Talk:Galactic Suite Design

Definitely fake
13 days into 2012, there's a new press release "sorry, we need two more years to make this even more complicated" (http://www.galacticsuiteprocess.com/news/?p=1415). Right. 68.49.23.150 (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree this is all probably a pipe dream, but the press release is talking about adding an EVA hatch for paying customers, not something outrageously far-fetched. Don't read anything more into it than what it specifically says. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Investor
Does anyone know who the $3 billion invester is or what their launch vehicle with the "dual hybrid engines" will be like? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.4.139.136 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not at this time. No mention on their website nor in the news articles.  Seems they want to be an anonymous benefactor.  Shame, because I'd love to try and talk him/her into donating to Bigelow Aerospace instead! (kidding, kidding.  Competition is good.) --  Huntster  T • @ • C 18:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Contacted the company
I've contacted the company for more information and hopefully some images that we are allowed to use on wikipedia. --Sebvdv 17:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * While it is fine to contact them, be aware that unless the information is published, we cannot use it based on their word or an email from them alone. Also, images are good, though it should be limited to a single fair-use image...unless they'd like to license one of them as free use. --  Huntster  T • @ • C 21:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Real?
Pretty pictures, but are they actually developing anything? 2012 is only four years away. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * All we have right now is their word that they are developing something. Looking through the Google news archives, I don't notice any substantial updates since the original announcement, and the last news article (from February) on the site has zero new information. I have a feeling this entry, and the hotel, will go static before too long. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's mid 2010 and still no hardware, might have been a hoax. --Craigboy (talk) 07:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That's quite possible, though its also possible that they simply realised such an effort would be nigh impossible and overly expensive. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete
This article and its references only prove how gullible journalist (including Reuter's) are. As all information is based on a single press release reprinted by couple journalists without any actual proof I consider this whole thing as unverified. There is actually no reliable source for the information (Reuters clearly reprinted press release without verifying it) --Jan.Smolik (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Given how different sources are reporting different sets of things (aka, they aren't all saying the same things over and over), I would suggest that your statement is incorrect regarding all based on a single press release. However, I do believe this is mostly hot air, and the journalists are just reporting on what the designer/whatever is telling them. We, in turn, are simply documenting what the news sources report. As the article clearly states, there is significant scepticism regarding this "project". — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add my voice in support of an AfD over this article. I'm commenting here on the talk page to allow the discussion to transpire a little bit longer than the typical 3-10 days that typically happen in AfDs. My arguments in favor of deletion rest mainly on both verifiability of this "space station" (there is virtually nothing to find about this concept other than the original press release and some discussion from the "company founders" at the time of the press release), and the point that there was no hardware or even any sort of serious engineering work that happened to develop this concept.

This station doesn't deserve to even be associated with much more legitimate concepts like the BA-330, and especially not with proven spacecraft like the ISS, Mir, and Skylab. Something of a reasonable standard ought to be established for what qualifies for inclusion within Wikipedia, and I think this article fails miserably. Citing notability arguments (and I tend to be an inclusionist in general), this spacecraft/space station proposal wasn't really based on anything of note, and didn't lead to anything noteworthy as well. If there can even be a remote influence or that engineers who worked on the initial concepts for this project went on to bigger and better things in the aerospace industry, I might support this article as an interesting historical footnote to articles about other projects. For the moment, I don't think even that sort of vague and tenuous relationship to anything significant in spaceflight has occurred, and I argue that this is nothing more than a scam to milk some money from some wealthy "investors". A rather lousy scam even hardly of note even as just a scam. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Real or not, it has been widely covered in the media by a large number of outlets. Google News shows shows 232 hits for the term "Galactic Suite". I agree that in the long run this is most likely just a bunch of fluff, but it is fluff that the community at large quickly embraced...not unprecedented for inclusion here. Given the limited amount of information available, it is decently sourced (with an obvious trove of additional sources available if desired) and quite neutral. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because some media outlets are easily fooled doesn't mean we have to fall for it too. I don't actually mind this article existing if it was truthful, but I do mind it polluting articles about things that are actually important. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * However unlikely it is that it exists, you are making an assumption to that regard, whereas this article merely states that plans are reportedly in the works, what those plans are, and that knowledgable people are disputing the possibility of its near-term existance. If you seriously want to take this to AfD, then go ahead...I have no special feelings toward this article, other than that is maintains neutrality. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * While I will agree that at least so far as the press release and that the website exists and seemed to be somewhat legitimate, I fail to see what sort of notability this article has or why it needs to be linked on some of the various templates that connect to this article.


