U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 2017–1041

Feasibility Study for the Quantitative Assessment of 

Mineral Resources in Asteroids

By Laszlo Keszthelyi, Justin Hagerty, Amanda Bowers, Karl Ellefsen, Ian Ridley, Trude King, David Trilling, 

Nicholas Moskovitz, and Will Grundy
U.S. Department of the Interior

RYAN K. ZINKE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

William H. Werkheiser, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2017 

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit

https://www.usgs.gov/ or call 1–888–ASK–USGS (1–888–275–8747).

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications,

visit https://store.usgs.gov. 

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may

contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items

must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Keszthelyi, L., Hagerty, J., Bowers, A., Ellefsen, K., Ridley, I., King, T., Trilling, D., Moskovitz, N., and Grundy, W., 

2017, Feasibility study for the quantitative assessment of mineral resources in asteroids: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2017–1041, 28 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20171041. 

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)
iii

Contents

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................... 1

Why Asteroid Mineral Resources Matter.................................................................................................... 1

How USGS Conducts Quantitative Resource Assessments ...................................................................... 2

Descriptive Model for Asteroids ..................................................................................................................... 3

Spatial Model for Asteroids............................................................................................................................ 4

Deposit-Density Model for Near-Earth Objects.............................................................................................. 4

Grade-Tonnage Model for Near-Earth Objects.............................................................................................. 5

Modeling ........................................................................................................................................................ 6

Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 10

References Cited......................................................................................................................................... 12

Appendix 1.ASTRA1.f.................................................................................................................................. 14

Appendix 2.ASTRA_INPUT.csv................................................................................................................... 17

Figures

1. Flowchart for USGS resource assessments ..................................................................................... 3

2. Cumulative volume of near-Earth objects (NEOs) versus NEO diameter calculated from observed 

brightness......................................................................................................................................... 5

3. Cumulative distribution function of absolute magnitude of the 428 known objects included in this 

study................................................................................................................................................. 6

4. Curve fits to the meteorite composition compilation of Nittler and others (2004). ............................. 9

5. Output of ASTRA1 modeling showing how the minimum amount of water and metallic iron 

resources in near-Earth objects would be represented in a USGS resource assessment.............. 10

Tables

1. Association among spectral types and meteorite groups in this study.............................................. 7

2. Density range for each composition group derived from data compiled by Carry (2012).................. 8

3. Mapping among compositional groups for this study and meteorite classes from Nittler and others 

(2004). .............................................................................................................................................. 8

4. Minimum amount of water and metallic iron resources in near-Earth objects................................. 11
Feasibility Study for the Quantitative Assessment of 

Mineral Resources in Asteroids

By Laszlo Keszthelyi1, Justin Hagerty1, Amanda Bowers1, Karl Ellefsen1, Ian Ridley1, Trude King1, David Trilling2, 

Nicholas Moskovitz3, and Will Grundy3

Abstract

This study was undertaken to determine if the U.S. Geological Survey’s process for conducting 

mineral resource assessments on Earth can be applied to asteroids. Successful completion of the 

assessment, using water and iron resources to test the workflow, has resulted in identification of the 

minimal adjustments required to conduct full resource assessments beyond Earth. We also identify the 

types of future studies that would greatly reduce uncertainties in an actual future assessment. Whereas

this is a feasibility study and does not include a complete and robust analysis of uncertainty, it is clear 

that the water and metal resources in near-Earth asteroids are sufficient to support humanity should it 

become a fully space-faring species. 

Introduction

Why Asteroid Mineral Resources Matter

The long-term goal of the United States space program is establishing a human presence on 

Mars. This goal has been remarkably stable for decades, unfazed by changes in administration, 

geopolitical situations, economic conditions, and trends in public opinion. One can debate the merit of 

this goal, but it is a remarkably consistent aspect of our Nation’s space policy. 

Several major challenges must be overcome before there are human bootprints on Mars. The 

most problematic obstacle may be the price tag—a large fraction of which is in hauling material out of 

Earth’s gravity well. Obtaining key resources (for example, water and metals) in the space between 

Earth and Mars could dramatically reduce the costs of a trip to Mars. The obvious way to obtain such 

resources is to mine near-Earth objects (NEOs). Such mining may be essential to sustaining a human 

presence beyond Earth’s orbit. 

Before a prudent mission architecture can rely on resources obtained in space, an unbiased, 

quantitative, and reliable assessment of those resources is needed. Creating such an assessment is the 

Congressionally mandated responsibility of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The “Organic Act” of 

1879 established the USGS with a few specific obligations, including “the classification of public lands 

and examination of the geologic structure, mineral resources, and products...” In 1962, Congress 

extended those examinations to “beyond the borders of the United States.” In 2015, USGS management 

 

1

U.S. Geological Survey 

2

Northern Arizona University 

3

Lowell Observatory
2

recognized that this applies to space, and especially to asteroids. At this time Congress has not provided 

funding specifically to assess asteroid resources. Nevertheless, the USGS Mineral Resources Program 

has decided it is prudent to fund a small feasibility study to examine if existing terrestrial methods can 

be applied to asteroids. This report details the steps taken as part of that study and its final results.

When it comes to asteroid mining, platinum and other rare metals have garnered the most public 

attention—with published reports suggesting that asteroids will provide trillions of dollars in return for 

the investment in asteroid mining infrastructure (Ostro and others, 1991; Gerlach, 2005). The methods 

we used in this study could be applied to platinum, but we have chosen to focus on two more practical

resources: water and native metal (iron-nickel alloy). Water from asteroids has the potential to 

dramatically reduce the cost of long-term human presence beyond Earth’s orbit as a source of drinking 

water, radiation shielding, oxygen to breathe, and rocket fuel (Gerlach, 2005; Lewis, 2014). Iron-nickel

alloy from asteroids could be directly used in space structures; 3D printing of complex parts from such 

materials has been demonstrated and should be possible in space. However, we emphasize that the 

objective of this study was not to complete a proper assessment of any asteroid resource, but instead to 

test the feasibility of doing such resource assessments in the future.

