Talk:Space tourism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Space tourism has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	Space tourism is part of WikiProject Tourism, which is building a comprehensive guide to tourism-related articles on Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit the attached article, join or discuss the project. Editors are currently needed to tag tourism-related articles with {{TourismProject}}.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

	Space Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
B	This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
	WikiProject Spaceflight	Importance to Spaceflight: High
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Suggestion: New page for "Common Spaceflight Roles" 2 $20 Million 3 Space Tourist 4 Helen Sharman 5 fixing the References 6 Space Cadets section 7 Future Space Tourists 1 8 Space Adventures 9 FAA astronaut wings 10 Spaceflight participant 11 Links 12 Space Hotel 13 Future Space Tourists 14 Fair use rationale for Image:Quid-spaceage.jpg

[edit] Suggestion: New page for "Common Spaceflight Roles"

Any ideas/opinions on the following suggesstions (60.53.55.52 14:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)):

1. New page for "Spaceflight Role"
   • We can refer Military rank as example to list down all common spaceflight roles/rank (used by NASA, russian or any other recognized party) including their history, terminology, etc. Eg:
     • Mission Specialist
     • Payload Specialist
     • Commander
     • Flight engineer
     • Spaceflight Participant
     • etc
2. New page for "Spaceflight Participant"
   • Refer pages like Mission_Specialist, Payload_Specialist, etc as examples.
3. Move all relevant info into their respective page
   • All information about spaceflight participant will move out to new page and will be linked to/from "space tourism"
   • Establish linkage from "space tourist" to "spaceflight participant" or vice verca.
4. Remove redirection from "Spaceflight Participant" to "Space Tourism"

I think it is a great idea. I believe the first need is to establish on the criteria and definition for each of those title before we start moving them. Otherwise we might get end up with a mess. Once we get the definition right, everything else should flow on from there. Babyrina2 16:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] $20 Million

They have raised the price to $21 Million now. No reference as yet so I'm not editing the page as someone will only revert it but if someone comes across a reference then this needs changing.

John Glenn was hardly the first non-participant to get a free ride into space because of his position. Several other United States and Russian politicians have also gotten free rides aboard government owned spacecraft. It is more frequently argued that a Japanese journalist took the first tourist flight on a Soyuz. --Wronkiew 19:37, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Who are these "some" that favour the term "personal spaceflight"? Sounds more like an advertisement for the Personal Spaceflight Federation to me than a term actually used by real people.--82.92.181.129 14:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• A person that pays millions for traveling to space would probably not like being called a "tourist" (one travels to space because it's really special, and tourists are really common). It seems natural that the term "personal spaceflight" would be favoured. --Philipum 10:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Point taken, but I don't buy it. One travels to the Great Wall of China, or to the Grand Canyon, or to the Largest Ball of Twine in the U.S., because it's really special. Tourism can be common, uncommon, or anything else, but it is the nature of the travel, not the scarcity of the traveler, which makes one a tourist. It doesn't mean "sheep" or "lemming." It means going for the enjoyment of it. Shoe fits.Eh Nonymous 14:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Space Tourist

Babyrina2, you are creating your own definition of Space Tourist to suit your personal views on Dr Sheikh, which is wrong. The current definition of Space space tourist are private individuals who pays with their own money to go up to space for their own personal purpose. That is the globally accepted definition. Dr Shiekh clearly does not fit in this category. May I also highlight to you that many other countries (apart from US and Russia) that have sent their Astronauts to space, going up either with the Russian's Soyuz or the US's Shuttle. Some of them includes Franz Viehböck (Austria), Jean-Loup Chrétien (France). Other examples: Hungary sent it's Astronaut Bertalan Farkas into space for 7 days, who conducted experiments in material science while in space. Mexico sent it's Astronaut Arnaldo Tamayo Méndez to space to conduct experiments in an attempt to find what caused space adaptation syndrome. Arnaldo was in space for 7 days. India sent it's Astronaut Rakesh Sharma to space for 8 days to conducted multi-spectral photography of northern India in anticipation of the construction of hydroelectric power stations in the Himalayas. So Malaysia's decision to send their own Astronaut to space for 10 days to conduct experiements is similar with other countries who has sent their Astronauts to space in the past. And none of these Astronauts pay for the flight with their own money. It is all government sponsored. If you call Malaysia's Astronaut a space tourist, that means all these other astonauts from other countries are also space tourists in your eyes, which is simply incorrect. Sims2004 07:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid your definition of astronaut based on how the trip was funded is totally out and getting old, Sim2004. As stated in one of my earlier comments, as seen below, to an average Joe Public, he is an astronaut. I do not dispute that. But does he deserve the title professionally? As since he has the same training as Simonyi and Ansari, and spent as much time as those two did in space and both peformed experimens on behalf of others as well, shouldn't Simonyi and Ansari be called astronauts as well? If we start lumping up together Dr Muszaphar alongside Peggy Whitson and Yuri Malenchenko, both of them professional career astronauts, then we should be fair to Charles Simonyi and Anousheh Ansari by classifying them as astronauts as well. Being good at a flight simulation video game and getting a free ride on board an F16 with a trained pilot does not make me a fighter pilot.

