Talk:Space/Archive

Why I wrote this:
 * It's a tourist destinaion and will definitely remain so for the future (unless something really bad happens)
 * It's a tiny article and doesn't take much effort to write or maintain
 * We want to be complete
 * Sometimes, you have to encourage dreams :)

-- (WT-en) Nils 08:48, 6 Apr 2004 (EDT)


 * Actually, it's explicitly out of scope (geographical hierarchy). --(WT-en) Evan 10:50, 6 Apr 2004 (EDT)

Alright, though I'd argue that Earth orbit should definitely be included. Sort of like how you include territorial waters with a nation. If we ever get tourism to the Moon and Mars, we'll have to redefine anyway. And Space is a tourist destination. Until then, I'll be careful not to mention satellite phones. ;) -- (WT-en) Nils 11:04, 6 Apr 2004 (EDT)


 * OK, let's see what happens with it. Let's not have it on the Main Page for a while until it's a little more mature, though. --(WT-en) Evan 11:08, 6 Apr 2004 (EDT)

Fair enough, although we do link some factbook imports on the mainpage as well outer space is a bit out of place there. I was quite aware of this... "Other Destinations" didn't have a subpage, however, tho and I didn't want to create one. Might make sense to do that. Among other things, we could list oceans on there too. (You have to link it somewhere). -- (WT-en) Nils 11:14, 6 Apr 2004 (EDT)


 * So, how about in Travel topics? It's more of a travel topic than a destination guide, as far as I can tell. --(WT-en) Evan 11:23, 6 Apr 2004 (EDT)


 * Actually, space is obviously a region, whose destinations would include the Moon, Mars, etc. Space tourism is for real and the Russkies are now offering flights around the moon for a mere US$100 million, so I think this is worth expanding. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:19, 27 Jul 2005 (EDT)


 * On that note, how do Wikivoyagers feel about redirecting the Moon to Space. It doesn't seem to me like the Moon really warrants its own article, right? LeptonMadness (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The moon is rather unique among items in space; I think it absolutely deserves its own article. LtPowers (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Japanese Sidebar
Um... somebody came along and added the cross link to the Japanese language page today. Suddenly, though, the left sidebar is now completely in Japanese. Any ideas? -- (WT-en) Ilkirk 14:29, 24 Oct 2005 (EDT)

On the Earth -- in or out?
Hmm -- should the "On the Earth" section stay in "Get in", or move to "Get out"? (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:09, 9 June 2007 (EDT)


 * I like it in Get in... it's the first stage of actually "getting in" to Space, and it fits within the quirky style of that section. I like that you added it by the way. I love this article – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:43, 10 June 2007 (EDT)


 * I see the logic of putting it in "Get out", but I think it fits perfectly where it is. Plus I have an inappropriate fondness for the "Get out" section as it is now (I wrote it). :) - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 10:05, 10 June 2007 (EDT)


 * Me too... let's leave 'em both! – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 15:45, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Space Adventures
Jani, did you mean to remove them from Zero-G? Their website still lists it as a possibility... – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 04:21, 14 June 2007 (EDT)


 * As far as I can see Space Adv just resell Zero-G's flights -- if you look carefully, the flight schedules are 100% identical, and Zero-G claims to be the only commercial operator in the US. (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:24, 14 June 2007 (EDT)


 * Should've known, detective Jani's on the case! – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 12:18, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

This has got to be the most controversial thing
This thing is by far more contreversial than Walt Disney World! Why does this exist? We all know that Space isn't open for tourists-it's for scientists and stuff of the like. I don't get it. there isn't anything on here that would be useful to the traveller which is why this whole site is here, and since I dont see any use for travellers then I dont see why this article is here anyways. How does this help Wikivoyage and travellers? In no way. Explain why this shouldn't get deleted. I know that it says stuff at the top but this is NOT a travel destination no travellers go into space. It's not like "Yah, $34.95 please for the intl space station". It may become one in the future, and if it does, then we can resume this. There may be some tourists but from my recolitions it is very expensive and barely anyone has gone. What's the point? Besides, when and if space becomes a destination for travellers, we wouldn't need this article because there would be one for each. Ie International Space Sation, Moon, Mars, tour of venus, go to jupiter, etc. I serioulsy don't get this. Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 13:08, 23 November 2008 (EST).


 * You can go there as a tourist, you can sleep there, and people have done it. It's not even close to being disqualified as an article. The fact that not many people can afford to go there is irrelevant – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:29, 24 November 2008 (EST)
 * How the hell is a place that asks 100 mill for a "trip" to space relevant. The fact that it has happened doesn't make it relevant because what 20 people have gone?  I am willing to keep it as I have seen even more non travelie places but I stand by mah point.  Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 20:14, 24 November 2008 (EST).


 * I'm not sure I understand the problem - how many non-scientists go to the South Pole each year? A few dozen?  Less?  Yet it's clearly article-worthy.  Having an article about Space falls into the same category - it's both fun to write about and a highlight of the potential for travel - scan a few user pages and see how many of them have "Space" listed under the "Places I want to visit" section, and it becomes clear that Space is indeed a place that travelers dream of visiting.  Additionally, now that there are multiple companies offering trips to space there is (in my opinion) no way whatsoever that this article should be removed, nor do I find it to be in any way controversial. -- (WT-en) Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 20:19, 24 November 2008 (EST)


 * Whatever. I never have anyone on my side and I always end up lookin like an ass.  I guess I am the most controversial thing on the site.  Keep Smiling, (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee]  .T.A.L.K. 20:21, 24 November 2008 (EST).

Update
I deleted the Edge of Space flights in the MiG-25 Foxbat. They stopped in June 2006 like all flights on Zhukovsky airbase. Space adventures stopped selling jet flights even before. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 80.219.56.8 (talk • contribs)


 * I see a few points where something is listed as "proposed for 2010" or "by 2012" - dates which are already here or past. Will these need to be updated? Also, the Space Shuttle is no longer running so no launches are viewable at Cape Canaveral - once a popular tourism activity and something we need to get right. There were many optimistic predictions made in the immediate post-Apollo era (or even earlier, the infamous Burma-Shave 'win a trip to Mars by collecting 900 jars' promo was pre-1963 as the signs no longer exist) and some of this continued into the early days of the shuttle programme. Outdated predictions are relevant if they can be contrasted informatively vs. whatever actually materialised, but otherwise listings for space-related activity on the ground should be kept reasonably up-to-date. K7L (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2012 (CEST)


 * Plunge forward!--Globe-trotter (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2012 (CEST)

Can you sleep there?
Give it a few years. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:08, 3 November 2009 (EST)

First tourist?
Wasn't this guy the first paying space tourist? The article says it was someone in 2001.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyohiro_Akiyama


 * The article calls him the first pay-to-fly Space tourist – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 02:55, 3 May 2010 (EDT)