Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

t1_ja59y3l wrote

Most meteorites are found on snowy plains because they’re easy to spot in contrast to the stark white snow.

497

t1_ja7vz8m wrote

Antarctica is also not underwater like majority of earth, where I'm guessing majority of meteorites end up.

60

t1_ja8hlng wrote

And it's a cold desert, with little precipitation and minimal non-glacial erosion. So they'll just last longer in a recognizable form.

45

t1_ja8lyok wrote

I knew a meteor hunter dude in Tahoe, he went out to big empty playas in Great Basin. He said you just cruise around looking for black rocks that don’t belong.

32

t1_ja5l64l wrote

Did anybody read this article at all? The OP was not asking this as a question, that's the title of the article, and the article discusses everything people in this thread are saying.

155

t1_ja6xblq wrote

The best bit is that nobody is giving the right answer, and even the article only hints at it:

There are a few places in Antarctica where ice slowly evaporates due to very low snowfall and high winds. This forms regions of clear blue ice, and the ice sheet flows toward these regions. Any meteorites that fall elsewhere on the ice sheet get carried to the blue ice zones where the ice evaporates leaving the meteorites behind on the surface. The meteorites build up to very high concentrations over thousands and thousands of years.

So the Antarctic meteorite hunters aren’t just going there because fresh meteorites are easy to spot, they’re there because all the meteorites that fell over a huge area for thousands of years are concentrated in one spot.

https://caslabs.case.edu/ansmet/

148

t1_ja6znqi wrote

Wow that's incredible science! Genius level shit figuring that out. And thank you for posting this. I've been reading every single comment cock-eyed because they don't even sound confident in their own answers let alone researched.. ridiculous comment section.

17

t1_ja7my22 wrote

Redditors? Reading an article they're commenting on? You have too much faith in this platform.

5

t1_jaa097d wrote

If I wanted to read the article myself, I wouldn't need to go to Reddit to have someone do the work for me...

3

t1_ja61luj wrote

Because of the way this post is formatted, it appears as if OP asked a question and simply used a picture that, as we have come to find out, is apparently a linked article. At least on mobile.

4

t1_ja7thdg wrote

If redditors see a question mark in a post title they assume there can't possibly be a link involved, even by the usual standards of people being unwilling to go past a headline.

Every single post in this sub where the title's a question gets the same reaction.

1

t1_ja8icj9 wrote

The article doesn't mention the other 'why', which is 'why are there so many people combing Antarctica for 'meteorites' at all? The answer is that China has sent dozens of 'meteorite hunting' expeditions to Antarctica over the years. In other news, Antarctica also has large fossil fuel and mineral reserves, but - no - it's definitely the space fragments they're looking for...

1

t1_ja5b3mf wrote

For starters, only 29% of the planet's surface is land above sea level so statistically a meteorite is more likely to hit water, all else being equal.

The fragments that hit land may not end up in an accessible area, and may not be easy to find depending on the type of terrain.

Basically, when a fragment lands in Antarctica, it will remain relatively near the surface of the ice and snow cover. The dark or black colour can sometimes absorb just enough energy to warm and melt the icy material around it and become visible on the surface. Broadly speaking, when searchers spot a rocky object on the surface where there are no other rock sources around, it could be a fragment.

Shorter answer: they are far easier to spot against ice and snow.

67

t1_ja5go7m wrote

Also, they would have to land at a shallow angle, which leaves them closer to the surface... maybe?

5

t1_ja6j19s wrote

Why would they have to land at a shallow angle?

5

t1_ja6p0r7 wrote

Because most of the objects in our solar system are on the same plane of rotation around the sun. Planets are all very closely aligned, most of the objects that could impact Earth are on a similar trajectory. If an object hits near the equator, the faster and deeper it dives into the atmosphere, generating heat and ablating itself before it hits the ground. Objects etering near the poles have a longer time to slow down in less dense atmosphere. Less likely to burn up before reaching the ground.

12

t1_ja78dsp wrote

Also, a rock that came in at a steep angle would probably bury itself.

2

t1_ja7h1hm wrote

Does not matter. Any small meteorite will reach terminal velocity before impact, and and large one is more likely to explode into fragments under a steep angle.

6

t1_ja7ptty wrote

Makes me want a “reverse-kerbal” game where you have to design and launch meteorites that successfully make it through atmospheres and seed planets

7

t1_ja6tpal wrote

The south pole is a giant magnet. Meteorites are smaller meteors. Therefore, penguins collect meteorites to appease the polar bears, who are also magnets. Science!

