Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Looking For "Diamonds In The Sky"

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the asteroid-mining-the-next-big-industry dept.

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Scientist Charles Bauschlicher and his research team have found a new way to look for 'diamonds in the sky'. It may not be romantic, but diamonds shine especially brightly in the 3.4 to 3.5 micron and 6 to 10 micron infrared ranges, which should make NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope the perfect tool to see them with. Though less common and more monopolized on earth, diamonds are surprisingly common in outer space and the nanometer-sized bits comprise 3% of all the carbon found in meteorites. That means that if meteorite composition is representative of interstellar dust, that dust would contain about 10 quadrillion (1 * 10^16) nanodiamonds per gram."

101 comments

  1. DeBeers should be happy by KublaiKhan · · Score: 2, Funny

    A whole new marketing campaign suggests itself: "Give her the gift of the stars"

    Or something like that, anyway.

    --
    In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
    A stately pleasure dome decree
    1. Re:DeBeers should be happy by Todd+Fisher · · Score: 5, Funny

      A whole new marketing campaign suggests itself: "Give her the gift of the stars"

      Because any woman worth marrying knows that if meteorite composition is representative of interstellar dust, that dust would contain about 10 quadrillion (1 * 10^16) nanodiamonds per gram.

      --


      --I'm not talking about dance lessons. I'm talking about putting a brick through the other guy's windshield.-
    2. Re:DeBeers should be happy by Rosy+At+Random · · Score: 1

      Give her diamonds - they're pretty much all over the place and there for the taking!

      --
      Would you like a slice of toast?
    3. Re:DeBeers should be happy by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 5, Funny

      I gave her a Klein bottle of superheated hydrogen, and she just burst into flames... I mean, burst into tears. Tears.

      --
      I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
    4. Re:DeBeers should be happy by dafrazzman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Some people buy stars or diamonds in space, but I'm smart enough to know that that sort of thing is a really impractical gift. I already bought a ranch on the moon for my future wife. Best. Gift. Ever.

      --
      My preferred name is frazz, but someone keeps taking it. If you see him, tell him I said hi.
    5. Re:DeBeers should be happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They pretty much are on Earth already. There's nothing special about diamonds, really. DeBeers has spent decades convincing everyone how great they are because they've locked up the supply chain from end to end. Search on "blood diamonds" some time.

    6. Re:DeBeers should be happy by flappinbooger · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, but they're shiny.

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    7. Re:DeBeers should be happy by myth_of_sisyphus · · Score: 2, Informative

      DeBeers created the greatest marketing campaign in history. (recently voted on by marketing people.) Even children know that a man gives a woman a diamond before marriage. Which wasn't always the case. And they created the idea that second-hand diamonds are somehow inferior. A "diamond is forever" after all.

    8. Re:DeBeers should be happy by wdebruij · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or read this great example of investigative reporting from 1982:
      Have you ever tried to sell a diamond.
      It's all still true today (although you might have to swap some
      country names here and there).

      Even if you don't care about diamonds per se, the "gem" diamond business
      is interesting for its unique economy and as an example of the power of
      PR firms.

      I will never by a "natural gem" in my life. Nothing says I love you like
      pure zirkonium. Not that any woman would know the difference, anyway.

    9. Re:DeBeers should be happy by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      They aren't shiny silly, they are sparkly.

    10. Re:DeBeers should be happy by antic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You can bet that even if masses of diamonds from some extraterrestrial source flooded the market here, and the usual culprits weren't getting their usual share/control, that they'd bump up the marketing suggesting that those weren't the same, weren't as special, weren't as rare, etc. Witness the diamond testing systems that look for flaws to ascertain whether a gem is artificial. Crazy.

      --
      'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
    11. Re:DeBeers should be happy by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 1
      I guess I'm lucky......
      1. I have a wife.....
      2. She prefers CZ over real diamonds any day
      Screw you, DeBeers........
    12. Re:DeBeers should be happy by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

      Mmmmm, sparkly! (reaches for wallet)

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    13. Re:DeBeers should be happy by Floritard · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Nanodiamonds. Invisible to the naked eye, because love is about trust."

    14. Re:DeBeers should be happy by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 2, Funny

      So is a bass boat. Get her that for your wedding anniversary and see how well that goes over.

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    15. Re:DeBeers should be happy by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Hows that saying go? Wife says something has to go, it will be either the bass boat or her. Will take $5000 for either, you pick your misery.

