On Tue, 03 Nov 1998 14:14:23 -0500 mullerd@chplink.CHP.EDU writes:
> I didn't make myself clear with the last point:
>
> Do your think 30 years accumulation of dust on the lander
> parts left behind is enough to make an accurate calculation
> of what there should be for 10,000 yrs vs. 4 billion years?
No, I personally do not believe that such a calculation could be useful.
For one thing, I seriously doubt that current observations about the
amount of accumulation is valid for anything other than calculating the
rate of dust accumulated within the last thirty years. For such a simple
calculation to extend beyond the observed data requires some important
assumptions. Assumption one would be the rate of accumulation would be
either A) a constant, or B) known by some index throughout the relevant
history. Neither is likely. Assumption two would be that there is
either no known process of dust dispersal (or elimination), or else there
is a known rate of elimination. Take for instance, is there an episodic
process, which erases the past 100 year's worth of dust accumulation?
Best regards,
Michael