## 6 Discussion  
The economic analyses presented in Section 5 are highly speculative and may be subject to large errors. On the other hand, the analysis and exploration of space deposits should be carried out in a strict economic context. The high uncertainty of the estimated values of the deposit size results from the fact that we only have surface information. Satellite imaging technologies, apart from a few techniques, are unable to show what is beneath the surface layers. Moreover, existing data on the Moon is mainly low-resolution scientific data--one pixel often corresponds to tens of square kilometers. In order for the industry to invest in the exploration of deposits on the Moon, it must have precise information to select the most promising areas that guarantee a high return on investment with the lowest possible technological and business risk. Without in situ research, it will not be possible to accurately estimate the size of the deposits and whether there are any technological problems that prevent their exploration. The parameter that causes the estimates to be subject to a large error is the thickness of the layer containing the deposits. We are unable to precisely estimate whether the thickness of this layer is several meters, centimeters, or even micrometers, as is the case with helium bubbles in the vitrified regolith. This uncertainty strongly affects the estimates. Valuation of deposits is also difficult because it is impossible to predict exactly what the price dynamics of individual raw materials will be over many years. For example, the exploitation of many of the Earth's shale gas deposits was profitable while global gas prices were high, and when the price dropped, many projects were closed because they became unprofitable. The valuation of deposits presented in Section 5 is static and based on current prices. The most profitable deposits for exploitation turned out to be water ice and CO\({}_{2}\) deposits. However, the valuation of these deposits is highly speculative, as mentioned earlier, unlike iron, titanium, and thorium deposits for which we have a reference in their contemporary prices. However, if mass exploitation of lunar deposits begins and there is an oversupply on the market, this will result in a drastic drop in the prices of individual raw materials, and the presented analyses will differ significantly from reality. Based on the analyses were performed, it can be concluded that the deposit in the B-2 cold micro-trap is the most valuable, although in terms of percentages of individual raw materials, it seemed that the B-5 deposit should be the most promising. The adopted CO\({}_{2}\) concentration values were highly speculative. For cold microtraps B-1, B-4, and B-5, the values read from Lunar QuickMap gave astronomical values of CO\({}_{2}\) content, which were unlikely. Hence, a more probable CO\({}_{2}\) concentration value of 1000 ppm was adopted, based on the currently known state of knowledge [45] about the occurrence of carbon on the Moon. However, it is worth verifying the data for places B-1, B-4, and B-5. The least profitable deposits to exploit were thorium deposits and then iron deposits. However, there is a mistake in reasoning here. Prices for iron, titanium, and thorium were assumed on the earth's market, and even for low-processed raw materials. If highly profitable industrial installations are built on the Moon, the price of raw materials for their construction, such as iron and titanium, may be higher. Similarly, thorium may find use in future nuclear power on the Moon, and a market for lunar thorium may emerge. It cannot be assumed that the terrestrial price of individual raw materials will certainly translate into their prices in space, the best example of which is water. The analysis showed that there are easily accessible deposits on the Moon that can be worth