      Or was it, I got a new bass boat for my wife, Best trade I ever made.

    16. Re:DeBeers should be happy by tcolberg · · Score: 1

      I can imagine a xenophobia developing combined with a nostalgia for "earthborn" items. First with diamonds, then people. Refer to Mass Effect for details.

    17. Re:DeBeers should be happy by phpmysqldev · · Score: 1

      Press Release: DeBeers announces today that it will be buying diamonds from the Rebels for Unified Federation Space (or RUF for short) DeBeers believes in the fight of RUF to free itself from evil killer space kittens trying to force their evil democracy on them. Diamond prices inexplicably rose as supplies increased... =X In an unrelated story DeBeers purchases huge warehouse surrounded by armed guards to "Not store surplus diamonds in so as to keep demand high"

    18. Re:DeBeers should be happy by kesuki · · Score: 1

      CZ may be fine for wife, but Moissanite is a scientists best friend. since it's about as hard as a diamond, it can be used for 'hardness testing' it's also a semiconductor of temperature and electricity, making it perfect for high-stress electronics, where silicon would break... it's also sold as a jewel.

      --
      https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
    19. Re:DeBeers should be happy by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but they're shiny.

      Not until some slave-labourer kid in a sweat shop in Bangalore has spent about 3 hours cutting the stone to shape and polishing it. Un-polished diamonds aren't called "rough" without good reason. They look like greyish pebbles with a moderate sheen on them. "Rock Crystal" quartz is far prettier. Compare these diamond specimens with these rock crystal specimens.

      OK - I'm a geologist, so I might have different standards to the man on the Clapham omnibus. But I can imagine the result I'd get from giving the missus a diamond like that.
      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    20. Re:DeBeers should be happy by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

      I had a great Geology course in college (I'm an ME) and it was very fun. We had a hard end of term project where we had to identify a box of rocks, had some good field trips to a local strip mine, so on. Definitely interesting and enlightening.

      It probably helped that the course was taught by someone who had a real interest in the field.

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    21. Re:DeBeers should be happy by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      It probably helped that the course was taught by someone who had a real interest in the field.

      Certainly does help.
      My introduction to the field was through a geography teacher who wasn't himself particularly clued up on the field - the old "stay one chapter ahead of the kids" school of teaching - but he was well keen. It wasn't really any surprise to bump into him (and several other teachers) on top of a mountain during half term. Great minds think alike.
      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Diamonds at the core of gas giants? by CRCulver · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In his novel 2061: Odyssey Three Arthur C. Clarke described the core of Jupiter as nearly solid diamond, formed by the enormous pressure of the gas giant's atmosphere. Is there any probability that this is true, or was it only a science-fiction author's imagination?

    1. Re:Diamonds at the core of gas giants? by mblase · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm pretty sure this was first mentioned in the book version of "2010: Odyssey Two", IIRC.

      And he was basing it on serious scientific speculation, but no one has any way of knowing for sure.

    2. Re:Diamonds at the core of gas giants? by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that leave us some serious questions about its magnetic field?

    3. Re:Diamonds at the core of gas giants? by delibes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Maybe - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BPM_37093 But you're unlikely to get your hand on it. Still it's nice to imagine isn't it?

      --
      This is not a sig
    4. Re:Diamonds at the core of gas giants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Difficult to know for sure, there's certainly some chance there'd be significant diamond or silicon carbide layers, but it's probably mostly metallic hydrogen with an iron-and-radioactives "core" core (probably much like earth's only bigger, despite the other vast differences). Due to the reactivity of carbon and hydrogen, most carbon present is probably as hydrocarbons in the atmosphere.

    5. Re:Diamonds at the core of gas giants? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure this was first mentioned in the book version of "2010: Odyssey Two", IIRC.

      I second (pun intended) this. IIRC, Jupiter was converted into a sun, so there must have been discussion on its chemical composition. OTOH, 2061 was about Halley's comet.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    6. Re:Diamonds at the core of gas giants? by TehDuffman · · Score: 1

      SciFi author's do speak truth look at Scientology.

    7. Re:Diamonds at the core of gas giants? by reverseengineer · · Score: 4, Informative
      Arthur C. Clarke noted that the idea that Jupiter's core was a gigantic diamond was inspired by an article in Nature which speculated that a solid layer observed in the compositions of Uranus and Neptune was composed of carbon liberated by intense pressure from methane.

