Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36966159›Full record

ReviewNPJ microgravity2023

Toward the utilisation of resources in space: knowledge gaps, open questions, and priorities.

Jan Cilliers, Kathryn Hadler, Joshua Rasera

Full text readReview
In one paragraph

Review in NPJ microgravity, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jan Cilliers *Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London, Exhibition Road, London, SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom. j.j.cilliers@imperial.ac.uk.
Kathryn Hadler *Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London, Exhibition Road, London, SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.
Joshua Rasera *Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London, Exhibition Road, London, SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0136-3308

Funding

European Space Agency (ESA) 4000123986/18/NL/PGFonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg (National Research Fund) 12489764Gouvernement du Canada | Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Conseil de Recherches en Sciences Naturelles et en Génie du Canada) 411291661
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are many open science questions in space resource utilisation due to the novelty and relative immaturity of the field. While many potential technologies have been proposed to produce usable resources in space, high confidence, large-scale design is limited by gaps in the knowledge of the local environmental conditions, geology, mineralogy, and regolith characteristics, as well as specific science questions intrinsic to each process. Further, the engineering constraints (e.g. energy, throughput, efficiency etc.) must be incorporated into the design. This work aims to summarise briefly recent activities in the field of space resource utilisation, as well as to identify key knowledge gaps, and to present open science questions. Finally, future exploration priorities to enable the use of space resources are highlighted.

Identifiers

PMID36966159
PMCPMC10039868

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.