Rutgers and American Museum of Natural History Reassess Freehold Township Meteorite; Orbital Debris may be a Possible Source

Tests using the museums new variable-pressure scanning electron microscope demonstrate that the object is a stainless steel alloy that does not occur in nature. This finding rules out the objects origin as a meteorite, but does not point to a specific origin.

Much of the testing was performed by Joseph Boesenberg, a senior scientific assistant at the American Museum of Natural History and a Rutgers doctoral candidate, in collaboration with the museums curator of meteorites Denton Ebel. This was the first quantitative diagnostic testing of the object and was performed at Rutgers recommendation and with the owners consent. Previously, the object had only been available for visual examination.

According to three Rutgers geologists who examined it in January, the object had many visual characteristics of a metallic meteorite shape, density, color and magnetic properties. It also resembled specimens of known meteorites. Thus, initial statements referred to the object as a meteorite. However, the geologists wanted to conduct more substantive testing because visual inspection always leaves room for uncertainty.

Based on the near vertical direction and force of entry into the home, the object most likely fell from the sky and may be orbital debris. The object ended its journey on a bathroom floor after penetrating the roof of the owners residence.

According to NASA, approximately 11,000 orbital debris objects larger than 10 centimeters are known to exist. The space agency notes that the largest component of cataloged orbital debris includes the remnants of disintegrated satellites. During the past 40 years an average of one cataloged piece of debris has fallen back to Earth each day. No serious injury or significant property damage caused by reentering debris has been confirmed.

As scientists, we are glad to have reached a more definitive conclusion, said Rutgers geologist Jeremy Delaney. While we were fairly sure about the nature of this object, in the absence of the tests that have now been done in collaboration with the American Museum of Natural History, there was always a level of uncertainty. Its a valuable demonstration of how the scientific method of investigation works. New experimental evidence routinely causes scientists to change earlier hypotheses that were based on the best information available at that time.

Contact:

Carl Blesch
Rutgers University
732-932-7084, ext. 616
E-mail: cblesch@ur.rutgers.edu

070511-1

Meteor reassessment5.ed-->