      Laboratory experiments mimicking the temperatures and pressures found deep within those planets suggest diamond production is indeed possible, but would be more likely to be an agglomerate mass of diamond microcrystals than the yottacarat diamond solitaire envisioned by Clarke. Uranus and Neptune would probably make for better diamond production than Jupiter and Saturn due to a higher abundance of methane and thus carbon.

      That being said, recent research suggests that Uranus and Neptune are not sufficiently carbon-rich to have produced an appreciable amount of diamond after all.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    8. Re:Diamonds at the core of gas giants? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      According to his end-notes, it was inspired by some theoretical paper, so at least somebody thought it was likely.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    9. Re:Diamonds at the core of gas giants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      While it may have been briefly mentioned in 2010, it was indeed a major plot point in 2061. After the part on Haley's comet, the main thrust of the book is that a ship has crashed landed on Europa (which was forbidden in 2010.) During the rescue attempt, a diamond mountain is discovered (and one of the characters short sells diamonds before anyone finds out.) The diamond mountain was basically ejected from Jupiter's core when it became a sun.

      I can't believe I remember this.

    10. Re:Diamonds at the core of gas giants? by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      Why isn't anyone mining Uranus for diamonds, then? Seem that this would be the cheapest (and most profitable) space exploration possible!

    11. Re:Diamonds at the core of gas giants? by ls+-la · · Score: 1

      If it were made of carbon, it would likely be diamond; however that is quite unlikely. It's most likely iron with some nickel mixed in like our core. And it probably is solid because of the pressure.

    12. Re:Diamonds at the core of gas giants? by FinestLittleSpace · · Score: 1

      I'm not entirely sure that would be cheap! And then if you, in a magical world far in the future, create a viable constant mining business/supply chain from Uranus, you're dealing with the fact that you're creating increased supply so the price/value of diamond by definition goes down, unless demand outstrips supply.

    13. Re:Diamonds at the core of gas giants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, is this a techno-dance club star? I mean with a name BPM and it pulsating and all...

    14. Re:Diamonds at the core of gas giants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      swoosh!

  3. Maybe that explains... by Zondar · · Score: 5, Funny

    why my wife came home today with an application for the space program... and my name was already filled out at the top.

    1. Re:Maybe that explains... by arth1 · · Score: 2

      Aha. That's a Clue.

      I know who did it: Lucy, in the sky, with diamonds.

    2. Re:Maybe that explains... by taupin · · Score: 1

      Are you sure diamonds are the reason she's trying to send you on a _dangerous_ mission ? ;-)

    3. Re:Maybe that explains... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hans did nothing wrong.
      The fact that the Open Source community dropped him once it was speculated that he did a very anti-women's rights thing is disgusting.

    4. Re:Maybe that explains... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      The LSD Church: fear!

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    5. Re:Maybe that explains... by Agent__Smith · · Score: 1

      DaBeers may now start blackmailing and muscling in on NASA...

      --
      "It seems that we are at the age where life stops giving us things, and starts taking them away..." Indiana Jones
    6. Re:Maybe that explains... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      I just hope Weyland-Yutani honors my claim.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  4. Asimov would be pleased by themushroom · · Score: 1

    Sci-fi story stereotype: mining asteroids or planets, as part of the backstory to give a character a job.
    So now that person actually has a reason to be doing that. :)

    --
    Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
    1. Re:Asimov would be pleased by CRCulver · · Score: 3, Informative

      Larry Niven already described a sociey of asteroid belt miners in great depth in his Known Space stories of the 1960s and 1970s. Similarly, Michael Flynn had asteroid mining as one of the big commercial ventures that popped up when private corporations finally got up into orbit. Even without diamonds, there's enough precious metals up there that the notion of space miners has fired the imagination of many science-fiction writers.

    2. Re:Asimov would be pleased by SleepingWaterBear · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, diamonds probably aren't worth the trouble of asteroid mining. Crushed diamond powder is cheap and plentiful right here on earth. It's only the larger chunks of diamond that are valued much, and even those aren't in short supply. The price of diamonds is only as high as it is because a cartel of the major producers work in collusion to keep the prices up. I suppose diamonds from asteroid mining might force them to lower their prices a bit, but it's unlikely that mining asteroids for diamonds could successfully compete with earth based diamond mining.
      Quite possibly if we do end up with asteroid miners, they'll be throwing away cheap carbon compounds like diamonds, in favor of useful ores like iron or nickel.

