Talk:Space tourism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

  1. New page for "Spaceflight Role"
  2. New page for "Spaceflight Participant"
  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)[reply]

$20 Million[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

Space Tourist[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
You'll have no arguments from me in that respect, Sim2004. Babyrina2 10:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is settled then. Sims2004 10:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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) Babi nyer cina. Tak abis2 nak kutuk org melayu. Tao ar korang jeles.[reply]

Helen Sharman[edit]

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)[reply]

fixing the References[edit]

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

Space Cadets section[edit]

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 Bluetalk to me 19:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future Space Tourists 1[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Space Adventures[edit]

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

FAA astronaut wings[edit]

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[reply]

Spaceflight participant[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

"...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)[reply]

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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Links[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Space Hotel[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Future Space Tourists[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Nationality of space tourists/participants?[edit]

Several of the space tourists/participants have joint nationality identified. In some case their other wikipedia entries give different factual information. Should we identify their nationality as that which they flew under? (e.g. Mark Shuttleworth as South African rather than "South African/ British"). --mgaved (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

France + USSR? Non.[edit]

I couldn't find anything about France being allied with the Soviets, so I've deleted that part because I very much suspect it is vandalism. If anyone wishes to add it back in, please source it and I will go away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.161.110 (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Daisuke Enomoto[edit]

I came to this page trying to find info on Daisuke Enomoto. I am surprised that there isn't any. He is the potential candidate that was denied travel after he paid a 21 million dollars. Could someone update the article on his situation and ongoing lawsuit? Thank you.70.79.50.5 (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)BeeCier[reply]

Orbital Technologies[edit]

"A private Russian space firm and a state-controlled spacecraft manufacturer are planning to build and operate the world's first commercial space station and expect it to launched by 2016." [1]

"The Moscow-based Orbital Technologies has sky-high hopes that its planned Commercial Space Station can serve as a tourism hub for well-heeled travellers and offer overspill accommodation for the International Space Station and workspace for science projects." [2]

ellol (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ownership of the space that will be used by 'space hotels' and 'space stations'[edit]

assuming that the mentioned space hotels and stations are privately owned and that space is publicly world-owned, it follows that private business will be 'occupying' public property. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.122.94 (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Galactic booking numbers[edit]

There are two figures given: 410 reservations in March 2010 and 500 "to date" (which date).At best this looks messy. I suggest we replace both with a single number and a date. Does anyone have a source to an up-to-date figure? Andrew Hennigan (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked myself and the 500 to date figure links to a company announcement in March, still the latest figure announced by the company. The Observer newspaper reports 520 on 17 June 2012 in Space Tourism, to infinity and beyond? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2012/jun/17/space-tourism-science-virgin-robin-mckie?INTCMP=SRCH). At this point I propose keeping the 500-to-date figure in the section on Virgin Galactic and deleting the older figure in the Suborbital flights section, a needless repetition. Andrew Hennigan (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Deleted the older 410 figure for reservations in one section, leaving the up-to-date figure of 500 in another.Andrew Hennigan (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mention Swiss Space Systems (S3)[edit]

Perhaps Swiss Space Systems (S3) needs to be mentioned; they use a technique similar to Virgin Galactic KVDP (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some refs to the Swiss Space Systems article; apparently, their plan is to provide supersonic intercontinental flights, rather than suborbital excursions. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quasi Universal Intergalactic Denomination[edit]

I've removed the QUID, since it iss too loosely connected to Space tourism to justify inclusion.Sanpitch (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remove defunct and dubious proposals?[edit]

Excalibur Almaz seems likely mired in litigation. Space Island Group per page company appears dissolved/neglected/defunct. Do these sorts of items detract from the page? Should they be deleted or possibly brought under a 'likely defunct' heading. Lynx and Hyperion certainly belong on the page as genuine attempts but putting under a likely defunct heading would clarify which proposals appear ongoing. Perhaps with such a heading above two examples may as well stay rather than being deleted. What do others think? crandles (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Space tourism. 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:

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) 05:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Space tourism. 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:

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) 09:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Space tourism. 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:

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) 10:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Space tourism[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Space tourism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Mann":

  • From Brazil: Mann, Charles C. (2006) [2005]. 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. Vintage Books. pp. 326–333. ISBN 978-1-4000-3205-1.
  • From Inspiration Mars Foundation: Mann, Adam (20 February 2013). "Space Tourist to Announce Daring Manned Mars Voyage for 2018". Wired. Retrieved 28 February 2013.

Reference named "Boyle":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Article[edit]

Hello fellow editors,

I wish to propose this article for possible posting. Thank you.