And having the government paying for your trip, or paying up yourself, makes no difference whatsoever and belittles the effort and time by some fine men and women who have dedicated a better part of their life in order to be mission commanders, flight engineers, and payload specialists. As to your comparison to the other astronauts from other nations, my earlier point still holds; they all still had the same level of training as Simonyi et al did; shouldn't we be fair and call Simonyi et al as astronauts as well based on your point? Babyrina2 07:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I wish to reiterate, the definition of space tourist that I highlighted earlier is GLOBALLY accepted, and as such Dr Sheikh does not fit in that category. In fact, in the international media coverage of the expedition-16, all world media including CNN, BBC News, Australia etc all call Dr Sheikh the Malaysian Astronaut. E.g. BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7036933.stm , CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/10/08/russia.space.ap/index.html Space.com/AP: http://www.space.com/news/ap-071010-malaysian-ramadan.html On top of that, world media is already reporting that the SIXTH space tourist will be Richard Garriott (i.e. NOT Dr Sheikh). One example of such news is here: http://www.itwire.com/content/view/14668/1066/ . So Dr Sheikh is clearly not a space tourist. He is a government sponsored Astronaut who went up to space under the government space program (the Angkasawan Space Programme). This is in-line with other countries (outside Russia and US) who has sent their own Astronauts to space before Malaysia. If you ask me, only Russia and the US has full-time astronauts, because they are the only 2 countries with space launch capabilities (plus now China). Other countries will be like Malaysia, either part time or one-off, but the country's space program will continue. Now, whether you agree or not with the Malaysian government decision to send a man up to space, or how the deal came about, is another matter. Your own personal view and your own personal interpretation of the definition of space tourist is exactly that, your own personal view. Please do not try to fit Dr Sheikh in your own interpretation of the definition when the world clearly does not share the same view. Sims2004 08:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine. He may or may not be a space tourist, but you citing the BBC website and the IT wire website in order to justify him as an astronaut is as valid me citing the NASA webpage, http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/expedition16/index.html, website calling him a space flight participant, in the same vein retroactively applied to Simonyi and Ansari. And I am not bothered as to whether the Malaysian government sends a man, or two, or even a whole city up to space. Why do most of your ilk, Sim2004, keep harping on the same old, tired ad homimen issue not related to the topic? LOL! The question IS does he deserve the title astronaut professionally and be lumped together with professional career astronauts. The level of training given to him and the itinerary at the ISS corresponds more or less to those of Simonyi and Ansari. Are you saying just because they paid for their trip, as opposed to Dr Muszaphar, and performed experiments on behalf of ESA or NASA, makes them space tourists as opposed to Dr Muszaphar? By your definition, and citing of webpages (as I do), you are essentially saying government funding is the SOLE CRITERIA to determine whether one is an astronaut or not. Or a space tourist. Babyrina2 08:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The CNN, BBC and IT Wire links were just to prove my point of how the world views Dr Sheikh (who did not regard Dr Sheikh as a space tourist) vs yours (who seem to to think he is). The term "spaceflight participant" was a recently introduced term by NASA to distinguish those who are on missions coordinated by those two agencies and those who are not. So now, unless you are going up to space under NASA or Russian space programme working on the ISS, you will be called a "spaceflight participant". This in effect lumping the space tourists and the astronauts from other countries going under their own country's space programme in the same basket. If you're talking about league, I actually agree with you, Dr Sheikh (and the likes of Ramesh Kumar, Jean-Loup Chrétien etc) may not be an Astronaut in the same league as full-time Russian and US's astronauts who worked on the ISS for 6 months or longer duration. But they are their respective country's Astronaut nonetheless. I do NOT agree that Dr Sheikh (and all other countries who has sent their Astronauts into space before Malaysia) is lumped in the same category as rich billionires who pay for their own space escapades. That to me is outright wrong, it is a discredit those who went up to space under their country's space programme, and it is belittling the country's space programme as well (not just Malaysia, but many other countries before Malaysia as well). He may be a spaceflight participant, but he is not a space tourist. Sims2004 09:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As you stated, he may be a space flight participant. Along in vein as Simonyi and Ansari. As to the rich billionaires paying for their own escapades, well, that is a subjective opinion in the category as those who accuse the Malaysian government of sending up a tourist up to space just for the feel good factor and to play games in space. And that does not and should not be a factor in categorizing whether one is a space tourist or not. And since he may be a space flight participant, I am of the opinion his name should appear in the article 'space tourism', or until Wikipedians open a separate entry under 'space flight participant'. Try doing a search in Wikipedia 'space flight participant', and you will be redirected directly to space tourism. I have amended the neccessary terminology and hopefully this will end all reverts and re-reverts. Space Flight Participant it is then. Babyrina2 09:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, agreed. But I've added a foot note to highlight the differences between Dr Sheikh's spaceflight participant category with the other self-funded space tourists. This is to be fair and to provide a more accurate picture of the two groups of "space flight participants". Hopefully this will end the reverts and re-reverts too. Sims2004 10:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You'll have no arguments from me in that respect, Sim2004. Babyrina2 10:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It is settled then. Sims2004 10:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

