The great 'Astronaut' debate

I've read several articles in the past week or two on the definition of WHO should be allowed to describe themselves as an astronaut. Most have simply listed the same few disparate points of view but none that I have seen have actually come to any meaningful conclusion or 'solved' the problem. From my perspective, the answer is actually quite simple.

The real problem with the term stems from the advent of space-tourism and the difference between what it used to mean to have travelled into space and what it is going to mean in the coming years. In the past, to travel into space you had to be selected by a government agency as 'the best of the best' and having 'the right stuff' (and many other such testosterone fuelled cliché's). You had to train for a good few years and for the most part, you had to have SOME training in how to operate/pilot the craft you were flying in. You were an active part of the mission, chosen to complete a job, and you were paid (well, in the case of US astronauts, not so well in the case of Soviet era cosmonauts) for doing that job.

Clearly a 'space tourist' is a very different thing. The training to fly on a Virgin Galactic or Blue Origin suborbital flight is days, or maybe weeks, but certainly not years. Space tourists are not generally trained how to fly the vehicle they are on, and are not given any specific tasks they must carry out whilst onboard. The most critical point however, that I feel makes all the difference is: they are PAYING to fly into space, not being PAID to fly into space.

Whilst it is clearly in the interest of the space-tourism companies to sell you the 'dream' of being an astronaut and will therefore argue that anyone who flies over the Karman line at 100km (or over 50 miles if you are Virgin Galactic) is to be referred to as such, I don't agree, and I think, if I'm honest, I feel that it degrades the risks taken by true astronauts.

In my opinion the determining factor in this argument is actually very simple, it's nothing more than: 'Is flying into space your job?' If you are getting paid to make the flight, then yes, I'd say you are an astronaut. If you are paying to make it, you are not, you are a space tourist (or an 'astropassenger' if we want a new term). I have been trying to find a suitable analogy for this but space flight and how it has evolved is kind of unique. The best I can come up with is air travel. Just because you've flown on holiday on an aeroplane, you can't claim to be a pilot. Flight developed certainly in a similar way to spaceflight in that, in the early years, the only people who could experience it were those who were flying the aircraft, in many cases, those who had also built the aircraft. The knowledge required to reach that point of experiencing flight was enormous, and the risks were also enormous. It was only when aircraft became more reliable and 'everyday' that it became possible to then pay to be flown by a skilled pilot from point A to point B or just to be taken up to experience flight.

In my view, astronauts share many characteristics and skills with those 'magnificent men in their flying machines' and we should preserve the respect, and even the romance, that goes with the title of 'Astronaut' to continue to encourage young people to strive for the rarest and most exciting job in the world.

Addendum - 23/07/2021: I feel that this is relevant enough, following the Virgin and Blue Origin flights in the last couple of weeks, that it needs including here. It seems to essentially follow the same conclusions I came to regarding the purpose and involvement of your flight into space being the key to the definition, rather than just how high you flew:

RE: New FAA Regulations on "Astronaut" Designation

"Literally moments before Blue Origin was handing out the sapphire-tipped [astronaut] wings to its crew, the FAA issued new regulations on who can claim to be an astronaut after a commercial space flight. Going 50 miles high is no longer enough. You have to undergo rigorous training; the Blue Origin crew did only 14 hours, though Wally Funk might make a case for previous prep. Also, you must contribute to the safety of the flight or space flight in general, which is hard to do on Blue Origin, whose flights are totally autonomous. Companies are free to make up their own ceremony to bestow wings, as both Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin did. But those high-priced baubles are no more official than the plastic wings airlines give to small children. As per the order: “If the FAA approves a formal presentation, it will contact the crew expected to receive the award or delegated individual/organization to schedule the award presentation.” (There’s also a provision for honorary astronaut status for people making a substantial contribution to the safety of space, and I suspect that Bezos and Funk might deserve that distinction.) Blue Origin tells me, basically, that it intends to ignore the new rules."

-- Via Stephen Levy of Wired Magazine's email newsletter this morning.