What rare metal comes from space in the form of meteorites?
92985
Several, but, the answer you seek is likely Iridium.
536779
The conversion of light elements into heavy elements, hydrogen into helium and on right up to iron, by atomic fusion. This is how a star shines. When the iron stage is reached the Sun has run out of fuel and the equilibrium between thermal forces and gravity is lost and gravity wins, resulting in the collapse into a white dwarf after going Nova and spreading its heavy elements into space. That's right we are all made of star stuff! JULES
461
Without checking astronomical data, I'll try the chemical approach:\n\nThe most abundant elements in the universe are hydrogen (with a big lead) and most of the other light elements, so we have to look for the most probable triatomic molecule we can form from light elements.\n\nThis makes H2O my prime candidate, being the most stable molecule to contain two hydrogen atoms. HCN or CO2 have a much lower probability. SiO2 is pretty abundant, but not as distinct molecules.
834216
Radium. Anyway, pitchblende is a uranium ore, and according to wikipedia--\n7 metric tons of pitchblende yields 1 gram of radium\n\nOr maybe pure Francium, another element. It is so rare and reactive that it has never been extracted and investigated properly. All scientists know is of it's existence.\n\nSee: it has been estimated that there might be only from 340 to 550 grams [1] of francium in the earth's crust at any one time.\n\nBut it's probably got to be Astatine--it is the rarest element on earth, even more so than francium.\n\nOh well.
427675
The answer is: it is pretty hard to find them.\n\nThe easiest ones to find are iron meteorites, litterally hunks of iron from space.  The tend to have a black crust, but will look like mangled chunks of iron.\n\nFor your more stone-like meteorites it gets harder.  A metal detector still helps, as even most "rock-like" meteorites still have lots of iron and nickle in them.  Generally they will appear as dark black rocks, due to the surface of the rock having been melted during entry into the atmosphere.  Finding them in the mountains will be _very_ tough, as they really, really just look like most of the rocks sitting around.\n\nThe desert is a bit easier, especially if it is a more or less sandy desert.  If you are someplace without any rocks (like a sand dune desert) and you come across a dark, black rock, you may have found one.  The easiest way to find them it to go to places like this, where a dark black rock will stand out against the background.  Most proffesional meteorite collection efforts take place in places like the sahara desert, and antarctica.\n\nTo really identify them outside of these "easy" circumstances you will really need to train yourself up.  There are field guides out there that can help train you to look for the slight tell-tale signs that the rock you are holding is not from our planet.
664567
One should not group antimatter particles all into the word element. It is possible to make any of the elements in the form of antimatter, and for any element the antimatter equivalent would be incredibly rare here on earth. Now to say the rarest is very hard because there could be at any given point in time a number of antimatter hydrogen atoms that might seem like a large number, to the human mind, here on earth. Anti hydrogen would be the most abundant anti element, although still inconcievably rare. However, some of the heaviest non-antimatter elements that have been created in the lab probably ocasionally briefly come into existence in nature here on earth. Some of these metals might be rarer than antihydrogen, the most abundent antielement here on earth. \nNote: positrons, anti electrons, are the most abundent easily observable antiparticle, but I have left them out because they are not an element.\n\nNow, as for the universe in general: It is a real curiousity that there does not seem to be an equal amount of antimatter as matter. We humans do not now how to create matter without also creating an equal amount of antimatter. Yet, it seems as though our universe is made up almost entirely of matter... What happened to all of the antimatter during the creation of the Universe??? I don't know, and as far as I am aware of there is not a solid leading theory to explain this enigma, but many ideas have been suggested with associated mathematics. Some of them propose that the antimatter went into another dimension. Others propose that there was a very slight inequality in the quantity of matter and antimatter with the difference being the matter that is currently in existence. Still others contend that the some total of matter and antimater within the Universe are still of equal quantities, but the areas where this antimatter is hiding is too far for light to have reached us from those locations. Although I have a preference between these ideas, I will not say what it is. So, lets just say that that might be a good topic for someone interested in the subject to do some real research.