20

t1_ja6zh00 wrote

The polar bears are at the other pole.

OR THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE MEANT TO BELIEVE

6

t1_ja71iso wrote

To quote the article:

>researchers have identified meteorite hotspots known as “meteorite stranding zones”. These are areas where the local geology, the flow of the ice, and climate conditions promote the aggregation of meteorites at the surface of the blue ice.

The flow of ice is something that deserves far more Emphasis here.

Antarctica is basically covered by one giant glacier, which flows from the middle to the rim of the continent. Any meteorite falling onto the ice sooner or later ends up at the edge of the glacier.

11

t1_ja7038b wrote

So first contrast, most meteorites are dark & snow/ice is white. Second climate, it's cold & dry there so weathering takes a long time. Third disturbance, there are very few things including humans to disturb a meteorites position.

But most importantly is that ice there flows over time down hill & near natural obstructions it pushes up into pressure ridges that ablate over time in the wind. This has the effect of concentrating any meteorites that fell into an area near the obstruction.

So researchers will search areas of sloping topography near an obstruction (rock outcrop) to get the best chance of recovering meteorites that fell anything up to perhaps a couple of hundred thousand years ago.

2

t1_ja7loxp wrote

When that really big one broke up over Russia I thought there was an article about how the far northern hemisphere was a more likely landing zone due to some gravitational issue but now I can’t find it.

1

t1_ja7tlu6 wrote

Meteorites fall evenly across the planet. There is more land in the northern hemisphere, so more are found there. One that lands in the ocean just sinks out of sight.

2

t1_ja80a8w wrote

Meteorites tend to accumulate in desert areas as conditions tend to preserve the rocks.

-- from the article

Antarctica is a polar desert.

1

t1_ja83rs5 wrote

Meteorites are magnetic.... if you could put a trap to catch falling meteorites on your roof, run a magnet over them grains.... they'll all stick to the magnet🤷‍♂️

The earth is a huge magnet..... the magnetic poles are perhaps causing this situation🤔

1

t1_ja8jvxd wrote

Less to hide them, they are surrounded by only snow and ice, vs plants, trees, water, and getting covered by dirt and foliage over time.

1

t1_ja8kitk wrote

I think we’re writing off the possibility that the meteorites are just that considerate

1

t1_ja96axi wrote

many ancient people thought them to be holy and either deified them or used the metals in metalworking like with Tut's dagger. nobody touched them on the north pole cause no one lived there

1

t1_ja97nx3 wrote

Because the poles are the central points of the earth gravitational field, so the asteroids get sucked round and round and eventually gravity just pulls them down over the equator. Hope this was helpful!

1

t1_ja980xu wrote

Well, there are other reasons, (ice cap movement, coulor), but this is the only one not mentioned, and it is an important factor

1

t1_ja9843g wrote

The hole in the Ozone Layer lets them through. Duh.

1

t1_ja9ctcu wrote

Least disturbed by man. No plowing or building to disturb the ground.

1

t1_ja82feq wrote

My guess, because it's huge, and permanently covered in ice, and noone lives there.

So most of the rocks found on or in the ice must have come from space, since no-one is farming or building in the area, nor have they ever done. (Unless you have read Lovecraft, in which case, I wouldn't go anywhere near those Mountains of Madness!!!)

0

t1_ja82l8b wrote

"A December 2022 expedition was unable to uncover one of the heaviest meteorites ever found." (Emphasis added)

Too bad they didn't find the one they found - it would've have been a great find!

0

t1_ja8hxa1 wrote

TL;DR: it's easier to spot rocks on a white background.

I found the article interesting, but I was kinda hoping for it to be something more complex, maybe about orbital planes and whatnot.

0

t1_ja9exu6 wrote

Freakin click bait! Literally: “Antarctica leads the continents in the number of recovered meteorites for several reasons. One reason is not because more meteorites land in Antarctica.”

0

OP t1_ja9u0ts wrote

It’s not click bait, it’s an honest article to whom I’ve subscribed since University.

0

t1_ja7vut8 wrote

Terrance forming In Icy areas might create more of an atmosphere

−1

t1_ja5h2ek wrote

seems like that due to them being seen easier on the snow pack.

−2