metal or ceramic foam

> I have been thinking about how to capture and use asteroid material.
> The capability of spewing out a metal foam sheet or I beam a mile long
> could be of greater use than the same amount of material in compressed
> form: fewer viberational modes, greater cross-section, restricted
> localized damage. Each of the bubbles would be pressurized and would
> therefore have more strength then if made from a honeycomb type
> laminate. I remember being all on fire for 0-G materials processing after having read G. Harry Stine's "The Third Industrial Revolution", and regaling a college physics professor with the amazing qualities of foamed steel. He then asked why not use honeycomb laminate, since it would have many of the same features, but doesn't require a space factory. That totally took me back. But I don't know if he considered pressurization of the bubbles; there may yet be an advantage to the notion. Sincethen I read one article where someone said the problem with many of the people advocating 0-G materials processing (both inside and outside NASA) is that they're experts is space travel, not materials processing. This makes them more attuned to a possible space solution than a possible Earth-based solution which might work equally well and cost much less. Since those early years, I've come to promote other things over 0-G materials processing. I know that even O'Neill (who certainly couldn't be accused of overlooking an advantage to being in space) was fairly dismissive of such then-popular notions as "perfectly round ball bearings" etc.
Regards,