Talk:Shackleton Energy Company

PopSci article on Stone

A Popular Science article on Stone and predecessor technology development efforts, perhaps leading to moon exploration, is

• Robot Subs in Space^{citation formatted in DEPTHX article},

and here is another article with timeframe and cost estimates for the moon project (which are not yet covered in the article)

• Texas Firm Draws up Plans for Orbital Gas Station.

N2e (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Image(s) needed

This article could use an image or two to make it a better article. I don't know much about Wikipedia image policies on fair use; I just know they are a bit complex. Could the article use, under fair use considerations, one of the images in a news article or from the company website? Help from an image expert is requested. N2e (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Added the {{Image}} on the Talk Header. - Ninney (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Article issues

Reading this article just now, it is clear that this ambitious project is a long way from viability and the article needs revision based on that fact. In fact, a case can be made for merging it or deleting it altogether. I gently suggest to those interested in preserving this article that it be updated and rewritten with a more encyclopedic tone. As it is, it comes off as dubious PR, with the stinger about the crowd funding failure seemingly tacked on. Jusdafax 08:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Article issues, 2.0

The main issue with this article at this point appears to be (or was, until I fixed it) the rather pejorative editing regarding the company's existence (yes it still exists), the website's existence (contra the article as it read until this morning, yes it does exist), etc. Shackleton may never get off the ground, but that's no reason to editorialize against it on Wikipedia. Moreover, the rather strident "no legal mechanism exists" language is simply incorrect, or at least incomplete, and would equally apply to Google-backed Planetary Resources if it were true (do we really think Google is stupid and/or burning money on something from which they think they cannot profit?). Indeed, there was actually a Wall Street Journal article on this just the other day, here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-in-charge-of-outer-space-1495195097 These sorts of stories appear with growing frequency in the major financial media as companies like Google and SpaceX (and Boeing and Lockheed Martin) push more deeply into this (pardon the term) space.

If I have time, I'll provide some edits to that section, but the section really shouldn't exist, or at least shouldn't exist to any more negative degree than it does in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_Resources (oh wait, it doesn't appear there at all).

Someone seems to have it in for this company. I have no axe to grind about the company, but this is terribly inappropriate for Wikipedia. HenryV1415 (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shackleton Energy Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130105032615/http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1914 to http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1914
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130105032615/http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1914 to http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1914

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Not notable

What's notable about this wannabe 'company'? They've failed to raise any funding, they create no product. They have managed to generate enough PR to get this article ... which is about as notable as dozens of music groups that actually -do- produce something. Twang (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)