How USGS Conducts Quantitative Resource Assessments

The methodology used by the USGS is geared to produce unbiased and reliable results in a 

format readily understood by decisionmakers who are not technical experts in the field (for example, 

Singer, 2007). The methodology is often called the “three-part” model because it uses three separate 

quantitative models that are combined using numerical methods to produce the statistics for the final 

assessment (fig. 1). For each resource, a prerequisite for quantitative assessments is the development of 

qualitative “descriptive models” of each geologic setting in which the resource can be found. This is a 

description of the association among the resource, the geologic processes that form deposits of that 

resource and the rock assemblages that contain those deposits. For mineral assessments on Earth, the 

descriptive models are recorded in a standardized form to ensure consistent information content. This 

form includes key scientific references, type localities, geologic context, and typical alteration and 

weathering.

The first of the three quantitative models is the “spatial model,” which delineates tracts that 

contain the geologic setting described in the descriptive model. In other words, the spatial model is a 

map of the areas where the geology permits the existence of deposits of the resource (Singer, 2007). 

Thus, this model is not an attempt to map the resource deposits themselves. The spatial model can

exclude areas inaccessible owing to technical, political, or legal reasons. A wide variety of relevant data, 

including information on known deposits, geochemistry of samples, geophysical surveys, geologic 

mapping, and remote sensing can be used in creating this model. The spatial variability in the quality of 

the data is also considered. 

The second quantitative model is the “grade-tonnage model” for each geologic setting. “Grade” 

is the concentration (or quality) of the resource and “tonnage” is the mass (or quantity) of the deposit. 

These models are usually expressed mathematically as multivariate probability density functions for the 

resource concentrations and ore tonnages of the deposits in the assessment area. These functions are 

usually visualized in two plots: (1) a size-frequency distribution and (2) a quality-frequency distribution 

of the deposits. These models usually rely on previous in-depth investigations of localities analogous to 

the assessment area. The distributions are fit with a statistical model using a series of tests to ensure that 

the model correctly represents the typical highly skewed size distributions. This graphical analysis can 

also reveal if there are multiple populations of deposits. In such a circumstance, it is necessary to 
3

distinguish the geologic settings of the different populations and develop new descriptive and spatial 

models for each. 

The third quantitative model is the “deposit-density model,” which provides an estimate of the 

expected number of deposits per unit area. This estimate is usually determined by examining a 

statistically meaningful number of localities in sufficient detail that the number of deposits in these 

areas is known with some certainty. Such studies take advantage of a wide variety of geologic and 

geophysical datasets, creating deep understanding that can be described as “geologic intuition” of the 

problem. Mathematically, this understanding is expressed as a probability mass function for the number 

of deposits per unit area, which can be calculated in conjunction with the development of grade-tonnage 

models. Again, there are a number of statistical tests to identify when multiple populations are being 

mixed and to provide a robust description of the uncertainty in the deposit-density estimates.

The deposit-density and grade-tonnage models are first statistically combined to calculate the 

expected size and quality distribution of deposits per unit area at various confidence levels (typically 10, 

50, and 90 percent). Monte Carlo methods are the most commonly used statistical method because of 

their flexibility and mathematical simplicity. Then, an economic model that describes the cost to set up 

an extraction operation and then operate it can be applied. Even a simple parametric model can be

sufficient to indicate whether the expected deposits are worth extracting. After combining with the areas 

identified in the spatial model, the final outputs are (1) the minimum number, size, and quality of 

economically viable deposits at various confidence levels and (2) a map of where these deposits may 

exist.

Figure 1. Flowchart for USGS resource assessments. Blue boxes are datasets, green boxes derive from USGS 

processes with minor modification, and purple boxes require some conceptual adjustments to apply to Solar 

System exploration and science. Black arrows represent the flow of information. Red arrows indicate iteration and 

research.

Descriptive Model for Asteroids

The first part of an assessment is to describe the geologic settings in which concentrations of the 

relevant resource can be found. Each geologic setting on Earth has a characteristic mineral assemblage. 

For asteroids, this emphasis on petrology is similar to meteorite classes. To link meteorites to asteroids, 

we rely on the Small Main-belt Asteroid Spectroscopic Survey (SMASS) taxonomy (Binzel and others, 

2004). For this feasibility study, we simplify the problem by only considering the three main spectral 
4

categories (C, S, and X). We further simplify matters by equating C asteroids with carbonaceous 

chondrites, X asteroids with iron meteorites and pallasites, and S asteroids with all other meteorites

(which are mostly stony). This simple translation from spectral data to meteorite type is a gross 

oversimplification that ignores many important categories of asteroid spectra and types of meteorites. In 

fact, we are aware of a few cases where this oversimplification associates an asteroid with the wrong 

type of meteorite. However, it is sufficient to demonstrate the general approach that could be used in a 

real assessment of asteroid resources. Some key steps needed to provide more reliable input to an 

assessment are discussed at the end of this report. 

Spatial Model for Asteroids

The first quantitative model, the spatial model, describes where ore bodies can be found within 

boundaries set by political and technical limits. In our case, each asteroid can be thought of as an ore 

body. We limit this initial analysis to NEOs based on change in velocity (Δv), a measure of the effort 

needed to move between two objects (or orbits) in space. We limit our analysis to objects that can be 

reached from low Earth orbit with a Δv of ≤7 kilometers per second (km/s), which includes most objects 

between Earth and Mars, but excludes the main-belt asteroids. The objects and their orbital parameters 

are taken from the Minor Planet Center database (minorplanetcenter.net) and Δv is calculated using the 

methods of Shoemaker and Helin (1978). We prefer to analyze NEOs, with their slightly more generic 

definition than near-Earth asteroids (NEA), because they can include remnants of comets.

