-reactive, non-contami-
nated environment at sub-zero temperatures in a dry envi-
ronment, or in dry nitrogen. Rock saws lubricated by water
or organics must be avoided; specimens should be broken
by stainless steel implements or cut with dry wire saws.
4. Complete laboratory documentation should be car-
ried out while meteorites are being subdivided. A need
was expressed for eventual archival storage of a part of
each meteorite, but there was no general agreement on
how much of each meteorite should be saved, or where it
should be stored.
In summary, the international scientific community
clearly favored clean handling of Antarctic meteorites,
based on procedures used for the lunar samples, with a
few extra-special precautions to minimize terrestrial
contamination.
Cassidy wrote his proposal for processing ANSMET
meteorites at Pittsburgh, although he could hear what
he described as the presence of leviathans lumbering
about half-seen at the edge of the clearing. He was
referring to the new and competitive interests being
shown in the care and handling of Antarctic meteorites
by two huge organizations: NASA and the Smithsonian
Institution.
NASA had had the unique experience of processing
and distributing the lunar samples, and its Building 31 at
the Johnson Space Center was well-equipped with clean-
room facilities. NASA also had a highly trained and
dedicated staff. By 1976, however, NASA was construct-
ing a new building for the curation of lunar samples and
was beginning to look into possible uses of Building 31
for meteorite research. Early in 1977, one NASA staff
member, John O. Annexstad, suggested that Building 31
might be put into good use for processing meteorites such
as those Cassidy had begun collecting in Antarctica.
Some NASA managers reportedly resisted that idea at
first, but upon learning about it in more detail they lent it
their full support. Thus, NASA played an active role in
the meeting held at the NSF on 11 November 1977.
Figure 1.2.
Bill Cassidy reaching for a fragment of the large
meteorite at the Allan Hills.
1.5.2. Processing and Distribution of Samples
At McMurdo, Bill, Ed, and Keizo moved the specimens
to the Thiel Earth Science Laboratory and followed the
procedures described in the joint memo: first, they cut the
large specimen in half using the available rock saw. Then
they divided all their smaller specimens into two groups
and Keizo packed the Japanese share for shipment to
Japan. Bill and Ed Olsen sawed the U.S. portion of the
large stone in half and sorted out their shares of the
smaller stones. Each of them shipped his samples home,
as field geologists generally do in order to carry out their
research on them, even though actual ownership of the
rocks traditionally remains with their funding agency.
Cassidy was appalled at the sight of meteorites that
had been collected from the most sterile environment on
the Earth being cut on a rock saw in everyday use for
terrestrial rocks. He now was giving serious thought to
the expected worldwide interest and demand for sam-
ples of Antarctic meteorites. No procedures had been
discussed for receiving and curating these meteorites, so
he decided to write a proposal for a curation center
using clean facilities at the University of Pittsburgh,
from which samples for research would be distributed
around the world.
For planning purposes, he sent a questionnaire to every
member of the Meteoritical Society, and to every other
interested person he could think of, asking for opinions
on how Antarctic meteorites should be collected, stored
for transport, processed, and distributed for research. He
received answers from nearly 90 meteoriticists in 15 coun-
tries. Cassidy summarized their responses in a 22-page
survey with four appendixes and circulated it for discussion
at the meeting of the Meteoritical Society in Cambridge,
England, on 24-29 July 1977. In it he listed the four major
concerns expressed by his correspondents:
