Talk:In situ resource utilization

message: 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)
thread_title: List of unsolved problems

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Mars

message: 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)
replies: text: agreed - needs changing sbandrews (t) 17:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  it is likely 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Moved to In-situ resource utilization sbandrews (t) 18:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: 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)
replies: text: I strongly concur Paul D. Anderson 20:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article structure by location or by resource 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Other locations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Out of Date Reference 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism section unreferenced 

message: 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" :
** 

**  empty 
DumZiBoT (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Shallow impact

message: 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)
thread_title:  Does RASSOR deserve a paragraph? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Recycling Centaur Rockets

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

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120326081335/http://www.moonbase-italia.org/PAPERS/D1S2-MB%20Assessment/D2S2-06EnergySupport/D2S2-06EnergySupport.Criswell.pdf to http://www.moonbase-italia.org/PAPERS/D1S2-MB%20Assessment/D2S2-06EnergySupport/D2S2-06EnergySupport.Criswell.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615120453/http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/advanced/mars.html to http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/advanced/mars.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070226143427/http://spot.colorado.edu/~meyertr/rwgs/rwgs.html to http://spot.colorado.edu/~meyertr/rwgs/rwgs.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017033321/http://rtreport.ksc.nasa.gov/techreports/2001report/100/103.html to http://rtreport.ksc.nasa.gov/techreports/2001report/100/103.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061009034854/http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2005/TM-2005-214014.pdf to http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2005/TM-2005-214014.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060828111855/http://www.conforms.com/pdf/ultratech/UTD101.pdf to http://www.conforms.com/pdf/ultratech/UTD101.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061220152248/http://www.newmars.com/wiki/index.php/ISRU_solar_cells to http://www.newmars.com/wiki/index.php/ISRU_solar_cells
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rocket Propellant