this post was submitted on
67 points (69% like it)
121 up votes 54 down votes
shortlink:
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...

66
67

Are moon rocks worth more than gold? (self.askscience)

submitted ago by ninjaDOLEMITE

well, are they?

all 134 comments
sorted by:
best
hot
new
controversial
top
old

[–]foretopsailMaritime Archeology|Historic Cooking 95 points96 points ago

NASA considers moon rocks priceless. It is also, apparently, illegal to sell moon rocks, as they're all national property.

That said, they estimated the price of 285g (stolen and discussed in a court case) at $1m, so that would mean the price per gram is ~$3509/g. Gold's current spot price is $56/g.

[–]Jadith 40 points41 points ago

to add,

The value of moon rocks is related to their rarity, however, not to any physical properties of the rock.

[–]prezuiwf 21 points22 points ago

Well isn't that also the case with gold? I know gold became a unit of currency because of all the solid metals it was the one that made the most logistical sense, but it's not like gold has inherent value in that you can eat it or wear it.

[–]Frydendahl 37 points38 points ago*

Gold is used in electronics because of its high conductivity (high quality headphones usually have gold plated plugs, for example).

Because gold is also very close to chemically inert, it is also used in small-scale high-precision tools, where oxidation on the surface of the tool would make it less precise, so while gold is generally prized for it's rarity, it does have important applications in various industries.

[–]sunny20d 33 points34 points ago

Actually, while gold is in the top 3 conductors its use stems from the fact that it doesn't oxidize.

[–]Apolik 4 points5 points ago

And that's also why they use gold for rings. Who would want an oxidizing ring?

[–]NorthernerWuwu 7 points8 points ago

Well, there are quite a large number of metals that don't tarnish and could be used for rings. It becomes a cultural issue at some point.

At various times silver has been specifically sought for decorative works precisely because it tarnishes quickly and the proper maintenance of silver objects was a display of wealth or at least of diligence. A Victorian lady would have servants to polish her jewelry and obviously the traditional English tea service or flatware was constructed frequently in ways that are decidedly not easy to maintain. Sometimes even in ways that were specifically hard to maintain.

As well, copper's oxidization has even been encouraged in an odd but old practice where copper is used as a roofing material with the design expectation of it tarnishing and turning green.

Gold has been valued in many societies both for utility and simple aesthetics of course and not tarnishing certainly would be one of its assets.

[–]chazzmcgee 0 points1 point ago

I like your response about silver. Makes sense.

[–]Philiatrist 0 points1 point ago

Woah, I thought Gold was the best conductor, but according to this it's actually 3rd. What's up with that?

[–]NeurokeenCircadian Rhythms 2 points3 points ago

Slightly misleading advertising by A/V cable manufacturers, most likely.

[–]Philiatrist 2 points3 points ago

Apparently copper or silver are only better conductors in an environment where there's no oxidation/tarnishing, so in products gold is the best thing you could use. ~ According to a couple sources via a quick google search.

[–]Lampshader -1 points0 points ago

You can encase copper in a plastic sheath to prevent oxidation...

[–]Philiatrist 1 point2 points ago

When they put gold in products it's just the connector tip, not the entire wire, I used to think this was for cost effectiveness.

[–]Phantom_Hoover 1 point2 points ago

Thus entirely defeating the point of making a connector out of it.

[–]sunny20d 8 points9 points ago

Probably a result of advertising hype.

[–]SirScrambly 1 point2 points ago

Fun fact #2: Silver's a better conductor than copper, but it tarnishes easily and is rigid; that's why copper is used.

[–]rainbow_fairy 1 point2 points ago

Also, silver is over 100x more expensive than copper by weight.

[–]Stoul -1 points0 points ago

it's a very good conductor but the reason it's used in high quality earphone wires is because it work hardens much slower than copper, so the wire won't fracture from all the knots your pockets put it through daily.

[–]jeblis 2 points3 points ago

The wires are not made of gold. It's just used as plating for contacts.

[–]HectorCruzSuarez 5 points6 points ago

But the uses you list for gold are really new and did not make it any more expensive. Gold is just pricey because its a really rare metal. If there were heaps of gold everywhere it would be dirt cheap even considering its conductive properties, etc.

[–]Frydendahl 3 points4 points ago

That's just basic 'supply and demand'. The general statement still stands: Gold has more practical applications than moon rocks. While it would be sweet to own a piece of the Moon, we would at least have more an argument to try to harvest the stuff if the Moon was made made of solid gold and we didn't have any of it on Earth.

