[HN Gopher] Antarctic Study Shows How Much Space Dust Hits Earth...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Antarctic Study Shows How Much Space Dust Hits Earth Every Year
        
       Author : manikandarajs
       Score  : 27 points
       Date   : 2021-04-29 14:03 UTC (8 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.scientificamerican.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.scientificamerican.com)
        
       | mywacaday wrote:
       | I wonder how many large meteors are buried in the ice sheets and
       | if there is any reliable way to detect and recover them?
        
         | jandrese wrote:
         | That sounds like a serious needle in a haystack situation.
         | 
         | Recovering them is easy, just do nothing about climate change
         | and they'll melt out on their own.
        
       | tryptophan wrote:
       | It's about 90e-18% of the earth's mass per year, FYI.
        
         | drknownuffin wrote:
         | Maybe more to the point:
         | 
         | > With clean sampling techniques and accurate ages for dust
         | deposits, the researchers calculated around 5,200 metric tons
         | of micrometeorites fall to Earth every year.
        
           | nosianu wrote:
           | To complete the TL;DR:
           | 
           | Further down for "dust" and not just meteorites:
           | 
           | > _between 4,000 and 6,700 metric tons of space dust falls to
           | Earth each year_
           | 
           | > _The total dust mass input before atmospheric entry is
           | estimated at 15,000 tons /yr_ (from the study itself)
           | 
           | Where it came from:
           | 
           | > _The team found that more than 60 percent of the dust
           | probably originated from Jupiter family comets, which are
           | herded into orbital periods of less than 20 years by the
           | giant planet's gravitational influence. About 20 percent of
           | the dust likely came from the main asteroid belt._ (yes that
           | leaves 20% unexplained)
           | 
           | How reliable is it:
           | 
           | > _...a geologist at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, who
           | was not involved in the research, is impressed by the study
           | but cautions that its estimate cannot be the final word._
           | 
           | Tiny sample size, methodology but also randomness had a big
           | influence. A study that improves upon previous ones and is
           | just one of many more to come. As always, a headline of
           | something taken randomly by a press office from a long line
           | of study points that actually need to be looked at in context
           | and together. It _does_ seem to give a good estimate about
           | the order of magnitude to a casual reader like me though.
           | 
           | .
           | 
           | I admit even after reading through some details I can't say
           | if the first number is part of the second, or if I need to
           | add them? They _do_ talk about  "meteorites and dust", so
           | they counted two separate things? On the other hand, the
           | first number for "meteorites" has the dust in the same
           | sentence (" _With clean sampling techniques and accurate ages
           | for dust deposits, the researchers calculated around 5,200
           | metric tons of micrometeorites fall to Earth every year_ ").
           | I'm confused. Maybe I should not have started with the
           | article but with the actual study.
           | 
           | Reading that study (linked in the article), the 5,200 is a
           | complicated product of a lot of measurements and statistics
           | (you see it in the abstract already) - and they say "dust" in
           | the context of that number.
           | 
           | .
           | 
           | Given that both numbers are close and the uncertainty is
           | large I won't spend any more time trying to figure it out,
           | the magnitude is the same and it's all I think one can take
           | away from this as a casual reader. The really interesting
           | stuff probably only interests few and is all the many many
           | details of how they did it exactly, for example " _The errors
           | are derived assuming that the number of influx particles
           | follows Poisson statistics_ " => from the study, one of
           | hundreds of important details that the linked article
           | compresses into something easier to read, but with quite a
           | bit of information loss.
        
         | adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
         | The typical way of writing this would be 9e-19 of the earth's
         | mass.
        
           | bumbledraven wrote:
           | Yeah. And since they're being approximate, they might as well
           | just write 10-18 of the earth's mass. That and 9 x 10-19 are
           | within +- 12% of each other.
        
             | throwaway189262 wrote:
             | Do you indent with spaces?
        
           | adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
           | (unless you meant 90e(-18%)=90*10^-.18=59% of the earth's
           | mass)
        
         | ericbarrett wrote:
         | 5,200,000 kg of quartz (silicon dioxide, a.k.a. rock) is about
         | 4/5 the volume of an Olympic swimming pool, according to
         | Wolfram Alpha; the same mass of iron is about 1/3 of that. So
         | whatever the actual composition of micrometeorites it is not a
         | lot of material even on a human scale.
        
       | ortusdux wrote:
       | https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=6700+metric+tons+%2F+t...
        
       | bcraven wrote:
       | You don't need to go far if you want to find your own micro-
       | meteorites!
       | 
       | https://web.archive.org/web/20210131191401/https://www.nytim...
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-04-29 23:02 UTC)