Talk:In situ resource utilization

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the In situ resource utilization article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

List of unsolved problems

After reading on ISRU and discussing, I've discovered that I am not even aware what is all required to practically realize ISRU, sure it depends on specific material. Nonetheless, maybe it makes sense to establish a page for "unsolved problems for ISRU" similar to these lists? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_unsolved_problems — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.26.72.143 (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neofuel

The Neofuel references ( 4 and 5 currently) need deleting or putting in some kind of perspective - its far from present technology levels - perhaps a 'futuristic proposals' section is needed? Comments? sbandrews (t) 18:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Neofuel concept is lower technology level than any of the other technologies. Extracting water is called 'distillation' and putting water through a rocket is a 'hot water rocket', these are not high tech operations. This is not in any sense 'far from present technology levels'; this is so far inside that it is laughable. The article currently talks about glass fibre production on the moon. FFS glass fiber production on the earth requires an entire factory. In what sense is melting and distilling ice a far future proposal in comparison???? The only problem with the neofuel concept is simple, we don't know where the ice is. That is not a technology problem, that's an exploration issue.WolfKeeper (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this exemplifies how the article would benefit from having more structure. ISRU topics can be divided up a number of ways -- near-term vs. futuristic is an important one. Dividing by location (as the "examples" section has now) is also important, and the "Classificiation" section briefly outlines another way to think about it. But having discussion of a single topic spread out among the different ways its classified is just asking for duplication of text (at a minimum). Perhaps a section describing the different classification schemes could be followed by individual sub-topic sections that describe how that particular sub-topic would be classified?

Specifically as regards neofuel, referencing some *other* source that describes the neofuel website author and his ideas would be the encyclopedic way to go. Sdsds 21:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self published sources are permitted if the author has proven expertise on the subject he writes about. Are you challenging his credentials?WolfKeeper (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good, added a new section 'beyond current technology'.sbandrews (t) 22:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That classification is OR. On what are you basing it?WolfKeeper (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try and reorganize the whole thing with Moon-Mars as two big sections, feel free to revert mercilessly :) sbandrews (t) 16:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mars

Is NASA even thinking about using ISRU for the return trip - we need to put their position here if they have one - kind of reminds me of the Moon landing debate about direct or moon orbit rendezvous :) sbandrews (t) 22:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The google search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22mars+sample+return%22+isru+site%3Anasa.gov shows some interesting material. Sdsds 22:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nice - from there I found my way to here - which seems to me to indicate a direct approach - Exploration of Mars puts it delayed to 2016 or 2025 - at least that gives plenty of time to develop the technology :) sbandrews (t) 23:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is likely

The lead currently includes, "it is likely missions to planetary surfaces will also use solar power." I don't understand the tense used here. The Mars Exploration Rovers are already being very successful using solar power on a planetary surface! Sdsds 17:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agreed - needs changing sbandrews (t) 17:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title

The capitalization of the article title is questionable. I'm guessing the departure from the Wikipedia Manual of Style is based on the use of the phrase to derive the acronym, ISRU. I think this is insufficient reason, but maybe that's just me. I don't want to disturb other editors who may have different opinions so I won't "boldly" make the change, but I would appreciate some discussion, perhaps a poll? Paul D. Anderson 04:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the point. Are there many places in the referenced literature that use "In-situ resource utilization"? (Sdsds - Talk) 05:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

support - I'd be happy with moving to "In-situ resource utilization" sbandrews (t) 07:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility would be to follow the example of the NASA article: rather than being a redirect, ISRU could be the actual name of the article. (Sdsds - Talk) 18:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to In-situ resource utilization sbandrews (t) 18:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article structure by location or by resource

The article might be more compelling if, rather than structuring the sections by location, they were structured by resource. So for instance, "Water" is immediately understood by the reader as a resource which, if found in-situ, would be utilizable. So too "Oxygen". "Methane", "Carbon-dioxide", etc, would perhaps need more motivation. To my reading the article goes into some ideas (e.g. the manufacture of solar cells or glass in-situ) way too soon compared with the mining of basics like life-support and propulsion supplies. (Sdsds - Talk) 18:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly concur Paul D. Anderson 20:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other locations

