Diamond prices are down 60% since a 2011 high, and they are still falling. It’s not all down to lab-grown diamonds, demand is down too, especially in China.
No one can lab-grow gold yet, so its rarity and scarcity protect its value, but that will end too. It’s just a question of when. China launched an asteroid touch-down mission this week, which will make it the 4th country/region to do so, after Europe, the US & Japan.
How soon will it be feasible to mine asteroids? Who knows, but a breakthrough in space propulsion might mean the prospect happens quickly when it does. It’s possible gold has twenty years or less of being high value left.
The $80 Billion Diamond Market Crash Leaves De Beers Reeling
Beltalowda
It’s good to see diamond mining being replaced by artificial diamond manufacturing, which appears to be better envitonmentally and socially.
But I wouldn’t compare diamonds to gold. Because gold is an element that can’t be manufactured (without a particule accelerator and an insane amount of energy).
Asteroid mining is still science fiction.
Right? Diamond is a crystal of Carbon. Its synthesis was a challenge, required high pressure, but sounde doable from the beggining.
Now, transmuting one element into other (gold)… That’s atomic energy right there. A whole new level.
Excellent. One of Israels biggest exports is finished gemstones. I hope they are crushed.
they don’t mine them. just process them. not sure it’s lowering the cost of raw diamonds will change the processing cost.
its morning and haven’t had my coffee, so I’m on instinct. I feel like it would lower the cost.
The processing cost is negligible compared the sales prices. Same as the cost of raw diamonds.
Diamonds are mostly a scam to part people from their money for literally a shiny rock.
it is, but if they maintain a monopoly, then cheaper raw diamonds will only increase profit.
although I’m assuming cheap synthetic diamonds are processed in other places.
Yeah, that’s what I mean. People have been overpaying for diamonds for a very long time, mostly because they buy a diamond specifically because it’s expensive.
A diamond isn’t 1000x better at being a shiny piece of glass on top of an engagement ring than e.g. a cubic zirconia. But it’s about 1000x better at showing that you paid 1000x the amount of money that you would have paid for a cubic zirconia.
And because of that, if the price of raw diamonds drops, the price of processed diamonds won’t change significantly, because the production cost of e.g. a diamond ring doesn’t matter for the asking price.
Asteroid mining would collapse the markets for most minerals, except perhaps the higher volume stuff like iron.
Diamonds aren’t expensive because they’re rare; they’re not. The monopoly is why they’re expensive. That’s not going to change with space mining.
The reason diamonds are becoming cheaper is because the barrier to entry is being lowered. Having a private space program more advanced than any nation state as a barrier of entry will not have the same effect.
The breaktrough for asteroid mining isn’t propulsion but how to mine and process ore in a vacuum.
Given how big asteroids can be, that must be a massive microwave! Though the spinning plate probably won’t work due to gravity…
Well, i didn’t find it, but there was some news a few years ago, about progress to practical use of Maser as tunnel boring/melting device.
Actually it’s surviving the radiation outside the Van Allen belts.
Robots. Autonomous probes.
Available free to anyone who can hack the control codes!
Has anyone hacked the mining robots already in use on earth? Has anyone hacked any of NASA’s probes?
How would you know if anyone did? If it happened on earth, the owner would say ‘oh’ and walk up to turn it off. You can’t do that in deep space.
Hmm. What’s hard about that?
Drill and blast seems like it should work as normal, or just a bucket if it’s the rubble heap kind. Getting noble metals like gold out of a solution is pretty easy with electrowinning.
Drill and blast seems like it should work as normal,
Zero G?
Creating a debris field in orbit? You want this thing fully enclosed before you start messing with it in ways that cause it to break up.
I suppose in a very low orbit you could consider messy options if it will all burn up in a few months. But doesn’t seem ideal.
What about those things require any g?
Asteroid miners are going to have more in common with spiders than anything else; find a tasty roid, wrap it up in cling wrap and set off bombs inside of it until it’s a bag of gravel, then get the whole mess spinning and just let go of the stuff you don’t want to keep. Hell when you’re done you can re-harvest the angular momentum to propel you over to the next roid and start the process over again.