Deposit-Density Model for Near-Earth Objects

The second model, the deposit-density quantitative model, is used to determine how many 

deposits (that is, asteroids) are in the study area. This part of the assessment takes advantage of activities 

driven by the George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey Act of 2005 that requires the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to identify ≥90 percent of potentially hazardous NEAs 

greater than 140 meters in diameter. The catalog of NEAs with diameters greater than 1 km is now 90-

95 percent complete, but there are differing estimates on how many smaller bodies remain undiscovered 

(for example, Mainzer and others, 2011; Stuart and Binzel, 2004). However, because more than 99 

percent of the volume of NEAs is in objects ≥1 km in diameter (fig. 2), we are able to ignore the smaller 

asteroids for this initial assessment.
5

Figure 2. Cumulative volume of near-Earth objects (NEOs) versus NEO diameter calculated from observed 

brightness. 

Grade-Tonnage Model for Near-Earth Objects

For NEOs, we divide the third quantitative model into its two components. The “tonnage” part 

describes the size distribution of deposits (that is, asteroids). Whereas there are some questions about 

the size distribution of the smaller bodies, the ≥1 km diameter objects are well characterized (fig. 2).

However, there are significant uncertainties in the mass represented by these bodies, especially because 

the densities of asteroids are highly variable and difficult to estimate (Chesley and others, 2002). 

The final quantitative model we use describes the probability distribution of the quality (that is, 

grade) of the deposit. Resource quality is primarily governed by the concentration of the resource, but is 

also secondarily affected by how the resource is bound in the rock. Native iron-nickel alloys make up 

nearly all of metallic asteroids and as much as 25 percent of carbonaceous chondrites. The primary 

source of uncertainty is that only 5–20 percent of the asteroids in the X spectral group are actually 

metallic (Thomas and others, 2011). 

For water, we do not expect pure water ice to be found on NEOs in any meaningful 

concentration. Instead, we focus on hydrated minerals. Whereas some primitive carbonaceous 

chondrites have more than 20 percent by weight bound water, most have been heated sufficiently to 

contain only a few percent water (Mason, 1963). Furthermore, the concentration can vary significantly 

with depth if an asteroid has been heated for a geologically short time. Because of processes that affect 

meteorites as they pass through the Earth’s atmosphere and while they sit on the Earth’s surface, there 

may be a sample bias against the most primitive chondritic bodies in the meteorite collection. In other 

words, there are significant issues, and thus large uncertainties, in estimating the water content of 

carbonaceous asteroids from samples in the meteorite collection. 
6

Modeling

The final step is to combine the models in a statistically rigorous manner to obtain the total 

amount of each resource expected at the 10, 50, and 90 percent exceedance quantiles. Because the 

statistical distributions in the locations, sizes, and compositions of ore bodies (and asteroids) do not fit 

simple statistical models, it has proven necessary to utilize Monte Carlo methods to do this combination 

correctly. For this step, we created a simple Monte Carlo model in FORTRAN that we have named 

ASTRA1. The code for ASTRA1 is included as appendix 1 of this publication. 

As input, we start with the list of known asteroids with Δv less than 7 km/s and absolute 

magnitude (MH) brighter than 18, which approximately corresponds to a diameter of 1 km for dark 

objects. Figure 3 shows the distribution of the brightness of the 428 objects in this list. Because this list 

may be only 90 percent complete, an additional 43 entries are added with their MH coded as “0”. This is 

our deposit-density model. 

Figure 3. Cumulative distribution function of absolute magnitude (MH) of the 428 known objects with Δv less than 

7 km/s included in this study. The logarithmic fit is used to obtain brightness values for the undiscovered objects 

also included in this study.

For composition, we rely on the SMASS spectral classification from Binzel and others (2004) 

and relate spectral class to meteorite group as described in table 1. Of the 428 asteroids listed, 8 are 

annotated as metal-rich, 16 as carbonaceous, and 76 as stony. The remainder could not be matched to an 

object in Binzel and others (2004) and were classified as unknown with a numerical code of “0”. The 

input data file is provided as appendix 2 of this publication. 
7

Table 1. Association among spectral types and meteorite groups in this study.

Assumed Meteorite Group SMASS Spectral Type from

Binzel and others (2004) Numerical Value in input file

Stony A, K, K:, L, Ld, O, Q, R, S, S:, S(IV), Sa, Sk, Sl, 

Sq, Sq:, Sr, U, V, V:

1

Carbonaceous B, C, C:, Cb, Cg, Ch, D, T 2

Metal-rich X, X:, Xc, Xe, Xk, 3

We ran 100,000 cases through ASTRA1 to investigate the range of water and metal that might 

be available in the NEO population. Here, we explain the steps used to generate each of these possible 

cases.

First, a brightness (MH) was assigned to each of the 43 potential undiscovered objects. Figure 3 

shows the brightness distribution of the 428 known objects and a logarithmic fit to those data. The 

undiscovered objects are assumed to have the same brightness distribution as the known objects. This is 

incorrect because the undiscovered objects will be biased toward being fainter than the known objects 

(since brighter objects are easier to discover). Furthermore, because the survey on large NEOs may be

95 percent complete, we assign each of the potential undiscovered objects a 50 percent chance to not 

exist. Numerically, this is done by giving a non-existent object an MH of 100, making them far too small 

to affect subsequent calculations.

Next, for the objects that were not spectrally classified, a composition was assigned randomly 

with a probability of 39 percent to be stony, 27 percent to be carbonaceous, and 34 percent to be metalrich. These are the proportions found in the broader NEO population reported in Binzel and others 

(2004) and bias-corrected by Stuart and Binzel (2004). The bias is significant because spectra are much 

easier to obtain for the brighter (typically stony) objects. The raw (that is, biased) proportions for the 

known objects in our list with SMASS spectra are 83 percent stony, 8 percent carbonaceous, and 9 

percent metal-rich. Given the relatively small number of objects with SMASS spectra, the magnitude of 

this bias is unsurprising. However, it is important to note that there are more infrared spectra of 

asteroids available today than are included in Binzel and others (2004). A proper assessment of asteroid 

resources would need to take all those data into account, but the data we use are sufficient to 

demonstrate the feasibility of the approach we are taking. 

