Supply issues don't even factor in the headache of separating the final product from all the side products you don't want, which is usually the majority of the cost of pretty much anything made (as a ChE example, PFTRs and CSTRs cost pennies to make vs the cost of operating pretty much any separations unit such as a distillation column or liquid liquid extractor). Sure, you can irradiate Ir-191 and Ir-193 and your final product is going to include Pt-192 and Pt-194 and a bunch of other by-products and some remaining raw materials. You're going to have to expend significant amounts of energy separating those either using gas centrifuges, using ionic chemistry, or some form of reversible column system, all of which take energy, resources and have a waste stream. Entropy is a bitch, and you need to expend energy overcoming it. If manufacturing rare earths was really so 'relatively easy', as you put it, we'd be doing it rather than trying to dig something found at 5 ppb out of the earth's crust.Finally, Uranium-235 is not abundant, it makes up less than 1% or Uranium (which is at about 4 ppm in the soil), so you'd have to purify and separate that too before you can even begin your nuclear alchemy because 238 decays via useless alpha radiation.[/citation]
So what if you have to expend lots of energy to do so?
We already have more than enough to go around for everyone on the planet as is, and then some.
The only issue I'm noticing is a repetitive notion of 'monetary costs' - which is a ridiculous and a tiresome excuse.
I'm not saying things would be a 'snap'... but most of the needs of every human on this planet can be taken cared of by using relatively small amount of existing resources.
We have reached abundance without heavy recycling... the problem is that most of the worlds resources are controlled by the very rich and few - while the rest get very little - which in turn drives the economy, and manufacturers often make items with 'planned obsolescence' because they will force people to buy new things within an approximate time-frame.
By using recycling technology to its fullest (currently, the numbers range up to perhaps 20%), we could constantly use and reuse old resources and matter (such as mountains of trash - which are plentiful on this planet) and technology by breaking them down into base elements and reconstituting them into new ones - the amount of 'new/fresh' resources to be used would probably be minimal by comparison.
Quality wouldn't be an issue unless you use smaller amounts of raw matter that can affect structural integrity or the type of process being used (having said that, not all 'cheap' products are bad in quality - most of my 'cheap' products last a lot longer than so called 'brand' names).
But, fine, going into space to mine certain materials that can take time to make here on Earth... sure, why not... at least until we perfect our methods for man-made resources (but even then, there's a good possibility that others will find some ways to justify certain ideas).
To that end, I would prefer we have constructed orbital habitats, bases on the moon and were in the midst of exploring the solar system (all of which could have been done about a decade ago, but never was because it was deemed as 'too expensive' - many things are viewed like this, but when it comes to resources/technology/manpower capability to pull it off, it's not so much of an issue actually - the artificial perception of 'money/cost/value' is whats blinding numerous people to what can be done.