[–]spazmodic- 1 point2 points ago

I'd say the only worth in moon rocks is looking at them to find out how we can derive things we need from them in the case where we build a base on the moon

[–]only_temporary 0 points1 point ago

Gold is just pricey because its a really rare metal.

Fun fact: 'There are an estimated 25 billion ounces of gold dissolved in the ocean.'

[–]HectorCruzSuarez 0 points1 point ago

Fuck is an ounce?

[–]only_temporary 0 points1 point ago

Imperial measure, commonly used to denominate gold.

[–]only_temporary 0 points1 point ago

You're welcome. Thanks.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

There are other very rare metals, such as tellurium, that are much less valuable (a fraction that of gold), despite being less abundant (crustal abundance of tellurium = 0.001 ppm, gold = 0.0031).

Tellurium is simply an example; it doesn't have much in the way of applications (First Solar uses it in their solar cells), unlike gold.

[–]HectorCruzSuarez 2 points3 points ago

You have a point there, I guess because gold is traditionally coveted its value remains so there might be a cultural factor there. aka Why the hell would you want a watch made of tellurium?

[–]CrimsonCrossfire 3 points4 points ago

Well its mildly toxic, so that's a good reason to not want a watch made of it.

[–]rainbow_fairy 0 points1 point ago

And now I know what I'm getting for my mother-in-law next Christmas.

[–]IBWorking 5 points6 points ago

But that's just a red herring, because if gold were priced according to its industrial & tech uses it would be much cheaper.

Gold's price is due to perceived (jewelry) value versus rarity.

[–]marvin 2 points3 points ago

Gold does have practical applications, but the vast majority of the demand for gold is caused by cultural factors. If the opposite was the case, most gold mined would be bought for industrial use. But most gold mined is put in vaults as a way to store wealth. These cultural factors are historical (gold was traditionally used as a currency), and remain in place because gold is rare, impossible to counterfeit and economically infeasible to create from scratch.

Economics isn't a hard science and hence doesn't get a lot of attention here, but I just wanted to emphasize this point.

[–]enz1ey 1 point2 points ago

Not to mention, having gold plated plugs will do you no good if the wires consist of any material of less superiority.

[–]CrankiestRhyme3 1 point2 points ago

Not necessarily. As mentioned earlier in this thread, Cooper wire is one of three best conductors, and its cheap. The only downside is it oxidizes. When wrapped in plastic sheath, it doesn't oxidize.problem solved. But, the contacts have to be exposed to oxidization. So, gold its used, because it can fully encase the Cooper to prevent oxidization, and the gold won't corrode.so the copper isn't inferior material, it its actually better in some respects.

[–]predaderp 1 point2 points ago

How well can gold shield UV rays?

[–]Frydendahl 3 points4 points ago

My memory isn't the best, but as far as I remember, most metals are basically 'invisble' (non-reflective) to UV-radiation (at least at sufficiently high frequencies), although I believe the more charge carriers a metal has (Drude theory for metallic conductivity), the higher frequencies of UV-light it'll be able to reflect (I believe this upper frequency is called the 'plasma frequency').

Based on this, I guess gold is one the 'better' choices for your UV-shield, although gold is both heavy and expensive, so making large surfaces of it to shield stuff seems like a bad idea. Take this with a grain of salt, I'm by no means an expert on solid state physics.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

Gold is used to protect spaceships, satellites, used in the visors of spacesuits, windows of ships, stations and more.

In spacewalks, an astronaut relies on gold coating to protect the vital lifeline tethering him to the ship, while the astronaut's eyes are shielded from the sun's rays by a gold-coated visor.

In the space shuttles, rocket engines have four miles of gold-brazed tubing, which safely carries liquid hydrogen without melting the ship's nozzle at operating temperatures of up to 6000 degrees Fahrenheit.

In geo-stationary weather satellites, sheets of gold-coated Mylar deflect heat that would otherwise degrade their performance.

In the Hubble telescope, all parts of its electronic camera are coated with gold to insulate against heat damaging its celestial snapshots.

[–]raforther 2 points3 points ago

In one of my Open House visits to JPL I asked an engineer to tell me about the gold foil they use in spacecraft and satellites, turns out that it's a plastic or metallic coating with a special mixture of protective paint, which is gold colored.

[–]SphericalFish 0 points1 point ago

It's sometimes also Kapton. It's actually not that expensive, I have a roll of kapton tape on my desk right now (well by inexpensive, I mean $70 a roll)

[–]raforther 0 points1 point ago

Checked again, Kapton and Mylar are both used in spacecraft insulation.

