Talk:Commercial use of space

An international audience!
Wikipedia is a global site, especially the english wikipedia with many different countries using it! Unfortunately, this is written from a US context (e.g President Obama instead of US President Obama and Department of Defense instead of US Department of Defense) This may seem nitpicky but it should be changed to reflect the global status of Wikipedia. American english is ok, but just because Wikipedia is based in the US doesn't mean it should be solely-US! By AWwikipedia - Sydney, NSW - I like pineapples. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The beginning
Hi I think this will be a cool topic to explore, and will welcome any help in getting it to feature status as soon as possible. Please feel free to add insights, thoughts, references, editing skills, etc... Thanks again, --Brian 18:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow
Keep up the good work. And to think that someone initially marked this as a speedy delete. Glad I rescued it. Colby Peterson 03:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

defining commercial
Not all commercial activity is for the purpose of generating a profit. (Example: a non-profit school engages in the commercial activity of charging tuition, but its purpose is not to generate profit.) The article already seems to incorporate this: how commercial GPS system (as mentioned in the lead) make a profit? Sdsds 05:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the Article
Overall, this is a very interesting topic to be exploring and sharing information about. However, one of the large issues is the lack of citations. There are many figures, such as growth rate and consumer usage, that are uncited. There is only 1 reference, to the FAA, which does not cover the figures in this article. These figures cannot be presented, especially as precisely as they are, without some support to show where they are from.

Another issue is the need to remove weasel words, as I have done. While they may express what seem like logical ideas, explaining that something grew "quickly" is not very descriptive, and also not quantifiable. Also, saying that things are all that make up a certain industry (thinking of the satellite part) requires more citations to show that there, in fact, are no other components to the industry. Also, describing the motives and feelings of space tourists is not only not cited, but not backed by claims that can be verified.

Finally, this seems like a very broad scope to have for one article, the major divide being between the commercialized satellite usage, and space tourism. It seems like these should be two separate articles, as they cover two very different topics.

All in all, an interesting article; it just needs some work. Schlitzer90 (talk) 05:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Rename to space economy or history of space commercialization / merge with space industry
For now, I've redirected space economy here, but I think it may be a better title. There is even a good definition, as cited here ("all public and private actors involved in developing and providing space-enabled products and services. It comprises a long value-added chaing, starting with research and development actors and manufacturers of space hardware and ending with the providers of space-enabled products and services to final users."). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 00:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC) I also created an article on the space industry before stumbling upon this article. I wonder if they should be merged, or are the concepts of space industry and space economy/commercialization of space separate enough. I wonder if this article shouldn't be about the process of how space started to be commercialized, whereas the space industry would cover the other topics currently present in this article (services offered). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 01:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

To deliver energy and Wi-Fi
According to U.S. Army Lieutenant General Steve Kwast, China has "built the organization, and has the strategy, the doctrine, the technology, and the Builders for their Guardian Froce of Space". He also sayd:

"Today with technology that is not developmental, [humans are able] to deliver any human being from any place on the planet Earth to any other in less than a hour, to deliver Wi-Fi from space, where you never need a cell tower to connect, to deliver energy from space where you never have to plug your phone in a trickle charge, and you can use that energy over time. It can be applied to cars, to houses. The technology of Edison and Tesla that we live within our energy enviroment, our paradigm today, is expensive, it's dangerous and it's wasteful [...] the power of space will change world power forever."

Russia and China are the main competitors of the U.S.A. for the space economy. Space is strategic for business affairs not solely for the informations vehiculated on the waves flow, but also for the energy that it can spread in the space. Tesla did it with an omnidirectional antenna. But there seem to exist more modern and sustainable technologies.

Being said by a ranked official who had worked for more decades with scientists and engineers, it is a WP:reliable source. Applications of space economy to deliver Wi-Fi and enrgy power from space can be cited in the WP article.Regards.

Wiki Education assignment: National and International Cybersecurity Policy
— Assignment last updated by Trt73520 (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)