After stepping back for a few days and revisited the article, I found that putting Dr Sheikh in the same category as private citizens who pay for their space trips through the Space Adventures company does not reflect the accurate truth. Dr Sheikh and the 5 space tourists are *not* in the same category. Hence, his name should be removed. His name should be in the same category as other countries' Astronauts such as Franz Viehböck (Austria), Jean-Loup Chrétien (France), Bertalan Farkas (Hungary), Arnaldo Tamayo Méndez (Mexico), Rakesh Sharma (India) and the rest Astronauts from countries who does not have space launch capabilities.

And another thing, as I was pointed out by another wiki-contributor/mediator, wikipedia works on consensus basis. The number of wiki-contributors who agrees that Dr Sheikh is *not* a space tourist outnumbers those who thinks that he is (predominately one contributor - babyrina2). Hence, in a true democtratic way, we shall follow the majority. Sims2004 08:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As per your earlier statement that claims that Dr Sheikh receives the same training as Simonyi and Ansari, well that is incorrect. Ansari and the rest of the space tourists receives only 6 months training, whereas Dr Sheikh's training as Research Cosmonaut is 1 year.

http://www.space.com/news/060810_ansari_spaceprep.html

http://www.dailyexpress.com.my/news.cfm?NewsID=53551

Sims2004 08:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well,if we can find a an external source to collaborate the good doctor's self-proclaimed statement of six months versus one year, I would not mind giving the good doctor the benefit of the doubt. Babyrina2 10:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The space.com article I cited above proves that Ansari only receives a 6 months training. This this AFP article proves that Dr Sheikh receives 1 year training. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hDgQUf5Cas2bUteAYaKpy8TYS7AQ Does this satify you? Do you finally agree to stop adding Dr Sheikh as a tourist and agree with the majority? Sims2004 10:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