 * If the idea here is to just tell the facts under the presumption that something may eventually happen is fine. I'm suggesting sufficient time has passed for that to happen.  I have seen much more notable and referenced articles be deleted on grounds of non-notability, and certainly within the context of various "new space" enterprises this company does not appear to be even a minor player.  What sort of historical context can be found by anybody who has been involved with this company?  Did anything else happen at all after the press release?  Were any of the major participants in this company of note before the announcement discussed in this article and/or have they achieved any note afterwards?


 * I mention the historical context mainly because I can see something like the "blue box" company that Steve Wozniack and Steve Jobs put together prior to creating Apple Computer as something worthy of an article even if the company itself is hardly of note by itself. No hardware has been created by Galactic Suite, and even the ideas were largely duplicated from other much more visionary people like Robert Bigelow.  --Robert Horning (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I only know what the articles discussing the matter have reported. As I said above, I have no problem if someone wants to take this to AfD...I simply consider the matter notable and verifiable because of the significant press attention that was garnered. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Article rename to Galactic Suite Design
As per my suggestion in Articles for deletion/Galactic Suite, I'd like to rename this article and rewrite it in the context of something about this design company. I would still like to see some more sources about this company... in English (preferably) but other languages would be welcome. Somebody who is bi-lingual and can help at least get the gist of what is in some of the Spanish-langauge articles written about this company would be very much appreciated. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Astroturfing/Original Research
Considering that the criticism section has been completely eliminated from this article together with other content about the company, I consider the latest changes to be essentially astroturfing and borders very dangerously with original research problems. See also WP:OR, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:ARTSPAM.

Yes, I've been a critic, but I also want to work with those who have some genuine information to add here. I see that the company's website has been drastically altered with a whole bunch of new content, but at the same time none of this is coming from secondary sources. Is anybody talking about this company at all? What sorts of "proof" is there that any of these ideas are going to be built? Who is working with this company?

I'm looking for legitimate outside sources of information for this company, and using the website itself almost exclusively for the content is not really sufficient for Wikipedia.

BTW, I agree that the article previously was sort of focused upon the space suites, but then again there isn't much to point to in terms of what has happened with that concept either. Besides the initial press conference & websites that merely reported that press conference, what else has happened? Any contract signed, or agreements to actually launch anything? --Robert Horning (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The article used to be entirely about the space suites, since that was all the media really discussed. Then someone came along and changed it to focus on the company rather than the product, and now the product has been moved entirely. No, the media is not discussing Galactic Suite at all these days. I'm sorely tempted to revert the changes as propaganda and to merge the new article back in. Everything created by QUITUS is basically a PR puff piece using primary sources. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm real tempted on that too. While I like the change in focus in terms of concentrating on the company itself and there may be something salvageable from that change, I have looked in vain in terms of trying to find something about this company from independent sources.  The one thing that might possibly change my mind is this posting on the EADS Astrium website.  I don't know the connection, if there is any, although it seemingly implies that Galactic Suites is going to be using the Astrium as their launcher and that some kind of contract has been signed between Astrium and Galactic Suites.  Unfortunately, that is original research as it really isn't said in the sources, and for all I know it was something merely posted on that website by a fan with absolutely no other connection.  It certainly looks like somebody is trying to gain legitimacy by association.


 * If this company is going to be launching customers in 2012, they have just over two years to get it to happen. While a manned version of the ATV has been proposed, a "€21 million study contract" doesn't sound like it is something which is going to be fast tracked and happening soon, nor is a launch on the Ariane 5 going to give the prices that Galactic Suite Design claims they are going to get.  In other words, my BS detector is pegging off the charts with this company.  I just don't see how the first European (non-Russian, non-American) going up into space on a completely European-built launch system is going to not be in the news, to the point that the brand of their dental floss will be well known.  Something of that nature will be massaged and poked around for years before it ever happens and spun up by PR firms and "government information bureaus" as a huge thing.


