Talk:Planetary Resources

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Stub[edit]

Hi all, this is obviously a stub, working on mining some more info. TANSTAAFL (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It's going to stay a stub until 2012/04/24, when they release some additional prelimiary information about their plan. No real expansion of the article is possible until then. Gopher65talk 23:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Criticism[edit]

it's just a foolish and incredibly expensive idea that won't be economically viable for at least the next 100 years, probably it's only the trailer for a new Cameron's film :)

gaetano marano [ ghostNASA.com ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.108.211 (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Is that a cited article, or just your own opinion? --Kuzwa (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, 62.10.108.211 but please remember this isn't a web forum. Also, any criticism regarding Asteroid mining as a whole should probably go into that article. Criticism on the company itself, if cited, should definitely be placed in this article... like how Seattle is too rainy to HQ a company in ;P TANSTAAFL (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Website is live[edit]

Hi all, just finished watching the streaming press conference. The company's website is live now, and here is the FAQ section: [1] TANSTAAFL (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Not actually mining to Earth[edit]

Per the video the aim is concentrated on providing fuel, oxygen, water to space infrastructure(like ISS). Mining to provide minerals for Earth is not envisioned(but not excluded in very long term). We should add this to article. Lots of people think this is about mining resources for Earth based industries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.139.49 (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

And they will actually get to mining Asteroids at all—regardless of where the asteroidal resources are economically transported and "used"—only after some years, and at considerable risk, which these entrepreneurs and their investors are bearing. But notably, they intend to be cash-flow positive, and make money in the early years of selling the services (see this Forbes article, or others that cover the topic) of their space telescopes (astrophysics observation, Earth observation, etc.), payload space for small payloads in their satellites, and selling data-relay services from the (apparently) optical laser inner-solar system communication network they intend to hive. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Arkyd -> Planetary Resources?[edit]

It's unclear to me whether Arkyd was basically a space telescope company that has since been relaunched as an asteroid mining company under the new name Planetary Resources, or whether this was the idea behind Arkyd from the very beginning. Eric Anderson is quoted in at least one article saying that asteroid mining was the idea all along, they just wanted to keep it secret. Well, OK, but ... as I remember, Google's announced long-term goal is to "understand the web." Calling Planetary Resources an asteroid mining company might be considered as truthful (not just at this point, but for the foreseeable future) as calling Google an Artificial Intelligence company. I've rewritten the introduction to reflect how Planetary Resources actually makes money right now. In the meantime, it might be a good idea to start an Arkyd Astronautics article; that company seems to clear the GNG bar pretty easily all by itself. Yakushima (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There is an interesting article which can be found here which talked about some of the goals of Arkyd in an article written in July of last year: http://www.geekwire.com/2011/nasa-veteran-emerges-helm-arkyd-stealthy-space-travel-startup/
This article does indicate some government documents (articles of incorporation) that would be useful in terms of adding to this article. Since what appears to be mainly a rebranding effort, I think it would be foolish to creating a separate article on Arkyd Aeronautics. It doesn't appear to have any independent existence to Planetary Resources and be largely a duplication of information that really needs to remain in this article. If anything, I'd recommend that Arkyd Aerospace (and perhaps even just Arkyd) be turned into redirects into this article. --Robert Horning (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
A redirect might be the best course, especially since Arkyd might not have cleared the GNG bar prior to this "unveiling." Yakushima (talk) 10:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I've included the Geekwire article on Arkyd, to help substantiate the date the company was founded. Yakushima (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
In the interest of being bold, I went ahead and made the redirects for both Arkyd Astronautics and Arkyd pointing to this article. This is an action which can be reversed later, and indeed it may be useful to have Arkyd point to articles about the satellites that Planetary Resources is manufacturing as they still are maintaining the Arkyd moniker but is instead more of a brand name than necessarily the name of the company. That can be done in the future though, as such articles have yet to be written. I presume more information is going to be written about on the Arkyd 100 satellite series, but the only information I can find at the moment is the press conference launching this company's new name as Planetary Resources. --Robert Horning (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Per the company's FAQ on their website:

Are you affiliated with Arkyd Astronautics?
Yes. Before we publicly announced the company, we referred to ourselves as Arkyd Astronautics. We have officially changed our name to Planetary Resources, Inc. The Arkyd name lives on in our spacecraft line of products.