    3. Re:Asimov would be pleased by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Quite possibly if we do end up with asteroid miners, they'll be throwing away cheap carbon compounds like diamonds, in favor of useful ores like iron or nickel.

      Iron and nickel are extremely cheap and plentiful on earth. If it's mined for return to earth as a paying mining project, it won't be iron and nickel. As it is, only Helium-3 is worth going to space to mine, and I'm not sure I even believe that's viable. First, it assumes that fusion power is viable, it may be but it may take a long time to become commercially viable. Second, one of the most expensive parts of space exploration is the fuel/energy needed to get into and escape earth's orbit, and it's the energy that we want to get back.

    4. Re:Asimov would be pleased by tcolberg · · Score: 1

      Is not most of the Helium 3 present on space-borne objects due to the ejecta of the sun? IIRC, that's why Helium 3 is plentiful and only in the regolith of the Moon.

      Asteroids may not have a similar layer of dust to adequately collect Helium 3. Asteroids are better for ores and rare earths that are in short supply or are too difficult to mine, such as copper, platinum, palladium, and perhaps uranium. Even though these materials would be valuable, it will probably be too inefficient to mine asteroids that aren't in Earth orbit or near any future colonies (Moon or Mars orbit). All the more incentive to research new propulsion technologies and near-earth asteroid deflection.

  5. utopia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh great, now we have to deal with an army of heads inside spheres and 'The Master'.
    Hope the doctor turns up in time ( which for a timelord shouldn't be difficult )

  6. But can it find... by Starteck81 · · Score: 2

    ...Lucy in the sky with diamonds?

    --
    "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
  7. Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    In other news DeBeers has announced plans to launch millions of poverty stricken Africans into space. They'll be equipped with 60 minutes of oxygen and lunch box sized capsules capable of reentering Earths atmosphere.

    1. Re:Wow... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Starvin' Marvin in space, you say?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  8. Diamonds, Sky by kailoran · · Score: 4, Funny

    Are they looking for Lucy too?

    1. Re:Diamonds, Sky by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      when they find one they will find the other...

      Lucy in the sky with diamonds...

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    2. Re:Diamonds, Sky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, so dumb.

    3. Re:Diamonds, Sky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm.. maybe the successor spacecraft to Spitzer should be some designated some mangled backronym (in typical NASA fashion) that abbreviates to "LUCY". That would be mildly humorous.

  9. not surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "surprisingly"? Against popular marketing claims, diamonds arent rare.

  10. Nanodiamonds by arizwebfoot · · Score: 1

    What are the uses for nanodiamonds? Can you glue them together for a "big" rock?

    --
    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
    1. Re:Nanodiamonds by Intron · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can make great sandpaper.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    2. Re: Nanodiamonds by arizwebfoot · · Score: 1

      You know Mama don't want no diamond where she needs a microscope to check it out.

      --
      Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
    3. Re:Nanodiamonds by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Might be useful as a coating; of course the other thing is have we looked on Earth for them? They might be more common terrestrially than we though too.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    4. Re:Nanodiamonds by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 4, Informative
      Yes, diamond powder is great for grinding and polishing hard things, like silicon wafers.

      Industrial diamond is manufactured cheaply. You can even find it on eBay for a couple of bucks a carat.

      The trick is getting a consistent grit/mesh/size so that you know how polished you can make your wafers.

      I worked with a guy in the 80's who had a side business making diamond grinding compounds for customers in the bay area - he would pre-load his secret mixture into grease-guns he bought at Sears. They were single use, he told me. I don't remember why, something about screwing up the seals, or maybe a used grease gun put contaminates in the grinding goop... anyhow he made really good money at it for some reason, there must have been more to it than meets the eye. He was a retired nuclear physicist, so he knew what he was doing, when it came to small particles.

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    5. Re:Nanodiamonds by streptocopter · · Score: 2, Funny

      I worked with a guy in the 80's who had a side business making diamond grinding compounds for customers in the bay area - he would pre-load his secret mixture into grease-guns he bought at Sears. They were single use, he told me. I don't remember why, something about screwing up the seals, or maybe a used grease gun put contaminates in the grinding goop... anyhow he made really good money at it for some reason, there must have been more to it than meets the eye. He was a retired nuclear physicist, so he knew what he was doing, when it came to small particles. Dude! I know this guy, you and I have so totally worked in the same meth lab!
  11. It means that you can get a diamond engagement.. by Channard · · Score: 1

    .. ring for a dollar. She can show her friends it and tell them it's diamond, and you're only out of pocket by the cost of half a beer.