 * The secretive nature of this company, who loves press conferences and astroturfing the web (just how secretive is that?), has nobody writing about the company and they aren't doing anything to generate news stories besides creating websites. That is my problem here.  There are postings of a critical nature that I tend to agree with, even though the comment in the blog is an unreliable source of criticism (and no it isn't me either).  When I see articles talking about real hardware, they are talking about somebody else's hardware that has already been built or is being built clearly with money that isn't coming from Galactic Suite Design.  GSD isn't appearing on any foreseeable flight manifest for any launcher company, and isn't participating in the conferences on commercial spaceflight, including a recent Google Lunar X-Prize conference held in Europe between all of the serious teams going to the Moon.  You would think that would have been an appropriate venue to at least talk a little bit about their company, but they didn't even show up, and it was a tailor-made conference seemingly just for their company if they were serious about going into space.


 * All of this can be explained away, but it doesn't give me any confidence that this is a legitimate company doing anything going into space or frankly any of the other off-the-wall proposals listed in this current article. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected. I'm really grasping at straws here and spending perhaps too much time looking for a reliable source, but at least I can find somebody at least remotely connected to Galactic Suite Design involved in an international conference:

http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/lunar/teams/barcelona-moon-team/blog/the-barcelona-moon-team-at-the-international-astronautical-cong


 * They showed up, but what was said isn't all that flattering. Essentially, the gist of their presentation is that Spain has no legal framework to permit commercial spaceflight, so they are still in the middle of trying to work with Spanish lawmakers to come up with some process to make what it is that they are doing legal.  Yeah, that sounds like a huge problem to me.  Most governments move like glaciers, and something like this is going to take two years just for a politician to clear his throat.  It took 30 years and Burt Rutan to essentially say "damn the torpedoes" by flying something that needed regulating before a viable commercial spaceflight licensing agency was established in America.  --Robert Horning (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything you've said. I also cannot fathom the story on the EADS website...for such a major undertaking, that's the only mention given, and it's incredibly poorly written? (Mixing present and future tenses in a weird way.) Galactic Suite is almost entirely vaporware, but it's notable because it was covered by numerous reliable sources, so we have an obligation to cover it. But we are *not* required to have all this puffery. I've already gotten the new images deleted from Commons, as they were apparent copyright violations. I'm very busy right now, so I can't work on it too much, but I'm going to revert entirely this article and redirect the other article into this one, then work on merging some content hopefully on Monday. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there. What about the good faith assumption and patience with newcomers :) I guess you didn't really appreciate my first contribution to wikipedia. I probably missed some proceedings. Sorry about that. However let me say that my contribution was based on different press coverings in Spain (and as you saw also the official Astrium website) just to put some order in the previous informations between company and products. I didn't erase the Criticism section, I moved all the previous entry to a new post "Galactic Suite Space Resort" because that is the name of their space hotel project, and left in the Galactic Suite Design, their projects info. In fact, besides promoting the GS Space Resort (the space hotel) GSD is leading the only official Spanish candidate to the Google Lunar X Prize, the Barcelona Moon Team, and they actually assisted to the Team Summit at the Isle of Man (UK) in early October as it is posted in their official GLXP blog: http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/lunar/teams/barcelona-moon-team/blog/first-team-summit-for-the-barcelona-moon-team
 * I also posted the reference of another conference, the International Astronautical Conference (IAC2010-Prague, Czech Republic), where they presented some paper about their space hotel project, and within other presentors there were EADS-Astrium, GLXP and even Bigelow. http://www.iafastro.net/iac/browse.lite/IAC-10/E5/3/
 * GSD projects have wide press coverage in Spain, although maybe not that much in US, where other initiatives like theirs are going on all the time. I thought it would be good to clarify a bit the links to Galactic Suite Design (mother company), Galactic Suite Space Resort (space hotel) and other initiatives they work with (including the Barcelona Moon Team, 21st official team to GLXP). I'd appreciate if you would agree to recover my work there and discuss any language or structure problems you may think of. About the images, they've been published here in Spain and they are in their website, so I thought they can be published as such in the wikipedia. Thanks for your help and understanding Quitus (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with the images that you uploaded is that they were copyrighted images that belong to somebody else, unless you are claiming that you are the original artist involved with those images. We can have some of that content, but it is based upon the principle of fair-use, which have some significant restrictions on how and where they can be used.  While not completely prohibited, they must be significant enough to not be merely decorative but must illustrate something that can't be obtained somewhere else.  Getting permission from the artist involved or the company to have permission by licensing them with an open source license is preferable if possible.  I've had positive experience in the past, particularly for spaceflight companies like this, to do just that but it does take some asking and making a few e-mails.  Let's work together here, and note that you are walking a fine line if you are using somebody else's work, particularly if you do that without permission.  If instead you upload an image you made yourself (you took a photo of a booth at a convention that the company participated in) or drew up some diagrams using some image creation tool, those are certainly more than welcome here on Wikipedia.  Stuff like that does get uploaded all of the time too, I should note.