TANSTAAFL (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Much ado about the website?[edit]

BatteryIncluded understandably objects [2] to my hiving the website off into a separate section. Notability is not the issue, however (articles typically contain plenty of information that's not notable in itself). Rather, it's a matter of WP:UNDUE, if anything. I don't want to delete all of the information about the marketing "tease" done with the website, but if it could be squeezed into a single sentence, with trivial details dispensed with, it would be better. The detailed information had a real purpose back when there might have been some doubt as to whether the site actually belonged to Planetary Resources and not to some spammer collecting e-mail addresses -- especially when little else was known. Now that we have a much better idea of what's going on, there's no need to repeat what will be self-evident to those browsing the site. Perhaps a reference with a Wayback machine link could illustrate (as much as anyone might want to know) how it used to look. Yakushima (talk) 06:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the website tactics are basically normal SOP these days. It really could be summarized more. Maybe combine it into the history section, along with the press conference? TANSTAAFL (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I figure that was the case in the early stages where speculation is a useful publicity technique. After the press conference and their declared objectives, there is no need to rely and describe their web site as presented currently. A one-liner in the history section may sufice. My opinion, any way. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC).
Ah, I see there is a discussion here about this already. I removed this section entirely because it did nothing but talk about the existence of a website (which is a given for any company as of a decade ago), and how a signup form works in general. That isn't something that should be discussed in this article. It was just there as filler, adding literally nothing of interest to the article. Gopher65talk 14:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
As to the tactics used to garner attention, they're already covered (with sources, for the most part) in the main history section. The website section didn't explain why the nearly blank website was interesting ... because it wasn't;). It was just there to seem mysterious.
An additional and entirely separate problem with the website section was that it was opinionated OR. The only reference was a whois query result. However, I'm confident that there is at least one blogger out there who wrote 10,000 words just about that blank website, so I'm sure a source or two could be located if someone wanted to:P. Gopher65talk 15:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
with all due respect, a whois query IS NOT "original research", it's a primary information source. unless you are questioning the reliability of the database? o__0 Lx 121 (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Oops. It was reverted. I also think that it shouuld be deleted; If someone feels compelled to analyse their one-page web site, a one-liner in the history section would sufice. As it is, it offers no revelant information. Should we start a consensus. The consensus seems to delete it. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, we should start a consensus. I deleted it and was reverted, and I'm not going to get into an edit war over this:). If necessary I'd be willing to compromise on a single sentence (or so), but it really shouldn't be necessary to mention it at all. "A website exists. They used it the same way every media friendly company does". Such tactics are normal these days and are thus completely unnoteable. Gopher65talk 13:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

unindenting

just because a thing is "obvious" does not mean it shouldn't be included in an encyclopedic article about the subject. apples are round (usually) & red (when ripe, often). both of which are points worth mentioning in an article about apples.

the fact of the website's existence is relevant, obviously.

& the website was used as part of the "unveiling" process, therefore part of "history"