In the software, the next step is to calculate the mass of each object. The brightness is converted 

to diameter using the relationship from Harris and Harris (1997). There is insufficient data to determine 

empirical probability distribution functions for the albedos of NEOs. Canonical values for albedo are 

about 5 percent for carbonaceous objects and about 20 percent for other asteroids. Whereas better 

information is available for some objects, we simulate uncertainty in these canonical albedo values by

varying them by ±50 percent with a simple linear distribution.

Carry (2012) conducted an extensive study of various physical properties of asteroids, including 

density. The tabulated information for each spectral class is condensed into the three compositions we 

consider in table 2. In the ASTRA1 program we assume a simple linear distribution between the 

minimum and maximum densities. An alternative, and possibly more self-consistent, method for 

estimating density would be to use values obtained for each meteorite class (for example, Consolmagno 

and others, 2008 but the differences in values are small (nearly 10 percent). 
8

Table 2. Density range for each composition group derived from data compiled by Carry (2012).

[kg/m3, kilogram per cubic meter]

Composition Group Minimum Density

(kg/m3)

Mean Density

(kg/m3)

Maximum Density

(kg/m3)

Stony 1468 2704 3940

Carbonaceous 577 2086 3595

Metal-rich 1391 3482 5574

From diameter and density, it is straightforward to calculate the mass of each object, assuming 

that they are spheres. While asteroids are not spherical, the method for calculating diameter gives an 

effective diameter that results in errors much smaller than the other uncertainties we have already 

discussed. This completes the tonnage part of the grade-tonnage model. 

For our grade model, we use the compositional data from Nittler and others (2004). We consider 

only whole-rock analyses and are only interested in the metallic iron (FE_M in their tables) and 

hydrogen concentrations. We multiply the hydrogen concentration by 9 to obtain the mass of water 

instead of hydrogen. In asteroids, hydrogen may mostly exist in the form of hydroxyl (OH) but we 

assume the extraction technology will convert this to water (the “waste” product would be oxygen—

itself a potentially desirable resource, but one we do not examine in this report). Table 3 shows the 

meteorite classes that were included in each of our composition groups. Figure 4 shows the distribution 

of metallic iron and water concentrations for each of the three composition groups and the empirical 

expressions fit to them. In ASTRA1, the metallic iron and water concentration is randomly selected for 

each object using these mathematical expressions.

Table 3. Mapping among compositional groups for this study and meteorite classes from Nittler and others

(2004).

Compositional Group Meteorite Classes from Nittler and others (2004)

Stony ACA, ANG, AUB, BENC, DIO, E, EH, EL, EUC, H, HOW, L, L/LL, LL, LOD, 

LUN, R SHE, URE

Carbonaceous C, CI, CK, CM, CO, CR, CV

Metal-rich IAB, IIE, MES, PALL
9

Figure 4. Curve fits (dotted lines) to the meteorite composition compilation of Nittler and others (2004; line with

black circles). Iron and water concentrations, in percent by weight (wt. %), are shown for the three major meteorite 
10

categories as described in table 3. (A) Iron-nickel alloy in carbonaceous meteorites, (B) iron-nickel alloy in metalrich meteorites, (C) iron-nickel alloy in stony meteorites, (D) water in carbonaceous meteorites, (E) water in metalrich meteorites, and (F) water in stony meteorites. 

There remain serious questions about how representative these data are of the compositions of 

meteorites. Additionally, there are further serious questions about how representative meteorites are of 

the NEO population. We do not address these issues in this feasibility study.

The final step in ASTRA1 is to sum the amounts of free metallic iron and water in the entire 

simulated NEO population. To facilitate obtaining statistics, the 100,000 runs are sorted and summaries 

are output. The results are presented in the next section. 

Discussion

Figure 5 shows the probability distribution of water and metallic iron expected based on the 

parameters discussed above. The information is summarized in table 4.

Figure 5. Output of ASTRA1 modeling showing how the minimum amount of water and metallic iron resources 

(in gigatons, Gt) in near-Earth objects would be represented in a USGS resource assessment.
11

Table 4. Minimum amount of water and metallic iron resources in near-Earth objects. 

[Gt, gigatons] 

90% probability (Gt) 50% probability (Gt) 10% probability (Gt)

Water 11,000 18,000 38,000

Metallic iron 61,000 99,000 200,000

On face value, these results suggest we have assessed the likely amount of resources available in 

NEOs to about a factor of 4. However, we reiterate that the objective of this study was not to produce an 

accurate and reliable assessment of NEO resources. As we have discussed, there are major sources of 

uncertainty that are incorrectly modeled or not included at all. For example, the linkage between 

spectral classes and meteorite groups is assumed to be perfect when we know it is a gross 

oversimplification. It is plausible that values presented in table 4 and figure 5 may be off by a factor of a 

hundred or more. 

Even given these caveats, it is clear that the amount of useful resources in NEOs is immense 

when compared to current needs. For example, the International Space Station has a mass of less than 

400 tons and the crew of 6 uses about 5 tons of water per year. The numbers in table 4 could sustain a 

million-fold increase in human activity in space for a million years. Even if the numbers are too large by 

a factor of a thousand, or even a million, there appears to be a significant amount of useful resources in 

NEOs. 

Of course, one must also consider humanity’s ability to extract those resources. Based on the 

technology that is deployed in space as of this writing, the amount of extractable water and metallic iron 

in NEOs is known with great certainty to be zero. The immense promise of NEO mineral resources is 

currently untappable. Unsurprisingly, there are a number of efforts underway to change that. 