All right. Agreed. It is an external collaborated source. We can move the good door out of this article. So, instead of using NASA's definition, we shall stick with the Russian term cosmonaut for the good doctor. Babyrina2 10:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I hope this settles the matter once and for all. Sims2004 10:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Correction, Sims2004. He is for all purpose, a belated Russian acknowledged cosmonaut (and that after the flak over definitions issued by NASA, which was commonly agreed with ROSCOSMOS), going up on a Soyuz on the back of A COMMERCIAL PURCHASE of Sukhoi jet fighters. That alone puts him in the same category as Simonyi or Anousheh, who had to PAY IN ORDER TO GO UP, with the exception that the latter two paid for their own tab. The Soyuz could have easily carried another trained mission specialist to replace Clayton Anderson, who was part of Expedition 15. However, on the other hand, most of those so-called space tourists rejected to being classified as such, so therefore, maybe we should call them what NASA and ROSCOSMOS call them, SPACE FLIGHT PARTICIPANTS. Babyrina2 15:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There seemed to be a constant stream of attempts by certain individuals to discredit and defame Dr Sheikh Muszaphar (the Malaysian Astronaut) by labelling him a space tourist in Wikipedia, espacially in the wiki-pages of Space Tourism, Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor and Soyuz TMA-11. These act of slander is putting Wikipedia at risk from potential lawsuit. Is there any way we can stop this? Sims2004 16:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Space tourist should refer to the ones who actually paid themselves for their ticket, which includes Dennis Tito, Gregory Olsen and Mark Shuttleworth, but excludes Toyohiro Akiyama and John Glenn. Hektor 17:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I've striken the word "commerical" from the phrase "commerical space tourism" in the paragraph on John Glenn. I can see calling him (and Akiyama] a space tourist, but definately not commerical ones. I've also removed the science fiction fiction sentence (Encylopida's shouldn't speculate) along with a few other grammar fixes. Joncnunn 15:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Garn and Nelson were Payload Specialists and neither space tourists nor Spaceflight Participant. Hektor 15:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Per citations in the article for Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor, it clearly states: "Speaking to Malaysian media outlets, Alexander Karchava, the Russian ambassador to Malaysia, stated that Sheikh Muszaphar is a "fully-fledged cosmonaut".[18] In an interview with the Malaysian Star newspaper, Robert Gibson, a retired NASA astronaut, shared his opinion that Sheikh Muszaphar is fully qualified as an astronaut, and as such, he should be called one. Gibson also said he regarded Sheikh Muszaphar as a peer.[19]" To me, this apparent edit war to add the Dr. to the list of space tourists should be put to rest. - Ageekgal 08:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helen Sharman

Hey y'all. Just read the NYT this morning, and saw the following:

"Ansari follows in the footsteps of Britain's Helen Sharman, who flew to Russia's Mir Space Station in 1991 as a tourist as part of a lottery system called Project Juno."

Now, I don't know who this Helen Sharman person is, but if this is correct, not only is the NYTimes headline flatly false ("First Female Space Tourist Blasts Off," Sept. 18, AP) but this page is missing something significant. Someone, google this Sharman and find out if she was in fact a tourist, in the sense of a traveler not for business nor as part of her duties, but as a civilian and to appreciate and perhaps report on the experience.

Helen Sharman did not win her place on the Soyuz TM-12 mission as a result of a lottery. I've no idea where this story comes from, but it's a complete fabrication. She was recruited and trained as an astronaut as a result of her academic qualifications, practical experience of experimental work, aptitude for languages, health and physical fitness. An account of the selection process can be found in her autobiography, "Sieze the Moment".--Cavor 13:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fixing the References

Please help to edit the footnotes / References of this volume and make them uniform.

[edit] Space Cadets section

Is the "Space Cadets section" really needed? It's unsourced, and it really isn't the right place for the article. Maybe the Space Cadets article would be a better place. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future Space Tourists 1

This article says that "The following people have been named as future commercial passengers on Soyuz spacecraft to the ISS." in the Future Space Tourists section. Shouldn't this section also include the people who have signed up for space tourism aboard other vehicles, such as some of those entered in the Ansari X prize competition? Vsst 01:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The first group of people booked on the first Virgin Galactic ship numbers 100 - it's not practical to list them. --Tango 11:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with you on that. But what I am more interested in is the (confirmed) names of next Soyuz tourists. The article has sourced statement that trips are sold out in 2008 and 2009. Could names for these perhaps be retrieved? Tried to search the Russian Space Agency.. But only their frontpage is in English unfortunately. --|EPO| ^da: 19:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Space Adventures

Space Adventures is the company currently sending tourists into space. The Russian Space Agency is not sending tourists into space. http://www.spaceadventures.com/

[edit] FAA astronaut wings

Comment on the Space Tourism wiki : the caption for the FAA astronaut wings implies that FAA awards them to anyone who flies over 62 miles. This is incorrect. FAA awards commercial astronaut wings to _crew_ who fly above 50 statute miles. FAA does not award astronaut wings to space flight participants. -R 209.233.12.98 01:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)rclague