[–]IBWorking 0 points1 point ago

Poorly, as thin metal films go. But it makes an excellent IR shield for "cold filters" (that allow only above-IR energy throught).

[–]HPDerpcraft 0 points1 point ago

It also had "value" before these uses. It's fiat value basically.

[–]SkepticalMartian 4 points5 points ago

But you can make things with it. It has uses in medicine, chemistry, and industry. Gold has value past rarity.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]noseeme 0 points1 point ago

There is much less mass of moon rocks in human hands right now than gold.

[–]kujustin 0 points1 point ago

People tend to forget "pretty" as an inherently valuable attribute, though gold has a few others as well.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]SkepticalMartian 2 points3 points ago

So they're intrinsically worthless for any real application?

[–]Bacon_Face 4 points5 points ago

there is not enough moon rock to make an application that is "worth while"

[–]SkepticalMartian 0 points1 point ago

I'd say there is plenty of it, it's just not easily accessible. Assuming we had access to it in sufficient quantities though, what application would it have?

[–]rjc34 3 points4 points ago

They're... rocks.

Just like the rocks we have here.

They're only valuable because they come from the moon.

There is nothing 'moon rocks' could do that couldn't be done here already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock#Classification

[–]foragerr -1 points0 points ago

There is nothing 'moon rocks' could do that couldn't be done here already.

How about being sold at $3509/g? :p

[–]Felicia_Svilling 3 points4 points ago

I can sell you a regular stone for $3509/g if you want to.

[–]rjc34 1 point2 points ago

Pure LSD hits close to that at $3000/g. :)

[–]Phil6x 0 points1 point ago

Just to study, besides that no application

[–]rocksinmyheadIgneous Petrology|Geochemistry|Meteoritics 9 points10 points ago*

Lunar and martian meteorites (privately collected) typically sell for $500-2000/g. Gold has a long way to go to catch up.

Edit: corrected price range.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]epicgeek 3 points4 points ago

Woah woah waoh wait... what are the moon rocks made of?

We have the same materials they're made out of right? I had always thought moon rocks were practically worthless.

[–]rocksinmyheadIgneous Petrology|Geochemistry|Meteoritics 3 points4 points ago

Moon rocks record the early history of the solar system. They are time capsules, being unmodified, and have ages up to around 4.4 billion years. The oldest rocks on Earth have experienced involved histories after their formations.

[–]frosty122 0 points1 point ago

Well I would assume moon rocks have gone through little if any measurable erosion compared to rocks here on earth.

[–]TenBeers 1 point2 points ago

I may be mistaken, but isn't the moon highly affected by solar winds? I remember another AskScience discussion that said we couldn't pump oxygen onto the moon because solar winds would just blow it all away.

[–]Frydendahl 2 points3 points ago

I think a bigger problem with introducing an atmosphere on the Moon would be that the escape velocity from the Moon isn't very high. Most gasses would likely have sufficient energy, even at low temperatures, to escape the Moon's surface and drift off into outer space (just like how hydrogen will leave the Earth's atmosphere on its own accord).

[–]hereiam355 1 point2 points ago

isn't the moon highly affected by solar winds?

Yes. And interstellar winds. Moon dust:

is primarily the result of mechanical disintegration of basaltic and anorthositic rock, caused by continuous meteoric impact and bombardment by interstellar charged atomic particles

[–]frosty122 0 points1 point ago*

Not really, the only "rapid" erosion (still many magnitudes, slower than erosion on earth) that occurs on the moon is from micrometeorites impacting the moon.

I may be mistaken, but isn't the moon highly affected by solar winds? I remember another AskScience discussion that said we couldn't pump oxygen onto the moon because solar winds would just blow it all away.

Yes, you're right, the solar wind is primarily responsible for the out-gasing of the moon's atmosphere, but it does not "blow" it away, rather the solar wind transfers energy to particles in the atmosphere eventually causing the particles in the moon's atmosphere to gain enough moment to escape the gravity of the moon. So it's not as if the solar wind is blowing "sand" or something that can physically erode the atmosphere and rocks of the moon, but, in rather basic terms, the Solar wind adds kinetic energy to the atmospheric particles of the moon allowing them to escape and while the solar wind might add some energy into the particles that make up the rocks of the moon, the particles and atoms that make up the rock are too close together and would "share" and/or radiate the kinetic energy that one particular rock particle received, this is much harder for Gaseous particles to do so they (the atmospheric) particles gain the required kinetic energy to reach escape velocity and the particles in the rock do not.

pretty cool graph showing energy vs. Velocity of a distribution of particles

[–]The_Double 1 point2 points ago

Isn't blowing something away also adding kinetic energy to something?