As resource extraction technology is developed, the actual amount of usable resources in NEOs 

is likely to increase slowly. For example, if water is extracted by putting an entire asteroid in a plastic 

bag, the km-scale objects we focused on in this feasibility study would be useless. Instead, the focus 

would need to be on much smaller objects, perhaps only tens of meters across. Those small objects 

constitute a miniscule fraction of the volume of all NEOs, but they may be sufficient to enable human 

space activities for decades or centuries to come.

To be economically viable, processed and delivered asteroid resources would need to cost less 

than having the same need supplied from Earth. For reference, the cost of platinum on Earth has been 

about $30,000 per kilogram (kg) in recent years. The cost of water and base metals is trivial on Earth, 

but transporting them to users in space is expensive. The nearly $200-million Atlas V launch of the 

Mars Science Laboratory put just over 3,000 kg on a transfer orbit to Mars, suggesting a cost in the 

ballpark of $50,000/kg for water (or any other resource) to support a human crew traveling to Mars. It is 

worth emphasizing that the USGS does not assess the technologies or economics of resource extraction. 

Instead, the USGS assessment supplies the input data for others who examine those types of issues.

None of these issues should detract from the fundamental point of this study. We have 

successfully demonstrated that the USGS resource assessment methods can be applied to asteroids. The 

natural next question concerns what is needed to do a proper assessment. Modest improvements can be 

made by correcting some simplifying assumptions and using additional datasets we did not incorporate 

into this feasibility study. However, there are key sources of uncertainty that require new fundamental 

scientific research. We have identified three areas of research that are needed to produce an accurate and 

reliable assessment of NEO resources.

First, too few NEOs have high-quality spectral observations, especially in the mid-infrared

range. This is especially true for the smaller objects that are more likely to be targets for initial resource 

extraction. At the same time, this feasibility study does not make full use of all the data that are 
12

currently available. For example, in the absence of full infrared spectra, even basic albedo data can 

provide some useful constraints on the composition of an asteroid. 

Second, our ability to link spectral classes of asteroids to meteorite samples is tenuous. Returned 

samples from asteroids are the best way to ground-truth these linkages. However, it is unrealistic to 

expect returned samples from a statistically significant portion of the NEO population. It is important to 

support the study of returned samples with spectral classification of meteorites (and analog materials) in 

realistic settings. This requires laboratory measurements of appropriate materials in vacuum, at a range 

of temperatures, subjected to the radiation environment in space, and with a range of realistic particle 

sizes. Even with improved spectral libraries, telescopic observations from Earth will have limited ability 

to positively identify the composition of the asteroid underneath the weathered surficial layer. Missions 

that analyze the composition of asteroids at a depth of at least several centimeters are essential. One 

possible way to accomplish this is a fleet of small spacecraft that insert reusable probes into many 

locations on multiple asteroids, as suggested by Asphaug and others (2017). 

Finally, attempts to collate the available compositional and mineralogical data for meteorite 

samples have highlighted important deficiencies in this critical dataset (for example, Nittler and others, 

2004). It is always difficult to compare results from different laboratories using different techniques 

over the span of many decades. Furthermore, most research on meteorites is focused on specific 

scientific problems that do not require comprehensive knowledge or data for the entire meteorite—the 

ratios of a few elements, or even just isotopes of a key element, suffice. Thus, there is a need for 

systematic and consistent whole-rock and modal-mineralogy analyses of meteorites.

References Cited

Asphaug, E., Baker, J., Choukroun, M., Furfaro, R., Sava, P., Scheeres, D.J., Schwartz, S.R., Swindle, 

T., and Thangavelautham, J., 2017, Spacecraft penetrator for increasing knowledge of NEOs (SPIKE)

[abs.]: Lunar and Planetary Science Conference XLVIII Abstract with Program, no. 1981, 2 p. 

Binzel R.P., Rivkin A.S., Stuart, J.S., Harris A.W., Bus S.J., and Burbine, T.H., 2004, Observed spectral 

properties of near-Earth objects—results for population distribution, source regions, and space 

weathering processes: Icarus, v. 170, p. 259–294. 

Carry, B., 2012, Density of asteroids: Planetary and Space Science, v. 73, p. 98–118. 

Chesley S.R., Chodas, P.W., Milani, A., Valsecchi, G.B., and Yeomans, D.K., 2002, Quantifying the 

Risk Posed by Potential Earth Impacts: Icarus, v. 159, p. 423–432. 

Consolmagno, G.J., Britt, D.T., and Macke, R.J., 2008, The significance of meteorite density and 

porosity: Chemie der Erde-Geochemistry, v. 68, p. 1–29. 

Gerlach C.L., 2005, Profitably exploiting near-Earth object resources: National Space Society, papers of 

the 2005 International Space Development Conference, 56 p., accessed April 5, 2017, at 

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6793/565ed499d7056a451379a71bdba3478f0012.pdf. 

Harris A.W., and Harris, A.W., 1997, On the Revision of Radiometric Albedos and Diameters of 

Asteroids: Icarus, v. 126, p. 450–454. 

Lewis J.S., 2014, Asteroid Mining 101—Wealth for the New Space Economy: Deep Space Industries, 

192 p. 

Mainzer, A., Grav, T., Bauer, J., Masiero, J., McMillan, R.S., Cutri, R.M., Walker, R., Wright, E., 

Eisenhardt, P., Tholen, D.J., Spahr, R., Jedicke, R., Denneau, L., DeBaun, E., Elsbury, D., Gautier, T., 

Gomillion, S., Hand, E., Mo, W., Watkins, J., Wilkins, A., Bryngelson, G.L., Del Pino Molina, A., 

Desai, S., Gómez Camus, M. Hidalgo, S.L., Konstantopoulos, I., Larsen, J.A., Maleszewski, C., 

Malkan, M.A., Mauduit, J-C., Mullan, B.L., Olszewski, E.W., Pforr, J., Saro, A., Scotti, J.V., and 
13

Wasserman, L.H., 2011, NEOWISE observations of near-Earth objects—Preliminary results: 

Astrophysical Journal, v. 743, 17 p. 

