While watching one of the videos released about mining in the game, I noticed that the ship in the video I was watching had identified the rock it was mining as "Shale" I utterly despise being one of those internet people who results resorts to such pedantry when it comes to things it absorbs on the internet, however: As a Geologist, this this stood out to me as a glaring issue. Shale is a sedimentary rock and should not be present in Space. Material found out in the vacuum of space is most likely going to be formed by accretion. That is the accumulation of material colliding to form larger masses. Asteroids thus form with wildly differing compositions that are determined by what collided at some point in the far flung past. These can be either Chondrites (Which mean they are more carbonaceous and contain mostly stony minerals) or metallic.. which means they contain mostly iron and other minerals. What neither of them contain is Shale, which is a quartz rich rock composed of silt sized particles. It forms due to the compaction of mud as lithostatic pressure compresses it with time. The particles are largley quartz, because silt sized particles are what is left after absolutely everything else has been dissolved in water at the end of the trip down from the source of the rock; usually, that means Quartz (Everything else would have broken down into it's component elements due to it's immersion in water, exposure to oxygen, or the absence of the heat and pressure necessary for it to remain stable at the surface). Given Star Citizen's focus on detail... Yeah I felt this was something I needed to Point out. I haven't seen all the rocks you can mine in the mining module, I understand game mechanics take precedent and real world bits and bobs shouldn't ALWAYS be forced into the game for the sake of arbitrary realism... I get it. But this is an especially galling mistake to see given: Sedimentary rock, you can't have sedimentation in space. Please, could it be called Absolutely Anything Else... Edited 8-30-18: Typo