I find strange that line of thinking. That NASA and other space agencies use highly trained personnel like military pilots for space missions seems largely a historical accident.

In "The Right Stuff", there is discussion on this topic, initially trapeeze artists were thought to be the ideal personnel for the space program due to the high dynamic forces they routinely experience. Another opinion being considered was to use death row prisoners. Finally it was decided to use military pilots from mostly a PR point of view.

>"Finally it was decided to use military pilots from mostly a PR point of view."

I suspect that decision making process was dramatized in The Right Stuff. Test pilots make sense for several reasons: they already understand aeronautical concepts, are used to g-forces, have experience with state of the art machines, have a high risk tolerance, and are already familiar with following orders.

I'm sure it was over-dramatized in the film (which I haven't seen, I'm just assuming they prioritized compelling storytelling based on the fact that it wasn't a public television documentary), but supposedly something like that decisionmaking process actually happened. For example, see Wikipedia's synopsis of the book, which was presumably at least somewhat more factual (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_Stuff_(book)#Book):

The storyline also involves the political reasons for putting people into space, asserting that the Mercury astronauts were actually a burden to the program and were only sent up for promotional reasons. Reasons for including living beings in spacecraft are barely touched upon, but the first option considered was to use a chimpanzee (and, indeed, chimpanzees were sent up first).

Another option considered was using athletes already accustomed to physical stress, such as circus trapeze artists. Wolfe states that President Dwight D. Eisenhower, however, insisted on pilots, even though the first crew members would not actually fly the spacecraft.

> are already familiar with following orders.

Probably more than this, following protocols but having an ability to think for themselves on their feet (as opposed to a grunt following minutia orders).

Do you really think the pilots are nothing more than dead weight whose only purpose is to be a passenger? The astronauts were some of the best of the best because it was an experimental flight program. Do you really think the best pilots would sign up and give their lives just to be a test subject with no control like the chimpanzee the Russians put into space?

Basically yes, that’s what they signed up for in project mercury. The initial plan had nothing for the human to pilot. Mercury only got manual controls and a window because the astronauts fought for them.

The point is that they don’t have to, the level of discipline is unnecessary, viable commercial space travel means it is supposed to become even more unnecessary

So the gatekeeping can go away

Exactly. Literal monkeys and dogs did the job, before Gagarin or Shepard.

If you're interested about that, the "The Calculating Stars" book talks a bit about it. It's really nice to read !

"An astronaut (from the Greek "astron" (ἄστρον), meaning "star", and "nautes" (ναύτης), meaning "sailor") is a person trained, equipped, and deployed by a human spaceflight program to serve as a commander or crew member aboard a spacecraft."

They were trained (not as well trained as NASA astronauts, but still trained well enough for such a short mission)

They were equipped with whatever equipments they needed for this flight.

They were deployed by a human spaceflight program.

So by definition, shouldn't they classify as "astronauts"?

Crew members have defined roles and responsibilities, and are important to the success of a mission beyond having paid to be there. The alternative is more apt here, I think: passengers.

I take it you're not a big fan of Gagarin, the first human in space, then. What was his importance beyond 'being there'?

Vostok 1 is a tricky exception because there was no gurantee Gagarin would be conscious or even alive when he got to space. That mission had to be automated.

But he had a role other than just being a passenger. He was there to make observations on the performance of the rocket and the spacecraft, as well as himself throughout the mission. There's a clear scientific role here that the Blue Origin tourists do not have. And while the controls were locked, Gagarin had the code to unlock them and was to take over the spacecraft in the event of automation failure or another manually recoverable emergency.

As I wrote someplace else before: his job was done by dogs and monkeys before, so it's hardly mission critical for him to even be conscious. In fact, the mission would have been considered a great success even if he had been unconscious the whole flight, as long as he survived. His presence was the key point.

Throughout Mercury, the astronauts had to fight for control elements to even be included in the spacecraft because automation was considered the safer option.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan and these steps were incredible milestones, and I certainly wouldn't have wanted to switch seats with anyone.

Here, I am sure Bezos can/would argue that "someone had to make observations on the performance of the rocket and the spacecraft, as well as himself throughout the mission". Sure, the goal here is commercial, but it's hard to argue that Gagarin's flight was made to gain pure scientific knowledge to finally answer the pressing question of how humans react to spaceflight, rather than political/technological.

That why they called him an cosmonaut instead of astronaut. SCNR

You may be right.

But still for the sake of discussion, I would argue that their mission required only 1 responsibility - that you be there. Even if they orbit around the Earth, modern spacecrafts are designed in such a way that crew member input is almost unnecessary. I wonder how much crew input is needed to dock on ISS in modern crafts...

Astronaut pro tempore may apply

Surely I'm not a sailor for having taken a cruise ship. I did, however, participate in the safety demonstration, and packed my bags.

I'm definitely on-board with calling Bezos a passenger.

To finish you wiki quote:

"Although generally reserved for professional space travelers, the terms are sometimes applied to anyone who travels into space, including scientists, politicians, journalists and tourists."

When I'm out rowing a boat I don't think anyone would consider me a captain. Or when I'm sitting on a ship, I don't think anyone would consider me a sailor.

When I'm on a flight I'm called a passenger, for example. They were passengers.

What about the "serve as commander or crew member" part?

are the members of the crew of Blue Origin 3 not 'crew members'?

If I drive onto the ferry am I part of the crew? I’ve been told (trained) on what to do and I’m equipped (my car), so am I a crew member? No, I’m just a passenger following the crew’s direction.

If you are the only one aboard then you are crew.

If the ferry is fully automated and I don't do anything beyond parking my car safely I wouldn't say I was crew then, I'm still just a passenger until I actually do something for the operation of the vehicle/craft.