Mason B., 1963, The carbonaceous chondrites: Space Science Reviews, v. 1, p. 621–646. 

Nittler L.R., McCoy, T.J., Clark, P.E., Murphy, M.E., Trombka, J.I., and Jarosewich, E., 2004, Bulk 

element compositions of meteorites—a guide for interpreting remote-sensing geochemical 

measurements of planets and asteroids: Antarctic Meteorite Research, v. 17, p. 233–253. 

Ostro S.J., Cambell, D.B., Chandler, J.F., Hine, A.A., Hudson, R.S., Rosema, K.D., and Shapiro, I.I., 

1991, Asteroid 1986 DA—Radar Evidence for a Metallic Composition: Science, v. 252, p. 1399–

1404. 

Shoemaker, E.M. and Helin, E.F., 1978, Earth-approaching asteroids as targets for exploration, in

Asteroids—An exploration assessment: NASA Conference Publication 2053, p. 245–256. 

Singer D.A., 2007, Short course introduction to quantitative mineral resource assessments: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007–1434, 13 p. 

Stuart J.S. and Binzel, R.P., 2004, Bias-corrected population, size distribution, and impact hazard for the 

near-Earth objects: Icarus, v. 170, p. 295–311. 

Thomas C.A., Trilling, D.E., Emery, J.P., Mueller, M., Hora, J.L., Benner, L.A.M., Bhattacharya, B., 

Bottke, W.F., Chesley, S., Delbo, M., Fazio, G., Harris, A.W., Mainzer, A., Mommert, M., 

Morbidelli, A., Penprase, B., Smith, H.A., Spahr, T.B., and Stansberry, J.A., 2011, ExploreNEOs. V. 

Average albedo by taxonomic complex in the near-Earth asteroid population: Astronomical Journal, 

v. 142, 12 p. 
14

Appendix 1. ASTRA1.f

 REAL R,A(500,10),ABS,ABC,ABM,AB,Ro,D

 REAL PI,HTOT,FETOT,CH,CFE,OUT(1000,2),X

 REAL WORK(100000,2),SORT(100000,2) 

 INTEGER N,M,J

c A(*,1)=brightness (Magnitude)

c A(*,2)=SMASS class (0=unknown, 1=S, 2=C, 3=M)

c A(*,3)=volume (km3)

c A(*,4)=mass (Gt)

c A(*,5)=dV (km/s)

c A(*,6)=mass H2O (Gt)

c A(*,7)=mass metal (Gt)

c A(*,8)=not used

c A(*,9)=brightness with guesses for undiscovered asteroids

c A(*,10)=spectral class with guesses for unknowns

c Set constants

 PI=3.1415926589

c Set mean albedo for S, C, and M

 ABS=0.20

 ABC=0.05

 ABM=0.20

c Initialize random number generator

 WRITE(*,*)'Hello'

 WRITE(*,*)'Please give me an integer?'

 READ(*,*)M

 DO N=1,M

 CALL RANDOM_NUMBER(R)

 END DO

c Read input file

 OPEN(UNIT=1,FILE="ASTRA_INPUT.csv",STATUS="OLD") 

 DO N=1,471

 READ(1,*)A(N,5),A(N,1),A(N,2) 

 END DO

 CLOSE(UNIT=1) 

c Run the model 100,000 times

 WRITE(*,*)'Starting the 100,000 runs'

 DO M=1,100000

c Reset total H and Fe to zero

 HTOT=0.

 FETOT=0.

c Start work on asteroid input data

 DO N=1,471

c Add asteroids we have not detected yet (50% chance they exist)

 IF(A(N,1).EQ.0) THEN

 CALL RANDOM_NUMBER(R)

 IF(R.LT.0.5) THEN

 A(N,9)=100.

 ELSE

 A(N,9)=(1.0091*LOG(R*428))+11.769

 ENDIF

 ELSE

 A(N,9)=A(N,1) 
15

 ENDIF

c Add spectral class for asteroids that don't have observations

c Relative abundance of C, S, and X from Stuart J. S and Binzel R. P. (2004).

c Bias-corrected population, size distribution and impact hazard for near-Earth

c objects. Icarus 170, 295-311. 

 IF(A(N,2).EQ.0) THEN

 CALL RANDOM_NUMBER(R)

 IF(R.LT.0.39) THEN

 A(N,10)=1

 ELSEIF(R.LT.0.66) THEN

 A(N,10)=2

 ELSE

 A(N,10)=3

 ENDIF

 ELSE

 A(N,10)=A(N,2) 

 ENDIF

c Generate albedo, density, and concentrations of H and Fe 

 IF(A(N,10).EQ.1) THEN

 CALL RANDOM_NUMBER(R)

 AB=ABS*(0.5+R)

 CALL RANDOM_NUMBER(R)

 Ro=1.468+(R*2.472) 

 CALL RANDOM_NUMBER(R)

 X=R*720.

 CH=(-1.098*LOG(X))+6.9235

 IF(CH.LT.0) CH=0.

 CALL RANDOM_NUMBER(R)

 X=R*615.

 CFE=(-5.3999*LOG(X))+37.8162

 IF(CFE.LT.0) CFE=0.

 ENDIF

 IF(A(N,10).EQ.2) THEN

 CALL RANDOM_NUMBER(R)

 AB=ABC*(0.5+R)

 CALL RANDOM_NUMBER(R)

 Ro=0.577*(R*3.017) 

 CALL RANDOM_NUMBER(R)

 X=R*72.

 CH=(-7.037*LOG(X))+29.05

 IF(CH.LT.0) CH=0.

 CALL RANDOM_NUMBER(R)

 X=R*45.

 CFE=(-3.265*LOG(X))+11.344

 IF(CFE.LT.0) CFE=0.

