SpaceX Crewed Dragon Circumlunar Mission

[tater]

I'd think a broad definition makes the most sense. Part of me would want to not include suborbital flights at all, but then Alan Shepard ceases to be an astronaut--

No, he still flew on Apollo 14

Right, I edited it for clarity. I was thinking that in historical writing, you'd have to then not consider him an astronaut until he was past suborbital.  So you'd then have to talk about them using another term, say "space passenger" (not serious here) so and so... then later, when they fly in space orbitally they become an astronaut, which is sort of a mess).

Like I said, the broader definition makes more sense. The issue with suborbital only becomes confusing when more and more people take hops, or if, for example, suborbital ever became a flight path for what is not airline traffic (distant future), then perhaps thousands a day fly into space for a few minutes.

[tater]

Jim Lovell comments on the SpaceX mission and comparisons with Apollo 8:

http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-030817a-spacex-moon-lovell-apollo8.html

The description Lovell uses for the people going on this trip is "passengers", since the vehicle will be automated and if nothing goes wrong they don't have any mission responsibilities.  But even as passengers, he said:

"You have to remember, it's not just the view. It is also the experience. It's the fact that they will come back and at the next cocktail party, they will be the center of attention," he said. "It is the fact that they will have done something that only a few other people have ever done."

I like the term "passenger", and it avoids the sub-categorization challenge we've had between "tourist", "adventurer" and so on.

The issue here I suppose is "mission responsibilities." That certainly works at some level, but would a filmmaker taking such a flight then not be a passenger if they made a film? Would that be their "mission responsibility?" It's nice that this is even a conversation to have, frankly, instead of all such travel that is plausible in the near future requiring a government program be involved.

On the same, automated spacecraft, if a SpaceX employee were the passenger, but they were to monitor the craft as a sort of test pilot, then they have a responsibility, and they count?

I'm sort of looking forward, though, since I can only see humans doing less and less of the flying... I think we'll all face the same issue WRT automobiles in the not too distant future as it becomes clear that the weak link in safety is the squishy bit behind the wheel.

[Rocket Science]

Jim Lovell comments on the SpaceX mission and comparisons with Apollo 8:

http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-030817a-spacex-moon-lovell-apollo8.html

The description Lovell uses for the people going on this trip is "passengers", since the vehicle will be automated and if nothing goes wrong they don't have any mission responsibilities.  But even as passengers, he said:

"You have to remember, it's not just the view. It is also the experience. It's the fact that they will come back and at the next cocktail party, they will be the center of attention," he said. "It is the fact that they will have done something that only a few other people have ever done."

I like the term "passenger", and it avoids the sub-categorization challenge we've had between "tourist", "adventurer" and so on.

The issue here I suppose is "mission responsibilities." That certainly works at some level, but would a filmmaker taking such a flight then not be a passenger if they made a film? Would that be their "mission responsibility?" It's nice that this is even a conversation to have, frankly, instead of all such travel that is plausible in the near future requiring a government program be involved.

On the same, automated spacecraft, if a SpaceX employee were the passenger, but they were to monitor the craft as a sort of test pilot, then they have a responsibility, and they count?

I'm sort of looking forward, though, since I can only see humans doing less and less of the flying... I think we'll all face the same issue WRT automobiles in the not too distant future as it becomes clear that the weak link in safety is the squishy bit behind the wheel.

As I have stated many pages back from fly my flying experience: If you are "not" the operator of the craft, you are considered a passenger, even "if" you hold a pilot's license and you are not PIC... What activities you choose do as a passenger has no bearing on the matter...

[tater]

As I have stated many pages back from fly my flying experience: If you are "not" the operator of the craft, you are considered a passenger, even "if" you hold a pilot's license and you are not PIC... What activities you choose do as a passenger has no bearing on the matter...

Absolutely.

There have been many NASA astronauts who were not capable of flying the Shuttle, for example.

I suppose once the number of people who have been to space reaches some critical level, it will cease to matter.

It will probably progress such that if your job is to fly in space, you are an astronaut (this would discount people like Jake Garn, Christa McAuliffe, etc, since it was not really their job, but single trips---but we'd assume anyone already labeled astronaut will keep the label). If you are merely visiting space, then perhaps another label (or none at all) is used. Once people live in space, then the word needs to evolve again, or disappear, since everyone living in space being an "astronaut" would be silly. It will become like "aeronaut," an anachronism that clearly refers to the age of early space exploration when such travel was not routine.

There's a possible definition, link it to presumed risk. If the chance of fatal mishap is greater than X, then you are an astronaut. Once it's as safe as air travel was at some historical point, it ceases to get a name (then the professionals will be called "spacecraft pilot" or whatever applies).

[LouScheffer]

The discussion of semantics regarding what to call them is entirely reasonable, although it perhaps deserves a thread to itself.

Ships and airlines have made many of these distinctions for years.  The captain is the ultimate decision maker.  A pilot steers the ship.  The crew are professionals trained to support the mission, with many different skills.  The categories overlap, so the captain is part of the crew, and some of the time may be the pilot.   The passengers have little or no responsibility for running the ship, except in emergencies when they may be pressed into service.

I too look forward to the day when spaceflight is common enough to make distinctions like this useful.

[DOCinCT]

The discussion of semantics regarding what to call them is entirely reasonable, although it perhaps deserves a thread to itself.

Ships and airlines have made many of these distinctions for years.  The captain is the ultimate decision maker.  A pilot steers the ship.  The crew are professionals trained to support the mission, with many different skills.  The categories overlap, so the captain is part of the crew, and some of the time may be the pilot.   The passengers have little or no responsibility for running the ship, except in emergencies when they may be pressed into service.

I too look forward to the day when spaceflight is common enough to make distinctions like this useful.