[–]frosty122 -1 points0 points ago

Not always, at least not here on earth. A sail doesn't move a ship because the wind gave it kinetic energy to do so, but the wind, or rather air molecules, are pushing the sail which is attached to the ship.

[–]Trobot087 1 point2 points ago

That sounds like transfer of kinetic energy to me...

[–]hereiam355 0 points1 point ago

Actually, the moon's surface has gone through tremendous "erosion" via inter/intra-stellar winds and micrometeorite bombardment, covering its surface with 2-20 meters of ultrafine regolith, aka "moon dust."

Lunar Regolith.

Lunar soil.

[–]raforther 1 point2 points ago

"Worthless" sounds wrong in thsi context. A better word would be "can't put a price on it".

[–]epicgeek 0 points1 point ago*

What I meant by worthless is "without practical application."

Gold is a valuable metal with several applications.

But what is moon rock? Is it like common granite? Can it be used in electronics? Can it be used as building material? Is it a rare element? My understanding was that moon rocks are fascinating to study, but not very useful. Nobody is clamoring to start mining operations to bring valuable moon rocks back to Earth for industrial uses.

[–]scubaguybill 1 point2 points ago

But what is moon rock? Is it like common granite?

Interestingly enough, the lunar regolith is not uniform despite what one would think. Moon rock from the highlands is felsic while that from the maria is mafic.

Highland rock: plagioclase feldspar (common on Earth)

Rock from the maria: basaltic (also common on Earth)

[–]isleepinahammock 3 points4 points ago

It's illegal to sell rocks that NASA gathers, but what about rocks that a private company were to gather?

The rocks wouldn't have any practical/industrial value, but with the right ad campaign a company might be able to sell tiny bits of moon rock for jewelry, engagement rings, etc.

A manned mission is probably too expensive, but imagine a privately funded robotic sample return mission. Send a probe up, scoop up dirt from the moon, bring it back to Earth, encase tiny crumbs of lunar regolith in glass, mount them on a gold band and sell them as super-expensive engagement rings. Who knows? Crazier things have happened.

[–]rocksinmyheadIgneous Petrology|Geochemistry|Meteoritics 0 points1 point ago

Try googling "lunar meteorites for sale." There are a large number of dealers selling samples of the moon.

[–]Simsmac 2 points3 points ago

Are moon rocks considered national property because they were all collected by NASA (thus, the government) or because the moon is considered to be collective property of humanity?

[–]Frydendahl -1 points0 points ago

international space law

I think I just popped a boner reading that.

[–]Not_Pictured -3 points-2 points ago

The former.

[–]Simsmac 2 points3 points ago

Source please?

[–]9Freeski 1 point2 points ago

You're correct about selling moon rocks, it is illegal. The main thing we need to remember here is that any rock of earth OR space origin, no matter how rare, is priceless. It is humans who put a price on them through our own methods. For example diamonds are one of the most common gems on earth, yet they are one of the most expensive. Yet you still can't propose to your girlfriend with a ruby! DAMMIT.

[–]funkin 2 points3 points ago

You can propose to your girlfriend with whatever you want, whether she accepts or not.... As a jeweler I still see diamonds being the most popular choice for engagement rings but more people are turning to rubies and sapphires. They are still relatively hard gemstones that can withstand everyday wear but prices for really nice untreated stones can sometimes rival those of diamonds so you may not end up saving much money.

[–]spazmodic- 0 points1 point ago

Maybe not to save money, but at least you're spending the same amount on something that's not artificially inflated

[–]funderbunk 1 point2 points ago

Lately I've been thinking about picking up some gemstones, and I've noticed that quite a few have been treated (heat, usually) and seem to command a lower price. My question is, is the lower price due to the fact that these treatments fade, or are they just considered less "pure" or something?

Personally, I don't care, as long as it's not just some guy using a Sharpie on it or anything.

[–]funkin 1 point2 points ago

Most gemstones for sale have been treated in some way, usually to enhance the color. finding a naturally brilliant colored stone that is also free of inclusions is somewhat more rare hence the higher price. The reality is that in most cases, unless you send a gemstone to a lab like GIA for grading you will never know the difference between it being natural or treated.

[–]funderbunk 0 points1 point ago

That's what I suspected, and it seems in some cases (like London blue topaz) treatment is the only way to get some colors.

