> Getting resources from the moon seems out-of-date these days because the moon is far away in terms of energy even if it is close in distance. Getting resource

> Getting resources from the moon seems out-of-date these days because the moon is far away in terms of energy even if it is close in distance. Getting resources from asteroids makes more sense. You're right about raw energy, but one advantage of the moon is that you can build electromagnetic mass drivers that can sling raw material into orbit without affecting the natural orbit of the body (technically you are but only negligibly). For asteroids, you probably have to haul the whole thing back into Earth orbit for it to be useful, and you'd probably have to use some kind of propellant. Also asteroid missions have much longer timelines if you have to go all the way out to the belt to get them. Less so if you get a near-earth rock, but those missions are pretty complex if trying it in Kerbal Space Program is any indication, and getting it wrong can be catastrophic. Many countries might not take too kindly to people wanting to sling city-destroying rocks around. Moon seems safer in that sense as a first option. The two aren't mutually exclusive of course, and there are advantages to both. I imagine we'll see both strategies employed in a variety of different ways.