Is a passenger on a commercial flight a crew member? Would you call every passenger an “airman”?

I’d ask their name and call them that.

I’m under no obligation to recognize anyone as anything but an average human without proof they’re actually skilled as they claim.

Titles are political euphemism. I want to know someone’s profile to know who I am dealing with. You’re a doctor? Of ants. Not helpful when I need someone that studied human anatomy.

None of these titles explain the training involved. The honestly gained skill set based on direct learning.

Bezos isn’t a genius; he’s a politically elevated person due to financial success. Humans will never live among the stars as the meat bags we are; far more likely we etch a simulated human consciousness into a new medium than adapt this biology. We’re just watching one guy get his jollies off at our political expense.

Titillate the masses to keep them politically disorganized. Humans used to wage holy wars, invade other nations to do that. Now it’s engineering and economic spectacle.

What a trivial and boring people I live among. Collectively setting themselves aside to ogle this stuff.

Is the passenger sitting in 23E on a flight from Newark to LA a "crew member"?

That seems pedantic. Just because technology has lowered the requirements for becoming an astronaut, that doesn't change the definition.

So if I go on an ocean cruise I'm a Sailor?

It seems like you can clearly delineate, by whether you are being paid to be there, or you are paying to be there.

The analogy is tough because as far as I know there isn't an official definition of what a sailor is. Nor is there an internationally recognized registry like the "Fédération Aéronautique Internationale" which keeps track of people it considers Astronauts/Cosmonauts/Taiknonauts, etc.

There is an official definition of what a seaman/sailor is. Admiralty law is a thing [1][2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaman_status_in_United_States...

[2] https://www.maritimeinjuryguide.org/maritime-lawsuit/qualifi...

Huh, I was wrong. Thank you for sharing.

Honestly these days even the “real” astronauts are basically passengers. The systems are so heavily automated, including anomaly response, and the parts that aren’t are mostly done by ground operators. Crew Dragon doesn’t even have a stick. It’s not the ‘60s anymore, which in many ways is good. But glamorous it ain’t. Let’s not forgot that the end result of all this will be to make spaceflight as pedestrian as air travel, an activity that hasn’t had a shred of its initial sparkle for decades.

I think w0de0 got to the heart of the matter (elsewhere in this thread) with their comment about astronauts being associated with public service. That rings true for me as to the source of the insult.

> I found it annoying, even a bit insulting, that they kept referring to the people in the capsule as "astronauts".

This is all about poking at Virgin Galactic. Virgin Galactic cleared 80km, which is the height that earns you astronaut wings in the USA. Blue Origin clears the Kármán line (100km), which is the internationally recognized standard for human spaceflight. So they're digging in hard on, "Jeff Bezos has been to space, Richard Branson hasn't," in an effort to imply that Virgin Galactic's flight from earlier this month doesn't count, theirs is the real first.

And how about Christa McAuliffe? She was a career school teacher who had the opportunity to fly on the Challenger. But she was also titled an astronaut.

Christa was trained and fully qualified for her role.

All on board today were trained and fully qualified for their roles.

In which their role was 'sit there, when sign says you can unbuckle, dso that, then get clicked back in when it's time.

Christa was legit trained how to spacewalk.

Exactly. Which is more than what Gagarin or Shepard did.

Sure, McAuliffe trained to do so much more, but all of them fulfill the criterion you gave of what an astronaut is.

She trained for that mission for a year, and planned to conduct experiments and teach lessons from space. I don’t make the rules, but it seems to me she did a fair bit more than touristing.

as·tro·naut /ˈastrəˌnôt/

noun a person who is trained to travel in a spacecraft.

They were trained, and they traveled in a spacecraft.

This is such a historical moment and this is what people are focusing on?

What difference does it really make to you or to anyone? Who the hell really cares?

And this is the top comment here. Come on people. Enjoy things for a change.

Your critical responses focus on parsing the meaning of "astronaut," or on the true utility of the job with respect to other non-human test pilots.

I leave all of that aside, and agree with you on egalitarian and emotional grounds. The term in America rightly has implications of public service - of deserving the fantastically unique opportunity of exploring space on behalf of all Americans by virtue of intelligence, diligence, and impeccable ethics. Topically, this might be compared to Olympians: though all extreme athletes perform extraordinary feats, Olympians carry an extra responsibility to represent us as a nation. So too with people called "astronauts."

Whether or not one agrees with this understanding, I believe it is the practical understanding underlying your (and my) insult at the use of this term.

Looking up the definition of astronaut, I'm inclined to agree with you. They weren't crew, the flight was autonomous. It's unclear what if anything they could do should there have been a problem.

Shuttleworth and Tito underwent a year of training, including 7 months at Star City. They also conducted scientific experiments while on the station. They are formally considered Spaceflight Participants by Roscosmos, the FAA and NASA. They weren't considered Cosmonauts or Astronauts, but that seems to be solely due to their non-professional status rather than their training or operational duties.

> I found it annoying, even a bit insulting, that they kept referring to the people in the capsule as "astronauts".

When you reach a certain threshold of wealth, you get access to an unbelievably efficient PR machine and you can become basically whatever the hell you want and rewrite reality to suit your imagination. Hell, you'll even get people to believe it and ruthlessly defend your reality.

Its the same with pilots. Early on only pilots flew at all. Currently anybody who crosses a certain line is considered an astronaut.

There will be some shakeup in the is there clearly is a different between the type of astronaut that is trained to do experiments in space and repair a space station, and somebody who just sits in his seat and lets the space-craft fly.

Would you feel the same way if this were, say, a collection of college students that achieved the same thing?