Now to find some decent dealers online...

[–]H1deki 3 points4 points ago

We can thank the De Beers cartel for diamond prices. Their PR people are good at what they do.

[–]CrankiestRhyme3 0 points1 point ago

Diamonds aren't rare, Plus we can make them, rather cheaply, and infinitely.

[–]PrototypeKH -3 points-2 points ago

"National Property?" What the fuck? When the hell did the Moon become property to anyone? Stabbing a flag into the ground certainly doesn't make it ours. This pisses me off.

[–]foretopsailMaritime Archeology|Historic Cooking 0 points1 point ago

The moon rocks recovered by the Apollo program were, well, recovered by the Apollo program. You might well be welcome to go get your own rocks from the moon. But barring that, the people who recovered them get to decide where they go, which has (as far as I can tell) only been to nations and states. So if you have an Apollo Program rock, it was stolen from a nation or a state.

[–]birdbrainlabs 3 points4 points ago

Just a rough napkin sketch: Apollo program cost $130 billion in US dollars. If it's only purpose had been to mine moon rocks, the 340kg worth of moon rocks would have been acquired for $340,000 per gram.

[–]Canuhandleit 4 points5 points ago

Have you heard the story about the piece of moon rock that the U.S. gifted to the PM of the Netherlands which turned out to be just regular petrified wood? Article

[–]mrwadia 6 points7 points ago

You'd need to be able to prove provenance to potential buyers, and that proof would also constitute evidence of the crime you committed by stealing them.

I suspect that for small amounts of moon rocks, the price would be higher, if you could find a buyer. There wouldn't be very much market depth though, because the number of people willing to buy illegal moon rocks is limited, the amount you can sell to each one is low, and finding those buyers is difficult.

If you had 200 kg of gold you'd be twice as rich as with 100 kg, but 200kg of moon rocks would probably be worth barely more than 20 kg because you'd run out of buyers so fast.

[–]rocksinmyheadIgneous Petrology|Geochemistry|Meteoritics 4 points5 points ago

There are plenty of legal lunar samples (meteorites) out there. And, surprisingly, plenty of buyers. Buyers will often purchase large samples (several kg), so your 200 kg probably would find plenty interested in acquiring some. Museums also purchase samples (or have samples bought for them by donors), increasing the pool further.

[–]surveyor77 2 points3 points ago

So wait, you're saying that some meteorites are "moon rocks"?

[–]rocksinmyheadIgneous Petrology|Geochemistry|Meteoritics 1 point2 points ago

Yes. http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/moon_meteorites.htm

[–]surveyor77 1 point2 points ago

Most (~99.8%) meteorites are pieces of asteroids. A few rare meteorites come from the Moon (0.1%) and Mars (0.1%).

Wow, very small number. About 70 confirmed lunar meteroites to date. I like this graph!.

TIL, thanks.

[–]ckallas2 2 points3 points ago

What makes Oman so popular?

[–]surveyor77 1 point2 points ago

The first lunar meteorites were found in Antarctica in 1979. In 1997 the first lunar meteorite was found in the Sahara Desert and since 1999 many have been found in Oman. The plot includes 8 stones that we know to be lunar but which, in fact, do not yet have official names at this writing.

Caption for the graph I linked. Can be found at the link that rocksinmyhead passed along.

[–]Kaghuros 0 points1 point ago

Deserts and frozen wastelands tend to preserve stone better for recovery than lush jungles and oceans.

[–]mrwadia 1 point2 points ago

I stand corrected, but I think you'll agree that the market for illegal samples is limited.

[–]rmxz 0 points1 point ago

the market for illegal samples is limited.

Same's true for illegally acquired gold.

So if you wanted to make a fair comparison of black-market rocks; you might prefer to compare to black-marked (fenced) gold.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]faleboat 0 points1 point ago

Related: meteorites are usually in the several hundred dollar per gram range, and Martian meteorites can cost from $300-700 per gram. With gold currently trading in the $56 range, yes. A lot more.

[–]gladeflower 0 points1 point ago

Can anyone point for a direction where I can find someone that can tell if my relatives have a genuine astroid?

[–]thelastgoodguy 0 points1 point ago

May I add to the question- If a non-governmental space flight were to get clearance for the airspace it is in and then land on the moon, harvest some moon rocks, and then return through the airspace it had previously cleared with the FAA, would the people involved have to turn the space rocks over to the government and would they have broken federal or international laws by landing on the moon?

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 22242 on app-160 running 86c9e1d.