Space tourism 2019 According to an article published in Sputniknews.com, the Energia director general of Rocket and Space Corporation of Russia (Vladimir Solntsev) announced that an anonymous space tourist from a country in Asia will be part of the crew who will join the International Space Station (ISS). https://sputniknews.com/society/201707181055650450-tourists-asia-iss-travel/ Space Adventures, Limited is the only company that solely providing civilians the opportunity to become space tourists since 2001. http://www.spaceadventures.com/ In June 2015, the company released a press statement that Satoshi Takamatsu from Japan will train as a member of the Soyuz TMA-18M backup crew. That person signed a contract for an orbital spaceflight mission in the future. The Soyuz FG rocket that carried Soyuz TMA-18M launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome Site Number One on April 2, 2010. It carried National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA) astronaut Tracy Caldwell Dyson along with Russian cosmonauts Mikhail Kornienko and Aleksandr Skvortsov. http://www.russianspaceweb.com/iss_soyuztma18.html RSC Energia RSC Energia collaborates with Space Adventures to get possible space tourists who want to fly to the moon at US$150 million with the first launch possibly taking place in 2020. Tickets will cost between $25million and $35 million. These civilians must undergo training in Star City (Russia) like cosmonauts and astronauts. Only Space Adventures has made this moon trip possible eight times with the use of equipment made from Russia although Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic have made extensive plans for private spaceflight.


https://www.businessinsider.com/space-adventures-moon-launch-2016-1#the-plan-is-fairly-straightforward-two-passengers-and-a-russian-cosmonaut-will-use-a-slightly-modified-soyuz-capsule-for-a-trip-that-will-take-them-to-the-iss-then-eventually-on-to-the-moon-4

LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff and Mark Bezos[edit]

They didn't pay in the conventional sense but had a touristy role, should we list them here? If they were not tourists then they were commercial astronauts and should be listed there? They should be in one of the tables (not necessarily the same one). See also Talk:Commercial astronaut#Jeff and Mark Bezos. --mfb (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also think we need clarification on this. The article Spaceflight Participants only lists civilians on NASA/Soyuz flights, and the Commercial Astronaut article only lists those with FAA wings, which in the future will probably only be Virgin Galactic Pilots. That leaves this list to be the one that features every passenger on privately funded space trips (until someone starts asteroid mining or some other productive activity I think they all fall under tourism). I guess for the Virgin flight every passenger was an employee, so they're sort of an edge case, but at least for Blue Origin every passenger should be listed. I thinks its more important to be inclusive here, rather than excluding Mark Bezos or Wally Funk just because they didnt pay for their trip. jonas (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This may well be a sensible conclusion, but in that case we need to change the introduction to the table which currently says "The following list notes each trip taken by an individual for whom a fee was paid (by themselves or another party) to go above the Kármán Line, the arbitrarily defined boundary of space. It also includes future trips which are paid for and scheduled." What do we change that to? Does it need changing to something like: "The following list includes all individuals who undertake a spaceflight in a space tourist like role regardless of whether a fee is paid for them." If we want the list to be inclusive perhaps Virgin Galactic flights should also be included with an note that it went above 50 miles but not above 100km? C-randles (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article discussing terminology[edit]

If NASA didn't train you, are you an astronaut or a space tourist? (Houston Chronicle, Sept. 13, 2021, unfortunately behind a paywall) Perhaps some of this could be used in the Criticism section. Mapsax (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Movie projects[edit]

The crew from Soyuz MS-19 and the eventual flight of Tom Cruise should be considered a space tourism flight? The articles states in the first line that "Space tourism is human space travel for recreational purposes." and is possible to argue that the shooting of a movie "isn't a recreational purpose". @Hektor: brought the question here. Erick Soares3 (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated info - 35,000 USD per day for one astronaut[edit]

The prices have now been increased. Quoting [1] - The new pricing policy charges $5.2 million per person for ISS crew time to support a private astronaut mission, and $4.8 million per mission for integration and basic services, such as mission planning. The policy now charges between $88,000 and $164,000 per person per day for pre-staging food and other cargo on the station for those missions on NASA cargo vehicles and for disposing cargo on those spacecraft. It also charges between $40 and $1,500 per person per day for crew supplies and $2,000 per person per day for food. [1] https://spacenews.com/nasa-increases-prices-for-iss-private-astronaut-missions/ Supersonic71 (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Balloon flights to Near Space[edit]

In 2013, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) determined that World View’s spacecraft and its operations fall under the jurisdiction of the office of Commercial Space Flight (51 U.S.C. Chapter 509). The visual experience of Near Space balloon travelers will be very similar to that of Space Tourists. The view is the primary driver for Space Tourism. Therefore it makes sense to include them. Maybe under Suborbital, or on a different category, as Near Space LTA flights, so something like that. Verahabrecht (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Space tourist vs. private astronaut[edit]

Over at Larry Connor, an IP editor and I are disagreeing over how to qualify Connor — the last two edits Special:Diff/1135040559 and Special:Diff/1135900258 summarize the disagreement. I would appreciate if we could receive a bit of attention from editors more experienced with space travel articles, so we can solve the matter. Thank you! Ariadacapo (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Space_tourism&oldid=1216506974"