[edit] Spaceflight participant

Since there is no page with that title, I'd like to get some input from others. Do you think a page titled Spaceflight Participant should be added to Wikipedia, and have it redirect to here? There is some controversy with the term "tourist" (as explained in the article, a valid point) and especially with the newest person to go to ISS, Dr. Shukor, since he is technically a Malaysian Astronaut, but since they do not have a complete space exploration program, they brokered his trip through the RSA, and he is designated (by NASA, and by the Russian Space Agency) a Spaceflight Participant. Opinions? ^Ariel♥Gold 11:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• So far I would have been in favour of a redirect, but the decision by NASA to call Shukor a spaceflight participant (which is bad manner towards Malaysia, if you want my opinion) makes spaceflight participants and space tourists two different, though partly overlapping, categories. Hektor 07:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"...spaceflight participants and space tourists two different, though partly overlapping, categories." - Hektor

I don't think it is bad manners per se but reflects the reality regarding his participation and the fact that the ISS is still under construction. If the ISS happened to be Hilton (under construction), I don't think the management of Hilton would NOT have allowed anyone in save the construction crew, engineers, and architects. I also read somewhere that Yuri Malechenko WAS CONTRACTED out by the Russians to assist the doctor in performance of his experiments. This reflects the fact that Dr Muszhapar is "going up on a Soyuz on the back of A COMMERCIAL PURCHASE of Sukhoi jet fighters". If NASA is wrong, then I suppose Simonyi and Shuttleworth et al can qualify to be called astronauts or whatever as well and should be classified as such. After all, all the other previous "WHATEVER DEFINITION" had undergone the same training as Dr Muszaphar did. What do you all think? Babyrina2 08:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hektor, "...spaceflight participants and space tourists two different, though partly overlapping, categories."… IMHO, all astronauts under any national space agency or program should be differentiated from "space tourist" terminology because it is in different category and motivation. You can compare Dr. Muszaphar with Franz Viehböck, Helen Sharman, Jean-Loup Chrétien or Ivan Bella… "space tourists?...", I don’t think so. (60.49.122.90 15:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

I think any country can have a national space agency or space program if the politicians are inclined to start such in their respective countries. The issue here, I believe, is the level of training he had as compared to Simonyi and Ansari, and as to whether he truly deserves the title 'astronaut'. Granted, from an everyday Public Joe's perspective, he is one, that I do not dispute. But from a professional POV? It is just like a kid who has gone playing flight simulation games and could virtually pilot and land an F16. Afterwards, he goes on to an airshow and gets a free ride on board of a real F16, with a real life pilot, and later the kid calls himself a pilot. Geddit? Babyrina2 15:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you expressing your disagreements with any politicians/government policies? I'm sorry to said that but from your explanation, I think you have personal agenda regarding this matter.

"...compare Dr. Muszaphar with Franz Viehböck, Helen Sharman, Jean-Loup Chrétien or Ivan Bella..." (60.49.122.50 15:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC))

There is no personal agenda or dissatisfaction with govn policies. LOL. Whatever. My point, as I stated is this, does the level of training justifies his entitlement to the title of astronaut professionally? Seriously, if I could take off and land a MiG or a Sukhoi in a video game, and later told those Russian jock pilots that handling one of those babies is not a big deal and I could be a pilot too, I don't think it would be quite welcome. And it belittles the effort and time taken by some of these fine men and women who have dedicated a better part of their life to be mission commanders, flight engineers, and mission specialists. So stop using ad hominen attacks to put forth your views. LOL. Babyrina2 16:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to note that when I originally created the redirect in July, there was no such confusion, so it was a valid redirect, as the page did not exist. Due to the nature of Muszaphar's arrangements, and the obvious ongoing edit warring over the proper title to use, the article Spaceflight participant has been created as a separate article from this space tourism article. It should be noted that while he technically was titled an astronaut, and trained as such, he had no official astronaut duties on his flight, and this is why NASA and RSA terms him a spaceflight participant in the documents. It doesn't take anything away from his involvement in the Malaysian space programme, or his training, but simply is a way to define the fact that he was not officially part of the crew, and held no position or duties for his flight, other than his own experiments. Ariel♥Gold 18:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Link number 1 is broken and needs to be removed.