I noticed that someone added this section, with sources, and then another user deleted it, simply stating "no". No, what? What was wrong with the section? (I really hate it when people delete material without taking it to the talk page or at least giving more than "no" as to the reason for deletion — even if I agree with the deletion, which here I do not.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It looked pretty good to me. I propose we reinstate it. At present the article only refers to Moon and Mars, but there are many other locations to consider. Especially for example the asteroids, both main belt and NEO, as well as Phobos and Deimos.Charles 20:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Date Reference

The link in reference 13 "NASA Capability Roadmaps Executive Summary. NASA." is out of date and please update. Andrew Swallow (talk) 08:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section unreferenced

I removed this section from the main article until it can be supported with references:

(Heading: "Criticism") While it is without doubt that ISRU will provide a spur to technological innovation that will one day prove useful, a question mark hangs over whether it is a cost effective technique for accelerating present exploration of space. One critique points out that the rather long lead in time proposed for lunar ISRU means that for the first decade of lunar base build up ISRU may actually hinder the program by taking up valuable cargo space for little return. However, lunar resources are only one of those available for use.

It appears to be original research (i.e., the personal opinion of the editor) rather than documentation of public criticisms.Sanddune777 (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the ref was this, taken out by a recent edit, probably as the link is/has been broken for a while,

[1]^{[failed verification]} sbandrews (t) 21:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

"mining" :
- {{cite web | title = Mining and Manufacturing on the Moon | publisher = NASA | url = http://aerospacescholars.jsc.nasa.gov/HAS/cirr/em/6/6.cfm | format = html | accessdate = 2007-01-14 }}
- empty

DumZiBoT (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shallow impact

The lead talks about "asteroids", but the sole one mentioned is Ceres? How about the tens of thousands of NEAs, all easier to reach than Luna, Mars, or Ceres? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, It would be very interesting to go through these little guys and make some estimates of the minimum mission velocity cost to reach them, their spectral class, likely size, etc. I am sure people in the asteroid community or at NASA must be doing such work, in order to assess the costs and the likely materials available, so we can prioritize them as candidates for potential use. If any of our editors know of such published material, it would make a good references for this article. Wwheaton (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does RASSOR deserve a paragraph?

NASA’s Regolith Advanced Surface Systems Operations Robot or “RASSOR” (pronounced Razor) was mentioned in this newspaper article.

|url=http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/missions/commercial/moon-express-nasa
|title=Moon Express prepares to test hardware at NASA’s Shuttle Landing Facility
|journal=Spaceflight Insider
|last1=Jason Rhian
|date=November 4, 2014

Does the RASSOR deserve a paragraph on this Wikipage? There may be more information about the RASSOR elsewhere. Andrew Swallow (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recycling Centaur Rockets

Does in situ include the man made resources that have been abandoned in orbit, like the Centaur rockets? They could be repaired and used. There are hundreds of Centaur rockets in disposal orbits just beyond Geosynchronous Orbit. They all have simlar H2 - LOX engines which could be used for spare parts to repair the better ones, and LOX from the moon and H2 from earth will be available about the same time a repair factory could be put in place. The result is free rocket engines already in space. 23:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Food

Would it make sense to add a section for farming technologies? Christopher Overbeck (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on In situ resource utilization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on In situ resource utilization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Propellant

I do not think that lunar water will ever be used to make fuel. It is too valuable as water. 40% of the lunar surface is Oxygen by weight, so extracting Oxygen from the lunar surface is 16/18 parts of the fuel. The other 2/18 parts of the fuel (the Hydrogen) can be brought up from earth relatively easily, so extracting it from the lunar surface water for fuel will not be cost effective. 50.206.176.154 (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Splitting the water to make Hydrogen and Oxygen separately takes an enormous amount of energy (a little more than you get back when it is used as fuel). That would require a lot of solar panels to be dedicated to making fuel, which could be used for other purposes, and those solar panels also need to be made which also takes energy. ISRU cost is measured in energy. 2601:155:4301:CB00:D1E7:5619:6A53:3B9F (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]