 ENDIF

 IF(A(N,10).EQ.3) THEN

 CALL RANDOM_NUMBER(R)

 AB=ABM*(0.5+R)

 CALL RANDOM_NUMBER(R)

 Ro=1.391+(R*4.183) 

 CALL RANDOM_NUMBER(R)

 X=R*15.

 CH=(-1.469*LOG(X))+3.6966

 IF(CH.LT.0) CH=0.

 CALL RANDOM_NUMBER(R)

 X=R*55.

 CFE=(-0.001276*(X**3))+(0.09227*(X**2))-(2.56*X)+69.64

 IF(CFE.LT.0) CFE=0.

 ENDIF

 

c Calculate diameter, volume, and masses

 D=1329*(10**(-0.2*A(N,9)))/(AB**0.5) 

 A(N,3)=4*PI*((D/2.)**3)/3.

 A(N,4)=Ro*A(N,3) 

 A(N,6)=A(N,4)*CH
16

 A(N,7)=A(N,4)*CFE

c Add amount of H and Fe to the running total

 HTOT=HTOT+A(N,6) 

 FETOT=FETOT+A(N,7) 

 END DO

 WRITE(*,*)'RUN ',M

 WORK(M,1)=HTOT

 WORK(M,2)=FETOT

 END DO

c Sort output

 WRITE(*,*)'Starting to sort'

 SORT(1,1)=WORK(1,1) 

 SORT(1,2)=WORK(1,2) 

 

 DO M=2,100000

 WRITE(*,*)'SORTING POSITION ',M

 DO N=1,M-1

 IF(WORK(M,1).LT.(SORT(N,1))) THEN

 DO J=M,N+1,-1

 SORT(J,1)=SORT(J-1,1) 

 END DO

 SORT(N,1)=WORK(M,1) 

 GOTO 100

 ELSE

 SORT(M,1)=WORK(M,1) 

 ENDIF

 END DO

100 CONTINUE

 DO N=1,M-1

 IF(WORK(M,2).LT.(SORT(N,2))) THEN

 DO J=M,N+1,-1

 SORT(J,2)=SORT(J-1,2) 

 END DO

 SORT(N,2)=WORK(M,2) 

 GOTO 200

 ELSE

 SORT(M,2)=WORK(M,2) 

 ENDIF

 END DO

200 CONTINUE

 END DO

 

c Output

 DO M=1,1000

 OUT(M,1)=SORT(M*100,1) 

 OUT(M,2)=SORT(M*100,2) 

 WRITE(7,*)OUT(M,1),OUT(M,2) 

 END DO

 

 WRITE(*,*)'90% chance of exceeding ',OUT(100,1),' Gt of H2O'

 WRITE(*,*)'50% chance of exceeding ',OUT(500,1),' Gt of H2O'

 WRITE(*,*)'10% chance of exceeding ',OUT(900,1),' Gt of H2O'

 WRITE(*,*)'90% chance of exceeding ',OUT(100,2),' Gt of metal'

 WRITE(*,*)'50% chance of exceeding ',OUT(500,2),' Gt of metal'

 WRITE(*,*)'10% chance of exceeding ',OUT(900,2),' Gt of metal'

 