  12. Diamond are *not* uncommon on Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That is the great lie the diamond industry wants you to believe. Ask any geologist. Diamonds are very common.

  13. Basketball Jones by arizwebfoot · · Score: 1

    The basketball sized ones are!

    --
    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
    1. Re:Basketball Jones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't put a basketball sized one on a ring. I suppose you could put a ring on a basketball sized one, but marble sized ones are obnoxious enough.

      Anyway, GP is right, diamonds are artificially scarce. Should be cheap as (high quality, non-bulk) dirt. Or at least much closer to that then their current costs.

  14. More useful measurement? by Tired+and+Emotional · · Score: 4, Funny

    So what does that work out to in carets per cubic parsec?

    --
    Squirrel!
    1. Re:More useful measurement? by Mortiss · · Score: 1

      Approx. ^_^ ^106
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caret/

    2. Re:More useful measurement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what does that work out to in carets per cubic parsec? Um, eight and a half Libraries of Congress?
    3. Re:More useful measurement? by reverseengineer · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Taking the density of diamond to be 3.5 grams per cubic centimeter, and these diamonds to each have a volume of about 1 cubic nanometer, the average interstellar nanodiamond has a carat weight of 1.75*10^-20 carats (One carat is 200 milligrams). The interstellar molecular clouds where we would expect to find these diamonds have a density of about 2 x 10^-22 grams per cubic centimeter; one cubic centimeter is about 3.4*10^-56 cubic parsecs, so there are about 5.9*10^33 grams of matter in a cubic parsec.

      Using the figure from the article, we could then expect there to be as many as 5.9*10^49 diamonds in a cubic parsec, with a total mass of 2×10^26 kilograms, and a total carat weight around 10^30 carats in a cubic parsec. Alas, not exactly gem quality material.

      Some notes:
      A well-formed 1 cubic nanometer diamond crystal would have about 175 carbon atoms total.

      Our solar system has a total mass of about 2*10^30 kg, 99.8% of which is the sun.

      The mass of the earth is about 6*10^24 kilograms.

      If split among the population of earth, your share of the diamonds in a cubic parsec molecular cloud comes to about 30 trillion tons.

      If you merged all the nanoscale diamonds in a cubic parsec molecular cloud into a single diamond, it would have a volume of 5.7*10^13 cubic km, about 50 times that of the earth.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
  15. The Beatles will be proud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now they just need to find Lucy

  16. Re:Diamonds at the core of gas giants? No see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    No, the core of some gas giants is not always diamonds. If you read Arthur C. Clarke's next novel "20AT: Odyssey Four" he describes the core of Uranus as being mostly solid dark matter!

  17. What is the danger? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the danger from nanodiamonds? Will they have enough kinetic energy to pierce a spacesuit? A helmet? A spacecraft? Can they kill a satellite, like say a TV relay in the Clarke belt?

    1. Re:What is the danger? by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      Seems to me that if diamond dust is that prevalent, then many spacecraft and satellites must experience a high rate of surface erosion. And in the long run lenses on satellites doing optical surveillance would get pitted. And solar panels get frosted. Does anyone know if this happens? And more important, on my next trip to Beta Gamma Orion IV, if the greys don't have shields, will the dome get scratched? And does my Galactic State Farm policy cover this?

    2. Re:What is the danger? by Fifth+Earth · · Score: 1

      I'd say it definitely happens, and not just because of diamond dust--pretty much all the dust in space would do it. That said, "prevalent" is a relative term. Space is still pretty incomprehensibly empty, even in the really "dirty" parts. See http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/dust_storm_030814.html where a "dust storm" is described as being the impact of 12 particles of dust per square meter per day.

  18. ...and?? by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

    So more than one allotrope of one of the most common elements in the Universe, carbon, is present in interplanetary and interstellar space.

    Well, duh. It would be shocking if there weren't any carbon in the form of diamond out there. That fact would take some serious explaining.

    And, er, so what? Obviously no one will ever mine diamonds in outer space, inasmuch as the cost to transport miners to them and the mined diamonds back utterly dwarfs the value of the diamonds, or even the cost to manufacture them. Nor can I think of any interesting astrophysical theories that would be disproved by any particular interplanetary distribution of carbon allotropes.

