Cited by 173Planetary Science and ExplorationSpace Exploration and TechnologySpacecraft Design and Technology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Progress Made in Lunar In Situ Resource Utilization under NASA’s Exploration Technology and Development Program

Sanders, Gerald B., Larson, William E.·2013·Journal of Aerospace Engineering

Abstract

Incorporation of in situ resource utilization (ISRU) and the production of mission-critical consumables for propulsion, power, and life support into mission architectures can greatly reduce the mass, cost, and risk of missions, leading to a sustainable and affordable approach to human exploration beyond Earth. ISRU and its products can also greatly affect how other exploration systems are developed, including determining which technologies are important or enabling. Although the concept of lunar ISRU has existed for more than 40 years, the technologies and systems had not progressed much past simple laboratory proof-of-concept tests. With the release of the Vision for Space Exploration in 2004 with the goal of harnessing the Moon’s resources, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) initiated the ISRU project in the Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP) to develop the technologies and systems needed to meet this goal. In the 5 years of work in the ISRU Project, significant advancements and accomplishments occurred in several important areas of lunar ISRU. Also, two analog field tests held in Hawaii in 2008 and 2010 demonstrated all the steps in ISRU capabilities required, along with the integration of ISRU products and hardware with propulsion, power, and cryogenic storage systems. This paper will review the scope of the ISRU Project in the ETDP, ISRU incorporation, development strategies used by the ISRU project, and ISRU development and test accomplishments over the 5 years of funded project activity.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1061/(asce)as.1943-5525.0000208

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 14 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Clark L, 2009, Precursor in-situ lunar oxygen testbed (PILOT) Hawaii Field Testing Nov 2008., AIAA Space 2009
  2. Stoeser D., 2010, Design and specifications for the highland regolith prototype simulants NU-LHT-1M and -2M., Rep. TM-2010-216438

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Sanders, G. B., & Larson, W. E.
Affiliations
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (US)
  • Kennedy Space Center (US)
Corresponding author
Sanders, Gerald B.
Venue
Journal of Aerospace Engineering
Published
2013-01
Volume
26
Issue
1
Pages
5-17
ISSN
  • 0893-1321 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-5525
OpenAlex
W3186299794
Cited by
173
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Aerospace Engineering (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Space and Planetary Science › Planetary Science and Exploration
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Space Exploration and Technology
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Spacecraft Design and Technology
Keywords
lunar in-situ resource utilization, lunar propellant production, cryogenic storage, human lunar exploration, Vision for Space Exploration, technology development strategy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review