Template[edit]

Hi, like the idea for that template, as it's recently created I'm guessing you might be adding to it. If not I'm thinking about jumping in myself.--Raerth 19:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, be my guest! I designed ((fusion power)), and I was thinking something along those lines. But as I realised the magnitude of the task, my motivation waned. So I added the "edit this template" tag, hoping someone else would finish the job :P thanks for offering! — Jack · talk · 20:04, Wednesday, 13 June 2007
There are many space related templates out there, trying not to overlap with ((Space exploration lists and timelines)) etc... You're suggestion is fine, but pondering the best layout to emphasise why this is different to the others.--Raerth 21:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My layout was not intended to be the final one. It's only a wikitable, after all! I think this is a key concept that deserves its own template. I've added some more links, while you think about it. — Jack · talk · 21:21, Wednesday, 13 June 2007
My point exactly. The concept is a good one, but picking the topics to stop this seeming a redundant copy of other templates is what I'm thinking about.--Raerth 21:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess so, but the thing is that as of 2007, there are so few none-theoretical topics to go on. I don't want it to end up a collection of structures and systems proposed in sci-fi writers, but any other way will inevitably overlap with the work of NASA and the like — Jack · talk · 21:33, Wednesday, 13 June 2007

Expansion[edit]

Haha nice image :) Good thinking about the expansion, kicking myself it never occurred to me!--Raerth 21:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But removing EADS Astrium? The major European space company which has announced entry to space tourism?--Raerth 21:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I thought that'd make you laugh. I'm guessing you saw the recent BBC article too? The thing is there are many companies thinking of or trying to put something habitable in space. We could list them all, but I decided that our cut-off point should be to include only those who got it together to do it. D'you agree? — Jack · talk · 22:00, Wednesday, 13 June 2007
In a way :) I wouldn't add every company listed here, but think an announcement by the makers of the Ariane program carries a bit more weight. Thoughts? --Raerth 22:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, maybe not quite makers (should have checked first :) but I would say more involved in active space technology than most.--Raerth 22:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was gonna say! :P it looks like EADS builds the rockets, Arianespace launches them, and ESA takes the credit. I wanted to list SpaceDev, 'cos they built the rocket in SpaceShipOne, but then the floodgates open... — Jack · talk · 22:17, Wednesday, 13 June 2007
Agreed that I don't want to turn this into a huge list! Bigelow deserve a mention, but both The Spaceship Company and Virgin Galactic? Either both Scaled Composites and Virgin Galactic or neither, as both part own TSC. Accept your point regarding EADS, although if we are expanding into private spaceflight I think Arianespace should be added somewhere, ESA is pretty seperate from my understanding. Arianespace is a private company, although closely related. --Raerth 22:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That all sounds fine to me. Please, do with it what you will, I'm not allowed to own the template. I think maybe we're now approaching the point where we need to address the layout. — Jack · talk · 22:44, Wednesday, 13 June 2007

I have added back EADS Astrium. They present a scale one model of their space plane in Le Bourget and have been working secretly on it for the last two years. I think that justifies including them. see the entry I have created EADS Astrium Space Tourism Project Hektor 21:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Placed on inappropriate articles[edit]

A couple of issues here. First, it appears this template is having both private space flight and space tourism combined, which seems to be rather cross topic. Second, the template is being plastered on articles which have no mention in the template itself. My prime example is SpaceX. Someone put the template across every SpaceX related article, but neither SpaceX nor any of its products is mentioned in the template. Beyond that, with the primary focus being towards tourism, the template doesn't seem appropriate for SpaceX to begin with. --StuffOfInterest 12:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the first point, I personally don't see Space Tourism and Private Spaceflight to be cross topic. Although I agree one does not always include the other. Maybe the name of the template should be changed.. I see this as linking areas of non-government space use. For the second point, This template is only a couple of days old, and will be improved as I get the time. SpaceX are clearly involved in private spaceflight so added the template. My reasons for plastering the template everywhere was to let people with an interest in the topic see it and maybe get involved. You are, of course, free to remove it if you disagree :) --Raerth 17:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plastering it everywhere is not really an acceptable method to inform people of its existence. A better method would have been to add a post somewhere on the Village pump or elsewhere in the Community Portal. I'd suggest removing it from any article not directly pertaining to Space Tourism, and creating a separate template dealing with the specifics of private spaceflight. I'm not a fan of lumping everything into single templates, as that causes them to grow beyond reasonable sizes. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template was also stuck on Armadillo Aerospace despite no mention of Armadillo in the template. I'll go ahead and remove it from the Armadillo article for the same reason it was dropped from SpaceX, though I will point out that Armadillo probably has logged more flight time than all the companies on the template put together. ;) --squirrel (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Narrowing down of template[edit]

I've reworked the template to standardise it with other templates (just a general style). However, while doing so, I pared down a lot of the material that didn't directly pertain to space tourism. If you want to create a private spacecraft template, that'd be fine, but to combine the two probably isn't a good idea, since they aren't necessarily mutually inclusive. They may cross boundaries occasionally, but they aren't the same thing. -- Huntster T • @ • C 11:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Competitions[edit]

None of the competitions currently listed have anything to do with tourism. Well, some GLXP entries could at best be "virtual tourism" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.58.32 (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Ansari X-Prize and Bigelow's America's Space Prize are directly related to space tourism. The GLXP can be considered as it is aimed at fostering technologies to allow a private Apollo-style mission to the moon. I've removed the last two as being very tangential indeed to space tourism: N-Prize is targeted as reducing launch costs, and both Centennial Challenges are targeted at non-tourism technologies (space elevators and resource production on the moon). — Huntster (t @ c) 02:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RpK[edit]

Now that Rocketplane Kistler is no more, shouldn't it be removed from the list of major companies? PistolPete037 (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orbital ATK[edit]

Should it be Orbital ATK rather than Orbital Sciences and while definitely are doing spacecraft like Cygnus, is there any ongoing tourist work? crandles (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on page indicates doing anything with space tourism. cn tag has been there for a year so removed. crandles (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suborbital split[edit]

I think that suborbital tourism should be split into a separate article, leaving this as an orbital and supraorbital template. Suborbital seems like it will get intensive soon, and the number of tourists and missions will takeoff. The defunct and current suborbital-only organizations should be moved off as well as other such sub-orbital only content (like suborbital spaceplane), to aling it with other suborbital content such as SpaceShipOne/Two/VG, New Shepard -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Categories