 END
17

Appendix 2. ASTRA_INPUT.csv

5.188 11.16 1

6.968 15.5 1

6.503 13.4 0

5.816 17.7 0

5.482 15.6 1

5.87 13.2 1

6.135 14.23 1

6.551 15.54 1

6.829 14.93 1

6.094 13.9 1

4.82 15.75 1

5.456 13.92 1

6.179 16.56 0

5.129 16.8 1

6.444 17.2 1

6.289 17.94 0

6.443 17.2 0

6.999 14.5 0

6.594 15.21 0

6.567 17.52 0

6.491 16.1 1

5.133 15.38 3

5.309 14.1 1

6.704 16.5 0

6.063 15.2 1

6.114 15.8 1

6.043 16.75 0

6.536 15.82 0

5.939 16.4 2

6.266 14.6 3

5.678 17.3 1

5.016 17.8 0

6.472 15.99 0

6.166 14.5 1

6.601 15.3 1
18

6.757 15.90

6.007 17.40

5.639 17.10

6.007 12.61

6.171 16.40

6.114 17.80

6.47 14.60

6.472 13.81

6.706 170

6.587 14.21

5.632 17.10

6.549 15.21

6.211 16.10

6.512 14.73

6.66 14.71

6.281 15.60

6.172 17.20

5.584 17.40

4.969 17.81

6.73 14.80

5.903 14.81

6.874 15.90

6.006 16.41

5.883 16.81

6.335 16.70

5.761 170

5.9 16.71

5.67 170

6.243 14.61

5.133 171

6.042 17.80

6.599 15.11

6.747 16.90

5.657 17.90

6.509 17.10

6.168 16.40

6.164 15.30

4.818 17.80

6.784 17.40

6.688 16.20

5.345 171

5.918 17.50

6.683 17.20
19

5.941 16.90

5.893 16.11

5.34 16.31

5.409 15.22

5.341 15.81

5.58 15.81

6.491 16.30

4.846 17.61

6.204 17.21

6.764 16.61

5.904 15.51

5.958 17.13

6.824 17.70

6.126 170

6.812 15.40

6.772 15.81

6.59 16.81

6.754 15.90

6.233 17.60

5.943 17.60

6.622 160

4.758 17.40

5.527 17.81

6.576 16.81

6.404 17.31

5.924 16.70

5.956 14.60

5.963 16.31

4.848 17.20

4.96 16.62

6.611 17.90

6.143 17.10

6.219 17.10

6.45 17.31

6.24 17.21

6.334 160

6.826 15.81

6.651 160

4.062 16.81

6.454 16.93

5.804 16.50

6.629 15.80

5.758 17.70
20

6.798 17.60

5.484 16.50

5.851 17.63

5.965 17.70

4.361 17.80

6.987 16.40

6.586 17.50

5.655 17.90

6.211 15.80

6.669 15.23

6.144 17.10

6.68 14.61

4.613 17.20

6.137 17.10

6.241 14.90

6.373 16.52

5.731 16.90

6.624 16.61

4.384 170

6.949 15.50

5.106 16.40

5.523 16.80

5.784 17.80

5.343 16.50

6.518 16.40

5.655 16.20

5.154 170

5.357 15.80

5.585 15.30

5.976 16.40

6.859 161

5.708 17.41

6.411 16.40

6.42 160

6.443 170

5.704 17.60

6.165 15.61

6.324 15.20

6.867 17.70

4.933 17.60

6.291 16.40

5.871 16.30

6.483 17.80
21

6.074 16.21

5.478 16.71

6.305 17.50

6.743 160

5.599 17.90

5.771 17.70

5.258 17.70

5.146 16.80

6.488 16.30

6.356 17.71

6.963 16.60

5.337 16.61

4.704 16.90

6.635 17.60

6.177 17.20

6.426 151

6.208 17.90

6.223 16.71

6.124 15.80

5.56 16.90

5.933 16.60

4.787 16.70

5.951 17.30

6.89 16.60

6.085 17.80

5.403 16.20

6.856 16.20

5.381 17.10

6.863 16.80

6.49 17.90

5.895 160

5.442 16.30

6.241 160

6.093 16.60

6.414 17.40

6.695 17.30

6.964 16.40

6.01 16.62

5.736 16.70

5.568 17.60

5.259 17.20

6.778 17.20

5.747 16.90
22

6.033 17.90

6.41 17.30

6.219 17.50

5.634 17.90

6.834 16.40

6.975 16.30

6.395 16.90

6.231 16.20

6.186 16.10

6.782 17.20

6.546 16.50

5.714 17.60

6.764 170

6.373 17.90

6.383 15.40

6.916 16.30

4.816 17.10

5.479 16.60

6.347 17.80

5.913 17.40

6.682 15.10

5.772 17.10

4.93 17.50

6.806 15.70

6.625 17.30

6.852 17.61

6.44 16.70

5.559 17.92

5.313 17.51

6.128 16.30

6.479 17.70

6.01 17.20

5.104 17.60

6.187 17.20

5.775 17.40

6.45 16.80

6.253 170

4.255 17.80

6.556 17.20

6.662 16.60

5.995 17.50

6.687 17.40

6.175 17.60
23

6.376 17.90

6.657 17.40

6.883 15.60

5.933 17.50

6.704 16.50

6.229 17.10

5.568 17.31

4.89 17.70

6.556 16.80

5.409 16.90

6.178 17.61

6.066 16.10

6.76 16.70

6.564 17.70

5.955 17.60

6.794 16.40

6.872 15.41

5.976 17.70

6.819 17.50

5.982 16.30

5.866 17.11

6.757 16.70

6.837 17.30

6.444 17.71

6.93 17.90

6.983 16.50

5.61 17.10

6.718 17.20

6.154 17.70

6.914 17.50

6.383 17.90

5.104 17.40

6.014 170

5.793 17.50

6.792 17.90

6.681 17.30

6.679 15.50

6.778 17.40

6.108 17.90

5.635 16.80

6.543 17.70

4.909 17.40

6.131 17.80
24

5.985 16.90

6.922 17.10

6.024 170

6.742 17.71

6.582 17.50

6.337 16.20

6.578 17.10

5.74 17.70

5.617 17.90

6.547 17.90

6.653 17.40

6.334 17.30

6.565 17.80

6.588 17.60

6.829 17.50

6.809 16.70

6.636 17.90

6.977 17.60

6.583 17.80

6.209 17.50

6.52 17.10

6.832 16.91

6.011 16.90

6.576 17.22

4.863 17.60

5.903 17.90

6.981 17.60

5.441 17.70

6.929 16.30

6.017 17.30

6.969 16.40

5.168 17.90

6.407 17.40

6.048 17.80

4.309 17.60

6.064 17.10

5.93 17.30

6.958 17.93

6.671 16.60

6.724 17.30

6.775 17.70

6.731 15.40

6.693 17.10
25

6.069 17.80

6.332 17.70

5.325 17.70

6.619 16.50

5.796 17.80

5.618 16.70

6.953 17.30

6.572 170

6.79 17.30

6.435 16.80

6.879 17.20

6.605 17.50

6.582 17.70

3.947 17.51

6.39 17.90

5.719 17.20

5.246 17.80

6.821 16.91

5.772 17.90

5.564 17.50

5.719 17.90

6.776 170

6.774 17.80

6.35 17.40

6.966 17.50

6.765 170

6.452 17.90

6.924 17.70

6.55 17.80

6.797 170

6.662 17.20

6.763 17.60

6.891 17.70

6.441 17.90

6.253 17.40

6.547 16.80

6.373 17.90

6.709 17.91

4.476 17.81

6.197 17.60

6.957 17.90

6.349 17.70

6.585 17.30
26

5.921 17.90

6.981 17.40

6.814 17.60

6.486 17.60

6.128 17.30

6.7 17.90

6.874 16.70

6.816 17.60

6.852 17.70

6.773 16.30

6.245 17.90

6.556 17.10

6.572 17.50

6.711 17.20

6.981 17.70

6.616 17.80

6.567 17.80

6.865 17.70

6.485 17.80

6.957 17.30

6.903 17.90

6.796 17.20

6.395 16.90

6.7 17.40

4.893 17.80

6.486 17.20

6.952 17.20

6.332 17.80

6.789 17.90

6.099 17.20

6.742 17.70

6.153 17.70

6.515 17.80

6.278 17.80

6.514 17.40

6.635 17.80

6.443 17.40

6.771 17.50

5.798 17.60

6.264 17.90

5.683 17.50

6.707 17.60

6.376 17.80
27

6.923 17.20

5.829 17.30

5.524 17.70

6.922 17.90

6.313 17.90

6.662 17.90

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000

000
28

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0
ISSN 2331-1258 (online) 

https://doi.org/10.3133/

ofr20171041