 * I also appreciate the fact that you actually tried to put something in here, but keep in mind that we need some additional sources, preferably from outside of the company itself. Since you seem to be privy to some additional information here than I'm able to find with Google searches, can you point to something that specifically addresses these projects that doesn't come from the company website.  Apparently there is some stuff, as you are saying, in Spanish or at least in the Spanish news media in some form.  Those are legitimate sources, but we need to compile a list of those sources if they are to be found, such as interviews of the people involved or a reporter who has described what is happening.


 * As a general question that perhaps you can answer.... are these guys for real? So far I don't see any sort of factory that is building anything, any sort of "bent metal" that would indicate that these guys are serious about getting anything accomplished.  If you could provide any sort of indication that this is something more than a wishful dream, I'd love to see it, regardless of the language it is written in.  I'm looking for something verifiable such as buying land for a factory, banks involved with financing the whole thing, or contracts that have been signed with rocket builders who would be flying modules, astronauts, or for that matter anything else they are claiming they are working on.  I'm not expecting a completed space station here, but I'd like to see at least some indication that this company is doing something other than issuing press releases and designing websites.  They have some hard deadlines that are being promised and a claim that people have paid real money for a trip to the space station.  If that is true, there should be some sort of government licensing, some sort of contract or something that clearly can't be faked or forged that would have to be created well in advance of this deadline.  I'd like to believe that these guys are for real, but I just don't see it.


 * Also, I'd like the relationship between the Barcelona Moon Team and Galactic Suite Design to be explained a little better. In some instances it seems like they and GSD are one and the same, but then the next thing I read seems to have only a very tenuous relationship at best with GSD where it is two completely different organizations.  Some kind of clarification on that issue is something that I would love to see uncovered, preferably from a 3rd party source but something from their main website would work too.  Is GSD funding and financing the GLXP effort, or is it merely sharing a couple of key personnel and more of a hobby?  I know some of that is subject to interpretation too, but it is something that would be useful for the article.


 * Anyway, please take this extreme skepticism in my part merely to be an attempt to get to the bottom of what this company really is doing. I don't have any particular bias against this company, and know that I would be just as skeptical of almost any other company that makes huge claims such as what this company is seeming to do.  I'm not fighting you in particular, but rather that I'm expecting a much higher standard of credibility than has been offered so far.  --Robert Horning (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As I see it there are three subjects here: the mother company Galactic Suite Design GSD, their most known project Galactic Suite Space Resort GSSR and their involvement in the GLXP through the Barcelona Moon Team BMT. Let's start here: there is a roster in the official blog at the GLXP website where it is explained that the BMT is leaded by Galactic Suite Moonrace, a filial company of Galactic Suite Design http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/lunar/teams/barcelona-moon/about, Xavier Claramunt is the team leader of that team in which there is also Juan de Dalmau from the Aerospace Technology Center in Barcelona, who appeared in a initial criticism to the GSSR project as it can be read in the previous article. This, I do not understand but considering the fact that this roster was of April 2010 and the previous article some time in 2007, I believe that he got more involved with the company and believes in it. Juan de Dalmau is an ESA member and a respected space personality in Spain. In that roster there are also other private companies and also professors of the Polytechnical University of Catalonia UPC, one of the main technical universities in Europe, that later joined the team as an institution as it also appears here http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/lunar/teams/barcelona-moon-team/blog/technical-university-of-catalonia-upc-joins-the-barcelona-moon- As I previously said, this is the only Spanish team inscribed in the GLXP and therefore is a serious and important event to be explained in the article.