"1. Int'l space station ticket price climbs. "

Fixed, thanks for the heads up. (sdsds - talk) 18:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed up several of the unlabeled links. The process is simple: look for http: in the article, visit the page, get the title and date, and add them into th ref. I might be back to do the rest, but I wish others would care about article quality at this level.--Francis45 03:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Space Hotel

Why does 'Space Hotel' redirect here? I thought it would deserve an article on its own. Besides, this article does not have a single mention of space hotels or even links... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.74.219.47 (talk) 09:15, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't predict the future. As there is no such thing as a space hotel, this explains why such an article does not exist, and why it redirects to the only reasonable topic, space tourism, which eventually, some day, may possibly encompass such things. But currently it does not, and it isn't an impending item, so no need to mention it. Ariel♥Gold 18:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I strongly disagree. Since there are plans of space hotels, by f.ex. Bigelow Aerospace there is certainly a reason to describe them. If wikipedia should'nt predict the future, there should not be articles about upcoming events like the olympic games in toronto or other expected items and events. There were articles about the playstation 3 before it existed to mention one thing. Planned buildings are also very common articles on Wiki, just look at the Al Burj article. As for space hotels, there is already a model in orbit and very concrete plans of developing and launching a real hotel in the future. Also, there is no such thing as: Santa Claus, elves or eskimos and they are still articles about them... —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieNisser (talk • contribs) 19:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The difference between the Olympics, and a Space Hotel, is one is a definite event, the other is a speculation, theory, and hopeful event. Same with planned buildings. Yes, plans can change, but considering the fact that going into space isn't even remotely available to people as a service yet, having an article about a Space Hotel would be pure speculation, nothing more, even if there are companies who hope to build such a thing. Now, if you can find 3-4 reliable, third-party media sources (newspapers, online news agencies, like AP, BBC, Major network coverage, UP, etc, that detail the plans, then it may be possible to make an article about it. Ariel♥Gold 19:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Like these?: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/08/14/space.hotel.reut/index.html http://www.space.com/news/070811_space_hotel.html http://www.news.com/2300-11397_3-6093888-1.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/293366.stm http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/12/scihotel112.xml http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=474898&in_page_id=1811 http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSPAR05316520070810 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6253054.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieNisser (talk • contribs) 19:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep like that :o) Cool. I'll look at putting an article about it together, but between you, me, and the fencepost, I don't think there's a chance in Dante's inferno that we'll see this by 2012, lol. Ariel♥Gold 21:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

na, probably not, but there are definatly plans, so it deserves an article. I'll be glad to look in to it too. Have a nice one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieNisser (talk • contribs) 20:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future Space Tourists

I think we need to split this article into two articles (accessible from a disambiguation page). The second one article will be exclusively meant for ‘All Future and flown Space Tourists’. The existing Subhead for ‘Future Space Tourists’ lists only ‘Soyuz spacecraft to the ISS’ and purposely ignoring other future space tourists like Interorbital Systems, Jim Benson's Dream Chaser and Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic etc. Otherwise it is no meaningful work of including only about ‘Soyuz’ else we don’t need that also.--Avinesh Jose (talk) 05:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I recently added a sentence citing a source for Virgin having pre-sold nearly 200 seats. Can anyone find sources to cite for seats already pre-sold on Interorbital Systems and Dream Chaser vehicles? (I assume we are only listing pre-sold Soyuz seats.) (sdsds - talk) 06:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

(Just my own personal opinion) The article doesn't need to be split into two, at this point. That is for articles that are very long (over 60kb), and this article is not even nearing that length. I think we need to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and just because someone may have bought a seat to fly in the year 2010, or 2015, doesn't mean that it will happen. I think the sentence about the pre-sales of 200 seats is sufficient until these flights actually start to occur. Once these flights are actually taking place, I think the article could be re-evaluated. As of now, they are not something that happens regularly, like the Soyuz, and I really don't think we'd need a list of all 200, even if it were available, a simple link to such a list would be sufficient. For the Soyuz, anyone added to that list should be cited by sources that can be verified. If no source is available, then I think it is safe to say it is not a decision made by RSA, and should be left off until it is verifiable. Ariel♥Gold 06:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we consider people who are Paid advance $20,000 or above for a confirmed seat and completed Zero gravity training and medical checkups as “future space tourists”? if so, why can’t we add their names under there? btw, is this one of the article sdsds asked? --Avinesh Jose (talk) 07:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Quid-spaceage.jpg

Image:Quid-spaceage.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey some one please tell me why some one will spend $20 milion just to go to space. Dont u think it is waste of money —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.134.6.26 (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)