So easy, why hasn’t anyone done it already???
For the same reason most other things involving space haven’t been done yet. We as a species suck at prioritising stuff and allocating resources
I mean, most space travel ideas haven’t been done, even ones that are many decades old. Shit’s expensive and risky, both as an investment and an activity.
Easy? Who said easy? I didn’t say easy, I just explained a way it could be accomplished while conserving as much energy as possible.
Why would that be a problem? The drilling platform would have to be tethered to the rock, but that’s doable and I’m pretty sure they drill all the time on the ISS. Actually, didn’t we drill into a comet or asteroid for samples sometime recently? The explosives would require no modification at all.
The drilling platform would have to be tethered to the rock
That would be the start of a solution.
Barbed harpoons were the approach with the comet. Putting a band around the whole thing could also work for a small body. If you’re going for gold, the asteroid is also going to be paramagnetic if I’m not mistaken, so you can just electromagnet on.
It’s slightly more problematic than on Earth, but I’m basically going to need some citations if I’m ever going to believe it’s sticking to the chosen landing site that’s the hardest part. A lot of proposals sidestep on-site processing, even, and rely on delivering a whole small body to Earth.
Maybe not to Earth (unless you wanna crash economies), but a LaGrange point would be suitable – as well as a place for something spinning so the hairless monkeys could have a semblance of gravity.
If you have human miners, anyway.
Have we even confirmed there are asteroids made of gold yet?
Asteroid might remain too expensive if it’s even possible, with rocket fuel, mining equipment in space,etc
Do you not understand the offense you just did by linking to fucking fox news? Seriously?
Pearls in pig slop, I know. They reference another article, give the asteroid name, give a list of expected metals to be found, and wrap it in a lovely Fox News bow of some pundit giving his idea of what that all means for the rest of us. As journalism goes, it’s top tier for Fox.
Surprised fox didnt comment how this is against the natural order and bringing back gold from space will unleash a hoard of demons on the earth.
Surely there exists a better source. Not clicking on Fox News.
Here is an archived snapshot I found of the Fox article
At the bottom it says the story originally ran in The Sun, here is a snapshot of that page as well.
I followed the other user’s snarky DDG link and the first hit is this article from Smithsonian Magazine that appears to be about the same story.
Finally, here is a far less sweaty page from NASA about the actual object, though the composition of metals isn’t discussed in detail.
After skimming all this I kinda feel like it’s a stretch to say that asteroid is “made of gold”.
I think “enough gold to completely destroy the gold industry (as a precious metal)” is close enough to “made of gold” for me.
fair!
Love you
Good source of iridium, which is rare on earth
Neat! Let it come down to it’s real value.
Can’t wait for the day when we can have proper corrosion resistant materials. Just gold plate the hull of a ship, and salt water can’t do much.
Would that really help though? Gold is super soft so I think it would need to get frequently coated/plated again — and we already have pretty good and resistant marine paint.
Titanium is very corrosion resistant, not to mention plastics/fiberglass/carbon fiber, as I understand.
But yeah, cheap gold would be be great, just seems to me that the market would more be in e.g. electronics, where both corrosion resistance and electrical conductivity are required (something gold is fairly unique at).
Yeah, well maybe ships weren’t the best example.
Low wear resistance of gold is a significant issue, which definitely limits the number of potential applications, but I guess gold alloys could still be useful. For example, titanium has a bunch of alloys for different purposes, some more corrosion resistant than others, while others were optimized more towards wear resistance.
Titanium can also catch fire, which makes it a very tricky metal to use. Putting out a fire like that is pretty much impossible, so if your titanium cladded reactor catches fire, all you can realistically do is try to prevent the rest of the building from burning down. The reactor itself is gone at that point, so all you can do is wish you had paid for the gold cladding instead.
Also, the electrical conductivity of gold is amazing. If gold was as cheap as iron, we would definitely use lots of it in various electrical appliances.
If you can mine gold from asteroids, you’re probably also going to find silver and platinum. Those two have some amazing properties too, so I think asteroid mining has great potential to permanently revolutionize a bunch of industries.
I’m skeptical about the feasibility of transporting heavy metals through space. Also, diamond were never scarce, it was all literally market manipulation.