 * Galactic Suite Design is then promoting and participating in many initiatives in the Spanish aerospace sector. This is a link to the main aerospace association in the Catalonia region (of which Barcelona is capital) where it is announced that the GSD company works together with other private companies in a research project for the aerospace sector http://www.bcnaerospace.org/public/new.php?id=44. Again they work there with the Aerospace Technology Center in Barcelona and many other companies. The consortium has been granted with a contract by the Science Ministry in Spain (MICINN) in the field of aerospace interiors. About their other projects, I found less information than the space hotel (GSSR) but here there are some links to important Spanish newspapers including El Pais http://www.elpais.com/articulo/sociedad/empresa/espanola/disena/aeronave/hinchable/subir/kilometros/elpepusoc/20090629elpepusoc_10/Tes and La Vanguardia, which I found in a paper edition (and then I do not know if it works as a "wiki" reference). Besides that as you were also mentioning in a previous entry in this discussion http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/lunar/teams/barcelona-moon-team/blog/the-barcelona-moon-team-at-the-international-astronautical-cong they were at the IAC in Prague to discuss on the Spanish Space law which is something Spain lacks of and that is being discussed in the space sector as there are other initiatives that would need such regulation. Virgin Galactic for instance has plans to stablish a spaceport in the Barcelona region as mentioned by Richard Branson at the end of this article http://www.publico.es/ciencias/138094/virgin-presenta-el-transporte-de-su-nave-espacial-para-turistas.


 * Finally the Galactic Suite Space Resort it seems to be the most known and polemical project they are working with. As we are discussing this subject, it has been published in many Spanish newspapers their relation to EADS Astrium as an "strategic agreement" to use European technology (there are no more options in Europe than ATV and Columbus technologies) for their space hotel. In La Vanguardia http://www.lavanguardia.es/economia/noticias/20101116/54072060699/galactic-suite-usara-tecnologia-de-eads-astrium-en-los-modulos-del-hotel-espacial.html or in El Mundo http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2010/11/16/ciencia/1289905575.html . I haven't heard of any reaction in EADS but they published that short note in their news section http://www.astrium.eads.net/node.php?articleid=5999 some days ago and just after the International Astronautical Congress IAC in Prague this year, where Galactic Suite was presenting in the some paper of their space hotel http://www.iafastro.net/iac/browse.lite/IAC-10/E5/3/ (by the way, in the same session there was a presentation by Astrium on their suborbital spaceplane, I guess they know something of each other's plans then).


 * If you ask me what I do believe about them, I am sure they are an existing company with real people working on all those subjects: the Science Ministry in Spain would not grant a contract to a vaporware company. I haven't heard about metal bending nor buying land to build the factory to produce it but that's not the only way to do it and if the company has a solid relation to Astrium, an ATV could be turned into a minispace station quite easily (they are not relying on the ATV to reenter as I understand it, just to stay there for a few days). The technology exists and the production line is working (a second ATV is going to be launched early next year http://www.esa.int/esaHS/SEM6ERPOHEG_index_0.html). If their relation to Astrium is that strong they might be in the position to launch a third module in late 2012, maybe. Some other problem is the access, but even Bigelow has that problem too. In any case I believe it's fair to cover those informations in the wikipedia and my intentions were only to put some order to so many different info. Again, what I did was to move the previous content of the GSD article to a newly created Galactic Suite Space Resort and rewrite the Galactic Suite Design as a more general information about the company focusing on the rest of the projects. Maybe some more focus should be put in their participation in the GLXP throught the Barcelona Moon Team.


