[kevin_rubyhouse]

Is there not a way to synthesize gold, like how diamonds can be synthesized (obviously a different process.) I searched around, and I guess there isn't a good process for this, yet.

Also, how much could NASA really be spending on gold, anyway? They're already spending billions on the rest of their space program.

[Tuna-Fish]

Gold, being an element, needs nuclear processes for manufacture instead of chemical processes (like diamond). Before modern particle accelerators, this was flatly impossible, and even today, it is very, very hard and expensive. The cost to produce an amount of gold like this is millions of times more than it's value.

Somewhat interestingly, gold is actually being actively destroyed in particle accelerators, as it has several properties that makes it a desirable target. As my professor once put it, we finally have the secrets the alchemists only dreamed of, and we use them to destroy gold.

[shabble]

I have a rather vague recollection that gold has been transmuted from other elements in experimental (fission, I presume) reactors as well, although the best reference I can find right now is [1]. Accelerators do seem to be the modern/"practical" approach though.

Which properties in particular make it a good target?

Edit: more details from wikipedia[2] suggest starting from either mercury or platinum, although it's all a bit fiddly and isotope-specific. That page has some other interesting facts as well - I'd never really thought of element synthesis as economically practical (and with capital equipment costs, probably still isn't), but tungsten ($30/kg) -> rhenium ($6k/kg) -> osmium ($12k/kg) sounds like a nice business to be in if you can solve the practical problems.

When the balloons all run out, we might want to start making our own helium as well, which has the bonus of being really quite easy to do.

[1] http://chemistry.about.com/cs/generalchemistry/a/aa050601a.h...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesis_of_precious_metals#G...

[bradleyjg]

Gold has a large cross section, which basically means it presents a big target (amusingly such measurents are made in units of 'barns'). It's also stable, so you don't have to worry about natural decay events polluting your data.

[MartinCron]

The search term you're looking for is "alchemy"

[dragonwriter]

> Is there not a way to synthesize gold, like how diamonds can be synthesized (obviously a different process.)

To convert other forms of carbon into diamond, you just need to simulate the conditions in which diamonds are formed (heat and pressure inside the earth.)

To convert other elements to gold, you just have to simulate the conditions in which gold is formed, which, as a heavy element, I'm pretty sure is reproducing a nuclear process that occurs in large stars or possibly supernovae, i.e., something you can reproduce only on Earth only on a very small scale using particle accelerators (or maybe nuclear weapons.)

[bobz]

Actually, only a supernova or equivalent energy magnitude event.

Fusion only releases energy up to iron. Creating heavier elements consume energy in the reaction rather than releasing it, therefore cannot sustain a reaction.

[rtkwe]

There are a tiny number of ways but they're all so fantastically expensive it's pointless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesis_of_precious_metals#G...

[mtdewcmu]

Fission goes the opposite way. Heavier elements than iron release energy.

I think the inside of a star is not perfectly clear-cut. Various elements get created and cycle, with only the energetically-favorable ones accumulating. It's not altogether unlike chemistry.

What little I know of this comes from wikipedia, but I think there are other ways to synthesize elements apart from fission and fusion. Sometimes they simply catch a neutron, and the decay of a particle produces a different element.

[lutusp]

> Is there not a way to synthesize gold, like how diamonds can be synthesized ...

Diamonds are a form of carbon, all you need is a different form of carbon and sufficient pressure. Gold is an element, and creating it requires a supernova. Were this not so, if gold could be synthesized, it wouldn't be selling for $1300/ounce.

[saraid216]

> if gold could be synthesized, it wouldn't be selling for $1300/ounce.

That's not by itself true. If gold could be synthesized for less than $1300/ounce, then it wouldn't be selling for $1300/ounce. As noted in sibling comments, it is possible to synthesize. It's just unreasonable to actually do so in any meaningful quantity.

[lutusp]

Let me amend my original claim: "If gold could be synthesized with something other than a multi-billion-dollar accelerator and produce daily yields greater than nanograms ..."

[chongli]

Sure, you just need a particle accelerator. It's absolutely nowhere near practical, let alone cost effective.

[embwbam]

While the other answer made me laugh, the reason is because gold is an element. Diamonds can be manufactured because they are made out carbon, and carbon and cheap and plentiful.

You either have gold or you don't. Alchemy tried to convert elements into other elements which is nearly impossible (The sun and other nuclear reactions do this, but not directly to specific elements).

[jotm]

Heh, people have been trying to do it for more than 1000 years I think :-)...