739177
Because METAL is in some way 4 different evolving atoms and\n  materials according to the measurement of dense fields do in\n  scientific quantity.  By this we can mean practical, or reachable\n   thus according in some way to eliminate areas like highest\n   or wildest regions not likely to take production.  So on, under\n    the ocean, so I eliminate all except production and storing in\n    prepared or piled supply site.  Two come into active,  uranium\n    is the general metallic under cooling storages in slabs to be\n    readily available up to 40 million tons per harvest, this is like\n    a magical fuel bar supply for gigantic space stations.  The 2nd\n    choice is more likely GOLD, due to it being mapped, sited,\n    and gaining value in technology for unforeseen many years.\n    Theory only Gold smelt slab 90% style could be done in a\n     magic superior at 1 billion pounds per year for periods of 30 \n     years from existing process of purification and not going\n     deeper then 2 miles below the surface.  Nice question.
1050595
There are three types of asteroid bodies.\n\nStony:  Mostly silicates and the lighter metals that compose most of the crust of the Earth (sand)\n\nNickle Iron: Mostly Heavy Iron and Nickle, but also gold, silver, and radioactive metals, the stuff found in the Earth's core.\n\nCarbonaceous Corondite: This is mostly carbon and ice, cometary you might say... \n\nOur moon is made up of the lighter material because it was formed by a collision with another planet that tore a huge amount of crust material off which formed into the moon.  \n\nThe reason for separation of the materials into layers should be obvious but it is because when formed the liquids settle out by weight, heaviest sinks lowest displacing the rest.
1088527
Statistically it is very likely there is. There are many many billions of galaxies with billions of planets.\nThere are also some organisms found on meteors, but that’s not sure those came from the outer space.
1112924
Comes from space itself. Two particles just appear, a particle and its antiparticle counter part then they instantly annihilate each other returning that energy back to space.
966827
Mercury consists of approximately 70% metallic and 30% silicate material. The density of the planet is the second-highest in the solar system at 5430 kg/m³, only slightly less than Earth's density.\n\nA high percentage of iron.
468156
Most--not all--shooting stars (meteors) are about the size of a grain of sand. Most of these specks are left-over material from comets that have passed in and out of the inner solar system.\n\nGod should be spelled B-I-G B-A-N-G\nPBrax@netscape.com
503112
Ferrous metals are those in the vicinity of iron on the Periodic table.  They aren't actually made, per se.  They were created as the end products of stars being made and decaying.  I forget the exact detail these days; but iron (element 55?) is the heaviest one that can be made by fusion in stars, and is in very low concentrations. Elements heavier than iron are made by particle capture, decay, and whatever else.\n\nIron is extracted from its ores by various means, depending on the ore
697479
Mostly hydrogen. There is a little bit of helium and heavier elements in there as well.
359180
Chondrites and achondrites is one answer.  Chondrites are the more common form.  But another answer would be "stony" and "iron", of which the stony form is more common.  But of course you can have stony-iron meteorites too...
877658
It is held that more than 4.5 billion years ago, the surface of the Moon was a liquid magma ocean. Scientists think that one component of lunar rocks, called KREEP (potassium, rare earth elements, and phosphorus), represents the last chemical remnant of that magma ocean. KREEP is actually a composite of what scientists term incompatible elements: those that cannot fit into a crystal structure and thus were concentrated in the remaining magma. For the researchers, KREEP is a convenient tracer, useful for reporting the story of the volcanic history of the lunar crust and chronicling the frequency of impacts by comets and other celestial bodies.\n\nThe lunar crust is composed of a variety of major elements, such as oxygen, silicon, magnesium, iron, calcium, aluminium, but also contains important quantities of secondary elements, including titanium, uranium, thorium, potassium, and hydrogen. The Moon has a mean density of 3,346.2 kg/m³, making it the second densest moon in the solar system, after Io.\n\nA complete global mapping of the Moon for the abundance of major and minor elements has not yet been performed. However, some spacecraft have done so for portions of the Moon, or for certain elements. In particular, a gamma-ray spectrometer onboard the spacecraft Lunar Prospector has determined near-global abundances of iron, calcium, aluminum, magnesium, titanium, potasium, thorium, uranium, and hydrogen. The Clementine spacecraft has obtained near-global abundances for iron and titanium, but at a much higher spatial resolution.
255878
Iron. \n\nThat 46% figure for oxygen is not correct because it is only for the earth's crust. It does not include the mantle or the core. \n\nFor the entire planet iron makes up 35% of the mass of the planet and oxygen is only 30%. Silicon is 15%, magnesium 13%, and everything else is 7%. \n\nMy source is the USGS (which also cites the 46% oxygen for crust):\nhttp://pasadena.wr.usgs.gov/office/ganderson/es10/lectures/lecture04/lecture04.html