Eh they are already moving a good clip relative to the earth, nudging them in this direction would be the easier part of the equation. Stopping them when they get here is probably where you want to focus your energy… No pun intended
I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
They are talking about not returning mined material from asteroids but about changing the trajectory of asteroids so that they collide with Earth. But if you do so, the asteroid would likely be destroyed, leaving little to mine, so it would have to be stopped (or slowed down) before reaching the ground.
Oh, right. I totally forgot about that part, I thought they were talking about diamonds.
Yes, if diamonds were rare I wouldn’t have a diamond tipped drillbit set and several diamond saws. “Blah blah” quality … sure … but rare is rare.
Why wouldn’t it be feasible to transport heavy metals through space? They would just float.
Shooting stuff into space is hard, bringing it back to Earth is harder.
I find the idea so dumb that we have a high value for a metal that objectively has few worthwhile uses. And because our folklore made up a high value from this. We’re gonna spend hella resources to extract it from fucking asteroids. Even tho it has no objective major value.
(Imagine how many people we could feed with those resources instead)
Yeah, I just can’t understand why people would pay more money for something that looks objectively nicer.
Fuck shiny polished gold, that is more easily made into jewelry, doesn’t react with skin, compliments many gemstones, and doesn’t significantly corrode, I want a pig iron wedding ring.
:)
It’s abundant though. We have thousands more times gold in circulation than used as jewellery. So if it were just jewellery then it’s be dirt cheap.
The reason its so expensive is people use it as investment. Like they hold massive amounts of it. It’s like a made up commodity.
Gold has plenty of uses, besides being shiny and easy to work with. Imagine if all your electronics used gold traces because they were so cheap. Imagine if the windows of your car were coated in gold like on an airplane so you could easily defrost them in the winter rather than blowing air at it in the front and potentially distracting lines in the back. Imagine if gold was the filling of choice since it has a similar expansion rate to teeth. Gold has a number of applications in space. Ever wonder why the JWST is that color?
There are plenty of things gold would be excellent for if it wasn’t so expensive.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/299609/gold-demand-by-industry-sector-share/
Only 7.16% of gold usage is for technology. The other 92.84% are just for purposes of being shiny. If we dropped gold from jewellery and as a proxy for money, there would be more than enough gold to go around and the price of gold would drop a lot.
Still not enough to use gold instead of copper for wiring
I don’t think gold would make really good wiring.
Why are you surprised that the really expensive item isn’t used for utility purposes? Why do you think its use wouldn’t change if it was cheap?
Before aluminum was cheap to refine, it was used for cutlery and other displays of opulence. After it became cheaper, we used it everywhere.
I totally get where you’re coming from—on the surface, it does seem absurd that so much effort, money, and even space tech is being directed toward chasing a shiny yellow metal that, in practical terms, doesn’t do much for human survival. It can’t feed us, shelter us, or cure disease. And yet, we’ve built entire economies and mythologies around it. But the strange part is, this isn’t unique to gold. It’s part of a much deeper pattern in human economic systems, especially in capitalism, where markets need some way to store and measure value—and that almost always leads societies to latch onto something rare, durable, and symbolic, whether it’s objectively useful or not.
In early societies, people used cowrie shells in the Pacific Islands, huge stone disks in Yap, salt in ancient Africa, and even tulip bulbs in the Dutch Republic. These weren’t chosen because they had immense utility, but because they were scarce, hard to replicate, and symbolically powerful. They allowed people to trade across time and space. Capitalism, being based on decentralized exchange, competition, and accumulation, basically demands a store of value that everyone can agree on—even if the object itself is more symbolic than practical. Gold just happens to check all the boxes: it’s rare, doesn’t tarnish, can be melted and divided, and most importantly, it’s extremely hard to counterfeit or mass-produce without massive energy investment.
If gold didn’t exist, we’d be doing the same thing with something else. In fact, that’s basically what happened with Bitcoin. People wanted a store of value outside the control of central banks, and they turned to something even more intangible—just math and energy. It’s the same pattern: we create artificial scarcity and give it value, because we need a common reference point to coordinate vast, impersonal economies.
