Interlune

Packet identity

Packet ID

organizations:entity-interlune

Packet SHA-256 identity

aa5a6e1b8d59a25ac1a8364c2511cb172d8fe082011eb56730ce13f00132bb62

Corpus SHA-256 identity

8fa944604ca189f5a9216ca59f640ad2ca20972ad512f2f4970764716782e18d

Release ID

public-alpha-2026-07-26-research-visuals-r14

Source commit

3eb036fce3d711336c8c605625895e8a2e799ab0

Frozen corpus date

2026-07-25

Primary records

1

Reference sources

1

Questions and exclusions

Required questions

1. Required question 1 (exact ID: question-1)
   Does the official source establish the entity, current program, and bounded capability described?
2. Required question 2 (exact ID: question-2)
   Are potential fit, risks, access, geography, and engagement boundaries current and proportionate?
3. Required question 3 (exact ID: question-3)
   Could any wording imply partnership, endorsement, availability, procurement, authority, or affiliation that does not exist?

Explicit exclusions

• Indexing is not endorsement, due diligence completion, outreach, procurement, or a relationship.
• No aggregate organization score or sponsor-purchased ranking is permitted.

Requested controlled scopes: ecosystem-due-diligence, information-science

Frozen-evidence decision window: 90 days from the packet freeze. Not applicable to this packet family.

Complete primary record set

Every record below has one primary packet owner. Decisions must bind to the exact record and packet fingerprints; a changed lesson body, evidence grade, citation, locator, source snapshot, requirement, policy, release, or commit expires the old packet.

1. ecosystem-organization · entity-interlune

   Interlune

   Record fingerprint

   1fbdd87df4ce3b40173d7b72582bafbc4d3a20f301730dacf7e338b73b1dadc9

   Minimum approvals

   1

   Required scope groups

   bounded-competence: ecosystem-due-diligence

   High-consequence domains

   None under the named two-person rule

   Review state

   pending

   Published human decisions

   0

   Inspect the complete frozen review surface

   ID

   entity-interlune

   Legacy ID

   org-company--027

   Slug

   interlune

   Name

   Interlune

   URL

   https://www.interlune.space/↗ (opens external site in a new tab)

   Category

   Company and applied technology

   Geography

   Washington, United States

   Relevance

   enabling

   Engagement

   Proposed only, subject to a future fit check and then-current access rules: if a lunar resource workstream is defined, use public data first and consider a paid technical review only after environmental, legal, and maturity checks. No outreach, eligibility determination, commitment, or procurement has occurred.

   Capability

   Lunar resource prospecting, extraction and processing concepts, payload development, and resource-market formation.

   Entity Kind

   private lunar resources company

   Link Checked At

   2026-07-25

   Relationship

   indexed only; no formal relationship

   Engagement Status

   proposed; not undertaken

   Profile Summary

   Interlune is developing technology and a commercial model to extract and supply lunar resources, with public emphasis on helium-3 and lunar prospecting or processing.

   Potential Fit

   Could inform resource-prospecting, excavation, beneficiation, logistics, and market-assumption critique for lunar precursor infrastructure, but not generation-ship feasibility directly.

   Risks

   1. Lunar resource quantity, recoverability, economics, ownership, and demand are highly uncertain.
   2. Extraction raises planetary stewardship, international-law, contamination, and governance concerns.
   3. Company technology maturity, mission schedule, access, and performance are not independently verified.

   Evidence Boundary

   Official-link review: the official site was reachable and identifies lunar resource harvesting, but the reviewed public page offered limited technical detail. Public descriptions, performance, maturity, access, procurement, and current availability were not independently verified; independent review pending.

   Conflicts

   Conflicts were not assessed beyond publisher disclosure in this official-link review; financial, contracting, leadership, and institutional conflicts were not independently investigated.

   What Would Change

   Prospecting data, relevant-environment demonstrations, transparent mass and energy balances, and a lawful stewardship framework would materially change fit.

Frozen source snapshots

Source inclusion does not determine the disposition. Reviewers must inspect the cited locator and relation, note inaccessible material, and identify stronger or conflicting evidence.

Offline packet and worksheet

Downloads contain no reviewer contact details. Downloading does not create an account or store a review response in the GShips application. Ordinary provider request or analytics logs may record the download request. Work locally: the public site has no review account, upload endpoint, or decision-submission API.

Do not paste a completed decision, identity documents, private contact data, confidential conflict evidence, medical information, controlled material, or exploit details into a public form. Until a separately authorized private handoff exists, retain the completed worksheet locally.

Packet schema · JSON · Decision-bundle schema · JSON

Validate offline

Use Node.js 22.13.0 or later. Keep the packet, worksheet, completed decision, and all six kit files together in a local directory.

1. Download the six kit files below. Complete a copy of the JSON template offline and preserve its templateFingerprint.
2. Finalize a separate output file.

   node finalize-review-decision.mjs \
     --input DRAFT.json \
     --output COMPLETED.json

   This marks the copy complete and calculates an unkeyed canonical bundle fingerprint. A fingerprint detects changes; it is not a reviewer signature.

3. Validate the packet and completed copy.

   node check-review-decisions.mjs \
     --packet PACKET.json \
     --decision COMPLETED.json

   Add another --decision for each independent reviewer.

4. Interpret the result narrowly. A zero exit proves structural consistency only. Neither command appoints or qualifies a reviewer, establishes independence, accepts a decision, or authorizes publication.

• Bundle finalizer
• Validator command
• Decision policy module
• Fingerprint and packet-integrity module
• Review-domain policy module
• Canonical synthesis and interactive review specs