AsterAnts

> Having sampled Halley's comet and now
> Borrelly, when the results get in ( http://nmp.jpl.nasa.gov/ds1/ ), does
not
> tell you what any other comet or a particular tiny asteroid is made from
> anymore than prospecting in Florida will tell you what is (was)
underground
> in Pennsylvania or California.

This analogy seems kind of forced. In my opinion, to sample a comet or
asteroid and suppose that comets and asteroids of similar appearance have
approximately the same composition is more analogous to going to an iceberg,
proving that it is made of ice and supposing that all those big white
mountains in the sea are also made of ice.

As for the relative abundance of data about the Moon, I don't think that it
is an advantage that will last until any real space resource exploration is
done. Any kind of economic exploration of the Moon or the asteroids is at
least 10 years ahead (in an extremely optimistic assumption), and during
this time I think that we will have more detailed and statistically
conclusive data about planetesimals.

[snikt]
> Sincerely, Jay Huebner
[snikt]

Sincerely, Lucio Coelho