Now, the asteroid mining thing? Yeah, it sounds wild. But from a capitalist perspective, it actually makes sense. If gold remains valuable, then any untapped supply—even in space—is a business opportunity. The fact that this seems grotesque when we think about all the hunger and suffering here on Earth is a painful contradiction, but it’s also part of the logic of capitalism. Capital doesn’t naturally flow toward moral priorities like feeding people; it flows toward returns. And unless there are incentives or systemic shifts to redirect that flow, people will keep pursuing things like asteroid gold, because that’s where the value signal points.
So yeah, it’s kind of maddening. But it’s not really about gold being useful—it’s about human systems needing anchors of value. And gold, for all its impracticality, happens to be an anchor that capitalism can rally around.
It’s universally obtainable but not in ridiculous volumes and not without effort and once obtained it’s incredibly durable. It’s essentially perfect for the job.
While I agree it is overvalued, what really put it into perspective for me is that all of the known gold in the world would fit into a cube with a side length of 20-25m.
So a fair price would be lower than what it is now, but it is scarce and its uses (corrosion resistance, conductivity, malleability, reflectivity, etc.) probably would still warrant a relatively high price.
all of the known gold in the world would fit into a cube with a side length of 20-25m.
Same could probably be said about my lifetime toenail clippings, but Beyonce won’t be dropping high stacks for those earrings.
That’s just a marketing issue. If people can sell nft jpegs you can sell those nails. Stay on that grind 💪😤🦶
CLIP don’t grind, you don’t want all them profits going up in dust!
still one of humanity’s less stupid ideas, even so.
If one day there are folks mining asteroids for gold they will not be humans as we will make ourselves extinct before that ever happens.
Are they able to lab grow the same kind of gem quality diamonds that you usually think about when it comes to jewelry, or is it still mostly industrial applications (such as diamond tipped drill bits)?
I’ve heard that lab grown are actually better across each measurement (clarity,shine, whatever), than natural diamonds, now.
It is the blood and slavery that make natural diamonds so valuable /s
Lab grown diamonds are much better quality than natural diamonds. So now natural diamond companies are moving to the “imperfections is what make a diamond perfect” strategy. But nothing’s stopping labs from growing diamonds with imperfections if that’s what the people are after.
All in all, diamonds have always been mostly a scam and it’s showing more and more.
If the price of gold plunges one day, it should already plunge today. In other words, the probability for success of those mining operations is low.
Why should it already plunge today? The demand/supply is still the same.
But it will not be the same when asteroid mining increases the supply tenfold.
True if used in production. But it’s used to store value. If I know gold will be worth 50% next year, I am not willing to pay full price today if I want to resell it then.
Why not lab grown gold?
*(it’s not a serious question)
Alchemists have been trying for thousands of years, you’re welcome to join them
Now we call them nuclear physicists
Because of nuclear physics.
Diamonds are just carbon atoms arranged in a particular repeating structure (a lattice). So you can go from, say, graphite to diamond without touching the atoms themselves.
Gold, on the other hand is not about structure, but the atomic cores themselves, which contain exactly 79 protons. Going from one type of atom to another type requires some form of fission (breaking larger cores into smaller pieces) or fusion (smashing two smaller cores together). I don’t think there are (viable) fission “recipes” that yield gold. And fusion requires insanely high temperatures or pressures even for smaller atoms (were talking center of the sun here).
I fused with your mom last night.
Sigh, I’ll go get the chainsaw …
Cut it out, dad.
Diamonds are just Carbon atoms in Chrystal form.
You can take carbon from say coal, turn it into a Chrystal and you’ve got a diamond.
Gold is just gold atoms, you can’t make gold atoms
Well, you can make gold atoms (see here), but it takes many times more energy per atom because the energy contained in the bonds between neutrons and protons in the nucleous of atoms is many-fold the energy contained in the bonds between atoms (just see the difference in potency of conventional explosives - which release energy contained in the links between atoms - and fission and fusion bombs - which release the energy contained in the bonds within the atomic nucleous) hence it’s not really an economic viable way of making gold.
they actually made gold from lead, in the hadron collider. but it was a few particles, and very unstable, still gold!
