[blincoln]

Since mining is only concerned with material that's within maybe 0.1% of the distance from the surface to the core, seems like you'd just need to move the sensor around and make sure the signal changes about where you'd expect for a mass of X Kg at a depth of Y meters instead of a supermassive chunk of dense material much deeper. Or, to put it another way, build a grid map of the area and subtract any background signal. Would that not work for some reason?

[JanisErdmanis]

In practice, that's what would happen. Move around until seeing some larger gravitational pull, likely indicating some deposit. However, formally, this is not correct due to the mere fact that the gravitational force is proportional to 1/R^2, just like a Columb force. Thus, there are infinite numbers of mass distributions that produce the exact same gravitational field on the surface. The planet could be hollow, and we would not know it only from the field measurements.

A practical constraint is mass density, which has maximum and minimum values. We can make a crude approximation that the planet's density is constant, evaluate the field on the surface from the planet's shape and compare it with measurement. This would be more useful, but still, it wouldn't tell us whether there is a combo of water reservoir and a large massive deposit below it.

[cyanydeez]

Thats why you generate typical geologic formations and add a few drillhole constraints.

Sure this isnt going to be a star trek scanner but for practical purposes theres a bunch of other techniques to constrain the results

[btilly]

Consider the special case of a spherical deposit. You can find the center and mass of the deposit, but not its volume or density.

But now that you know it is there, you can use other techniques, like seismic measurements, to nail that down.