 * I would propose then to you and Huntster to restore some of those previous informations and the Space Resort article, which was keeping the criticism section adding some more information, and arrange some of the language. I was actually going to start an article in Spanish based in this structure and I'll wait until we have a clear position here. To get their permission to upload the images I will send an email to gsd@galacticsuitedesign.com. Is there any permission form to be filled in or just the email? --Quitus (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi QUITUS. First, regarding the images, if you want to make contact with Galactic Suite regarding the free licensing of images, I suggest you read Commons:Commons:OTRS for instructions on how to proceed. In particular, see Commons:Commons:Email templates for an email template they can use to give permission. I was planning a more expansive reply here, but suffice it to say that when I have some more time (real life is very busy at the moment), I will work to merge some of the new information into the existing article, and cover some of the additional proposed projects. Now, you also mentioned the possibility of GS working with EADS Astrium; so far, I've not seen anything to suggest such a relationship other than a statement by GS that was refuted by Astrium, and the blurb regarding the company on the Astrium website, which is of questionable reliability/notability. GS is certain a real organisation, but the main question is what their status is currently. as Robert states, the best measure is whether they are actively working on hardware, or if everything is still on paper. For aerospace endeavours, it is simply not possible (from my perspective) for a private company to go from paper to orbiting hardware in two years, or rather, to do so safely. I would certainly not entrust my safety to such a rushed program. Their exorbitant claims are the real issue here, raising the question of whether anything they claim can be taken at face value. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Huntster. Thank you for your suggestions on the imaging. I'll certainly follow them. I'm also looking forward to reading your more expansive reply when you have the time, but it seems to me that we should also be able to distinguish a manufacturer company who "bends the metal" and a company who promotes the concept which doesn't necessarily need to be done by themselves. This is actually the same situation that has been announced by the Russian company Orbital Technologies http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Russian_company_to_build_space_hotel_with_home_comforts_999.html. Galactic Suite Space Resort SL or Ltd. or whatever might be able to promote a space hotel and not bend aluminium themselves.


 * It is my opinion that we should agree to restore the structure I proposed 1.Galactic Suite Design article on the company, and 2.Galactic Suite Space Resort article on the space hotel, and move there a further discussion on this. If you go through the links I published above you may agree that the company GSD is a serious Spanish company working in the aerospace sector, and that the space hotel is a real project (it is appearing in the international conferences), although I don't know in which "project phase" they may stand at the moment. That being said I also agree that 2012 seems very close but I don't have enough information to simply deny the whole thing. In previous years posts there was just one article that was "against" the project and we are basing all the criticism in the statements of that article.--Quitus (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Certainly, I'm not suggesting that a company that doesn't "bend the metal" can't be real, just that when dates like 2012 are given with no real evidence of tooling or outsourcing, the claims are very difficult to take seriously. That said, if it is covered in the media, we should report it, and we shall. We just need to give proper context to everything. Regarding having separate articles for the company and the space station, that really is not necessary. The space station material can easily be folded into the main article as a top-level subheader. This is done all the time in other articles, and is especially relevant here since the level of individual notability just isn't high enough to warrant separate articles. But like I said, I'll be working on this as time allows. (Though I admit, time hasn't been friendly over the past month!) — Huntster (t @ c) 20:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's start putting some of this content that Quitus has brought up here, and the articles from El Pais and La Vanguardia are certainly of the calibur that I was looking for and most certainly need to be included both here and perhaps on a recreated Galactic Suite Hotel Resorts article. The "La Vanguardia" piece in particular has enough details that confirm the official site that I think we can say that at least some of the more important details are double sourced and verifiable.

The one odd thing that still is not being answered here is why EADS-Astrium isn't talking more about this, especially if they are one of the major contractors putting this effort together. It would seem to me that a manned spaceflight program of any kind, and in particular a privately financed one would be huge news and something plastered all over their website. I haven't even seen anything to suggest that there is any sort of project within Astrium that is in production that would equate to what is suggested here. Space Adventures, a company who has booked flights into space, is currently unable to fly on the Soyuz spacecraft because NASA has purchased all of the available slots for the next couple of years. Unless Galactic Suite is going to be flying with the Chinese, I'm really curious about who is going to be providing the spacecraft that will be used here. You don't just make a spacecraft overnight that will carry passengers. Yes, there are a couple of American companies that are working on spacecraft, but those are still in development and won't be ready for passengers for several years, certainly well after 2012. SpaceX has stuff on their manifest which is very public, and Galactic Suite isn't on that list. I hope you understand my extreme skepticism here.

I'll try hard to have an open mind here that perhaps there is something I'm missing, but the time is coming soon that Galactic Suite must start doing something rather than talking about what it is that they are planning on doing. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that Astrium should be making "more noise" around this. Maybe the fact that those technologies were paid by ESA is asking for some cautiousness there.