Lx 121 (talk) 05:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The website deserved its own section between the press release and the public announcement. It will still be in the previous versions of this wiki. However, now and going forward, I imagine most people would be interested in what this company does, what's the specs on its equipment/satellites, who is involved, etc. Having a whole section devoted to the website is really not necessary, its not notable. Maybe if it had some really cool and amazing features, it would require a section, but, alas, it isn't much different from any other website that's trying to sell a durable good. TANSTAAFL (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
i don't care about whether it has a separate section or not, but it was part of the history of the "unveiling" & it's relevant. & if a company is notable enough to have a wp article, then the company website is a relevant mention. Lx 121 (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Taking a look at your talk page, Lx 121, is evident that you have a history of pushing issues that lack notability; I strongly suggest you realize the consensus in this issue is against you on the basis on WP:NOTABILITY and you do drop your edit war. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
hi & thank-you for "checking up" on me, & i return the favour. you might have noticed also the amount of quality work that i do & the infrequency with which my work is "revised". AND noticed the age of many of the conversations you have cited. with all due respect: i) 3:2 is not a "consensus" ii) if you read through the wikirule you cited, then you will find that "notability" is germane to the subject as a whole. if planetary resources is "notable" enough to have an article, it is desirable for that article to be comprehensive. if you want to delete the whole article as non-notable, i invite your proposal Lx 121 (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I knew it. A gnome warrior. I bet you already wrote an article of the notaility of bullshit. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, all major articles slowly go through a pruning process where less useful information is removed because it detracts from the major topic of the article. Look at the talk page archives of any featured article (such as Universe or Canada) and you'll find a massive list of sentences, paragraphs, and even entire sections that were deemed to be insufficiently notable to be included in a summary article like those that appear on Wikipedia. Before you accuse me of being a deletionist or a minimalist, I've been on both sides of such debates more than once. I usually favour inclusionist arguments, but there is a limit to my inclusionist nature. *points up* I think this illustrates that limit nicely:P. "They have a website, it's cool and use to be mysterious" (paraphrased) is not useful information, and shouldn't be in the article. — Gopher65talk 04:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Description of the Akyd 100-, 200- and 300-series spacecraft[edit]

There has been some coverage of the nature of the three announced phases of the companies proposed spacecraft, for example, here — and the news conference named specific models (Arkyd 100, Arkyd 101, Arkyd 200, etc.) and described them. It might be appropriate to add information about the spacecraft to the article as reliable sources for the details are found. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree! Does anyone have any sources for this? — Gopher65talk 13:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I've looked around a bit, and I can't find anything about the designs of these spacecraft. There is some *very* basic information on their website about the initial version of the Arkyd-100 series that is currently in development (named "leo"), but that's it. No specifics AFAI can find. I hope someone else has better luck. — Gopher65talk 00:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Done I have recently added a section to the article on Spacecraft models, with cited sources. N2e (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

In-depth secondary source article[edit]

  • There is an in-depth article recently published in NVATE on Planetary Resources: link is here. This would serve as a reliable secondary source for improving the Wikipedia article. N2e (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
"Solution: Near-earth asteroids contain (literally) trillions of dollars worth of resources and materials that could be harvested and brought back to Earth. A number of them are also energetically easier to get to than the surface of the Moon. That tremendous bounty creates a huge incentive for the private sector to create the requisite detection, propulsion and harvesting technology to capture these precious metals and minerals."
"Technology: Planetary resources led by Peter Diamandis and Eric Anderson is developing the technology and spacecraft to detect, harvest, capture and bring back these resources from Near-Earth asteroids." N2e (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

space and asteroid "ownership", "taking" and "claiming"[edit]

seems the UN already has a few treaties about outer space. the true property interests of this space business, if any, are not clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.95.229 (talkcontribs) 04:44, 23 January 2013‎ (UTC)

Nor is it clear whether the UN has jurisdiction. See Space law#The future of space law and Metalaw. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The "world heritage" problem and the "economic effects" problem[edit]

I would say a few matters are not covered here.

The "world heritage" viewpoint states that everything in outer space is commonly owned by all humanity. There is a clear issue when private parties take it for private profit.

Another matter is the economic effects of suddenly bringing large amounts of precious materials into the earth's economy. For example, what if a huge quantity of platinum or gold is discovered and brought to Earth? The entire contents of Fort Knox could be rendered nearly worthless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bullion_Depository


— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.252.247 (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC) 

Small DARPA contract in Nov 2013[edit]

Planetary Resources has been awarded a DARPA contract for a Spacecraft Hypervisor. The source makes an attempt to describe what a hypervisor is. N2e (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

video with more details,prices,slides[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhNDXfLixyg&index=8&list=PLbbCsk7MUIGdscYLrtDFM4mpQeRPnrOyO

Chris Lewicki - The Coming Interplenatery Economy

I found this, the series 100 is projected at 4 millions dev cost in one of the slides.first time i see some prices.100 $ per liter for water. --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No space selfies...[edit]

The ARKYD Kickstarter campaign was discontinued. Backers can get a refund of their pledge. --Avatar (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

self-cited intricate detail[edit]

I removed a large chunk of material that was self-cited to the company with this edit. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)