    One of the least interesting stories I've seen on /. in a while.

    1. Re:...and?? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Might be useful if you need diamond dust in space for something and don't want to spend the energy to lift it off the Earth though.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    2. Re:...and?? by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      In a future in which there is some vast civilization among the asteroids, yes. But I think certainly within my lifetime, and that of my children, it will be far cheaper to bring along a little diamond dust than the tools, equipment, and fuel necessary to do a little mining along with whatever else you're doing.

      It's not clear to me that diamond is all that useful, anyway. The best use of it I can imagine is for super high quality windows for optical, UV and IR instruments. But for that you need very pure diamond in nice shapes, which is probably much easier to make -- even in space -- by CVD deposition starting from a lump of graphite.

    3. Re:...and?? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it would be useful for mining equipment?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  19. My sweetheart and that big fight centuries ago.... by prajjwal · · Score: 1

    Centuries ago, when we had hurt each other so bitterly, I had flung her to outer space, with all the diamonds I had bestowed upon her, and though I brought her back eventually, the diamonds had been broken into pieces and scattered far and wide..... oh well.... seems NASA is starting to look for them.. she will be happy :)

  20. Re:It means that you can get a diamond engagement. by Mantaar · · Score: 1

    by the cost of half a beer. Pun intended?
    --
    I'm an infovore...
  21. Here I thought SUPERDIAMOND was just a band by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what about harder diamonds forged from higher pressure planets?? We would need a natural one I'm guessing to make an artificial super diamond.

    In other news I regret walking past that deep-sea fish tooth as a child, like I will get another chance to own a crysknife.

  22. That could be pretty rough... finding diamonds by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    in the rough...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  23. Contrary to popular belief by Hubbell · · Score: 3, Informative

    Diamonds are not scarce by any means on earth, it's simply a front put up by the DeBeers company.

  24. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news today, Roskosmos, Russia's federal space agency, has announced an exclusive launch contract with DeBeers. DeBeers executives were unavailable for comment as their staff said they were "involved in urgent meetings with the heads of ESA and JAXA."

    Meanwhile, NASA engineers said they have received instructions to modify the upcoming Hubble servicing mission, to be flown this fall aboard the space shuttle Atlantis, to now include the installation of a large jewelers loupe.

    In Africa, we are receiving reports of an increase in kidnappings of able-bodied workers near the headquarters of the South African Space Agency

  25. Lucy? by bandersnatch · · Score: 1

    They should first search in the sky for Lucy. I have heard that she is always accompanied by diamonds.

  26. Ian Van Dahl by Classic_gamer · · Score: 1

    Oh tell me why do we build diamonds in the sky

  27. You know what they say.. by myrmidon666 · · Score: 1

    Diamonds. That'll shut her up!!

    --
    *Process is Irrelevant, Progress is Paramount*
    1. Re:You know what they say.. by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1
      No, the phrase is:


      Diamonds... she'll pretty much have to.

      For reference

      I can't believe I have to link to YouBube to find the example.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  28. Twinkle twinkle little star... by prajjwal · · Score: 2, Funny

    NASA found out just now.. I knew that from my nursery rhymes :D

  29. BPM 37093 by TarZ · · Score: 1

    Lucy in the Sky now.

  30. Give her the Universe by GottliebPins · · Score: 0

    Tell her you'd give her the Universe, but all you could afford was a nanodiamond, so small you'd need a telescope to see it.

  31. Dear mods... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please note that ACs don't need karma. Therefore, there is no harm in modding them "funny" when their post is clearly not serious.

    And even if it wasn't an AC, you can always use "underrated" to give them karma, assuming someone has modded them funny to begin with.

  32. Deepness in the sky by Vernor Vinge by infonography · · Score: 1

    he had some the size on mountains in that story, but I won't spoil it. Great read.

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  33. Why bother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    We have come a long way in synthetic diamond production. It would be way cheaper to refine that technology thanit would be to try scouring space for what is literally diamond dust.

  34. dark star by airdrummer · · Score: 0

    transitive nightfall
    of diamonds...

  35. Diamonds Rare on Earth? by bbitmaster · · Score: 1

    Funny how The article starts out saying "Diamonds may be rare on Earth" We all know this is a lie that De Beers has propagated so they can charge outrageous prices. Diamonds are actually fairly common in certain places. Apparently they have the Jet Propulsion Laboratory fooled as well, because this article appears on their site.