 * In the article in La Vanguardia the journalist is messing a bit the concepts by saying that the first module will be launched by Soyuz that would remain attached to the module to be the lifeboat for passengers. Obviously the launch of the initial module should be made with an Ariane 5 if they use an evolution of the ATV and the Soyuz capsule would be the crew vehicle. However you may be right that they are looking for the Chinese option, for they announced the "exploration of launching capabilities" with China Great Wall Industry Corporation to launch the GLXP mission. http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/lunar/teams/barcelona-moon-team/blog/barcelona-moon-team-presents-its-project-in-the-global-lunar-ut Considering the fact that Galactic Suite Design is leading the GLXP team as well, it could be a business option for their passenger vehicle.


 * I will send the email asking for permission to use the images in their website. I still propose to divide the articles and have an extensive discussion section in the Galactic Suite Space Resort. If Hunster is too busy I can rewrite what I wrote last week and discuss over it.--Quitus (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course you ought to know that the Chinese have yet to perform an in-orbit rendezvous of any kind at all and aren't scheduled to even make their first attempt for a couple of years. This isn't nearly as easy of a task as would be though of and something that took NASA several years to perfect and wasn't attempted by Russia until 1968, and even that was a failure.  The first Russian rendezvous happened just a few months before the Apollo 11 Moon landing.  The ESA has done this exactly once to date although they are scheduled to make another attempt either at the end of this month or very shortly thereafter.  To even suggest the Chinese could do this is suggesting a level of sophistication that doesn't seem to be apparent, and perhaps as difficult to achieve as simply getting to orbit in the first place, perhaps even more so.


 * Anyway, there seems to be plenty of information with which to write an article that is from. Stick with the facts and try to avoid most of the stuff from the "official site" except for purely factual details like the size of the modules or number of people that can use them.  --Robert Horning (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there. While I am still waiting for an answer from the Company to use web based images on the project, I did some of the changes discussed including some changes on the article structure and updates after the Company's announce in November. I'll appreciate any correction in language, etc. I'll upload some images when possible. Quitus (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Merger of Barcelona Moon Team
While I have extreme doubts as to if this will amount to anything at all, it seems to be at least something noteworthy about Galactic Suit Design and is about the only thing which can reliably or verifiably be said that this organization even does. The Barcelona Moon Team article is as pathetic of a stub as I've ever seen, and not much will be lost if it simply is redirected to this page as this article has more information on the topic anyway. Perhaps this section could even be expanded somewhat. I wasn't the original proposer of the merger, but I'm completely supportive in this case as the merger will help both articles considerably. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm to original proposer of the merge (sorry, I forgot to post a comment here). Obviously I support the merge, and so I think I'll just go ahead and do it. Anxietycello (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Supportthe merge, per nom. N2e (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

✅ — the merge was completed some time ago now.

more on Barcelona Moon Team, and the paucity of current info on the GSD orbital facility plans
NOTE to Robert Horning—I agree with your assessment that the notability of the orbital space facility plans of this company are suspect. I have requested that the article sections that deal with those claims be updated, with citations. If they are not, we will probably want to trim those sections back and re-focus the prose toward describing a failed/cancelled/never-funded orbital facility, and remove the undue emphasis on that aspect of GSD's former business plan. I've also cleaned up and expanded just a bit to the Barcelona Moon Team section, which is, as you said, about the only part of this company that is currently active, notable and verifiable. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * N2e, I've changed the inline templates to a single header...there's just no need for the duplication. However, I'm not entirely sure that it is needed. Nothing in the article is truly dated, in that specific material is out of date. The article simply states that certain things either happened or were announced at certain times. At this point, the only point in the article that even mentions a target date is the Criticism section, and it does so in a neutral manner. The article can and should certainly be expanded to deal with other aspects of the company, but I see no reason to start removing chunks out of the station section, when that is what the company is primarily known for, and at the time was (and still occasionally is) widely reported upon. (Not to mention, it certainly seems that it is *still* part of their business plan, not former.) — Huntster (t @ c) 08:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.designbuild-network.com/projects/galactic-suite/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Galactic Suite Design. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aftenposten.no/reise/article1934576.ece
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927005457/http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/teams/barcelona-moon-team to http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/teams/barcelona-moon-team
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070916133051/http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/ to http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)