[jiggawatts]

> The economic benefits of mining asteroids are also too large

Ironically, that's an example I like to list as "pure sci-fi fantasy, divorced from economic reality."

The total cost of the iron ore that goes into making a new a car is about $200-$300 dollars, depending on various factors (size of the car, ore spot price, etc...).

Even if -- magically -- asteroid mining made not just "iron ore", but specifically the steel alloy used for car bodies literally free, new cars costing $30,000 would now cost... $29,700.

You can save more by skipping the optional coffee cup warmer, or whatever.

In reality: 90% of iron and steel is recycled, and asteroid mining is not magic.

[int_19h]

Why would anyone want to mine asteroids for iron, given that it's the most abundant element on Earth? I don't think I ever recall seeing a proposal like that outside of the broader notion of "space factories" (where such mining makes sense to reduce the cost of shipping materials back and forth, not because it's cheaper as such).

It's stuff like platinum and germanium that makes asteroid mining potentially interesting.

[jiggawatts]

Metallic asteroids are mostly nickel-iron.

On Earth, geological processes concentrate elements into ores, primarily through volcanic and hydrological means. Neither are available in small, cold asteroids devoid of liquid water. Hence asteroids are generally undifferentiated mineralogically, making mining them much less economically viable.

You often see total quantities listed as an amazing thing, glossing over the fact that the Earth has more of everything and in usefully concentrated lumps.