When one of the Wright brothers had an additional party on a flight in 1908, he was a passenger (not operator, or pilot).

[Ric Capucho]

Jim Lovell comments on the SpaceX mission and comparisons with Apollo 8:

http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-030817a-spacex-moon-lovell-apollo8.html

The description Lovell uses for the people going on this trip is "passengers", since the vehicle will be automated and if nothing goes wrong they don't have any mission responsibilities.  But even as passengers, he said:

"You have to remember, it's not just the view. It is also the experience. It's the fact that they will come back and at the next cocktail party, they will be the center of attention," he said. "It is the fact that they will have done something that only a few other people have ever done."

I like the term "passenger", and it avoids the sub-categorization challenge we've had between "tourist", "adventurer" and so on.

The issue here I suppose is "mission responsibilities." That certainly works at some level, but would a filmmaker taking such a flight then not be a passenger if they made a film? Would that be their "mission responsibility?" It's nice that this is even a conversation to have, frankly, instead of all such travel that is plausible in the near future requiring a government program be involved.

On the same, automated spacecraft, if a SpaceX employee were the passenger, but they were to monitor the craft as a sort of test pilot, then they have a responsibility, and they count?

I'm sort of looking forward, though, since I can only see humans doing less and less of the flying... I think we'll all face the same issue WRT automobiles in the not too distant future as it becomes clear that the weak link in safety is the squishy bit behind the wheel.

As I have stated many pages back from fly my flying experience: If you are "not" the operator of the craft, you are considered a passenger, even "if" you hold a pilot's license and you are not PIC... What activities you choose do as a passenger has no bearing on the matter...

Pilots occasionally call 'em SLF... Self-Loading Freight.

Ric

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

My take on the complexity of identifying what the term Astronaut means:

Astronaut
->Type
    -Operator
         *Craft Pilot
         *other systems operator
    -Passenger
         *Transit to location where the operator job is
         * Tourist
->Destinations
    -Suborbital
    -Orbital
         *EVA
    -Deep Space
         *EVA
    -Exo-planetary Surface (includes moons)
         *Surface Excursion

[Proponent]

Anyone in a U.S. government program that flew over 50 miles in altitude earned their astronaut wings including X-15 pilots...

The 50-mile criterion was an Air Force creation, and I believe only Air Force pilots received astronaut's wings.

[manoweb]

So Navy astronauts (I know there have been a few) did not get those?

[Toast]

So Navy astronauts (I know there have been a few) did not get those?

It was my understanding that they receive a set of wings, but they are slightly different.

[manoweb]

http://www.geekwire.com/2017/moon-trip-billionaire-charles-simonyi/

Apparently Simony is not going (on this flight)

[Rocket Science]

Anyone in a U.S. government program that flew over 50 miles in altitude earned their astronaut wings including X-15 pilots...

The 50-mile criterion was an Air Force creation, and I believe only Air Force pilots received astronaut's wings.

Correct, the FAI set the boundary for space at 62 miles... All NASA X-15 "astro-flghts" including civilians received their wings, some posthumously many years later... Two met the FAI 62 mile Karman line...

[Elvis in Space]

I prefer the word "astronaut" to encompass any early space voyager. For at least the next few years anyone in space gets the title of "astronaut" as a result of the romantic sounding Latin origins of the word - "Sailor among the stars". Just like the guy who did the cooking on Leif Ericson's ship was a "Viking explorer".

[notsorandom]

What we call the two people on this flight seem like it was settled long ago. Dennis Tito doesn't call himself an astronaut.

[TomH]

Oh good grief, the feeble semantics here are absurd. Etymologically, the word is a modern compound construct of two Greek bases. astro from astron: stars plural and naut: sailor, thus he or she who sails among the stars. No human has ever accomplished interstellar travel and certainly not by means of a solar sail. The meaning is connotative (figurative), not denotative (literal), and as such is subject to interpretation. This is as far off topic as I have ever seen Chris allow. This is below the quality of most NSF threads. Do we need a linguistics forum with an etymology thread? This is enough quibbling insofar as the topic at hand!

[IntoTheVoid]

What we call the two people on this flight seem like it was settled long ago. Dennis Tito doesn't call himself an astronaut.

Perhaps that's a simple enough definition.
If you were paid to go, presumably because you had a useful purpose, then you're an astronaut. And if you paid, then you're not.

[Kaputnik]

What we call the two people on this flight seem like it was settled long ago. Dennis Tito doesn't call himself an astronaut.

Perhaps that's a simple enough definition.
If you were paid to go, presumably because you had a useful purpose, then you're an astronaut. And if you paid, then you're not.

So if you set up and fund a company and make yourself an employee of that company, and it flies you into space, are you an astronaut?

[MATTBLAK]

Good grief! I go away from a thread for a few hours - and it goes mad!!    Now we're arguing semantics?! It's going to be a manned trip around the freaken Moon, guys! Aren't even some of you going to get behind this?! Or even be a little happy?! Do I know that it's potentially a stunt, compared to a real exploration mission? Yes; probably I do. Do I care? NO!!

In this era of little leadership and budget-strangled mediocrity, this mission should be treated as a step in the right direction. If most (not all, sadly) of us could get behind this flight - this could be our chance to bootstrap something better into being, before too long...

[Rocket Science]

Good grief! I go away from a thread for a few hours - and it goes mad!!    Now we're arguing semantics?! It's going to be a manned trip around the freaken Moon, guys! Aren't even some of you going to get behind this?! Or even be a little happy?! Do I know that it's potentially a stunt, compared to a real exploration mission? Yes; probably I do. Do I care? NO!!

In this era of little leadership and budget-strangled mediocrity, this mission should be treated as a step in the right direction. If most (not all, sadly) of us could get behind this flight - this could be our chance to bootstrap something better into being, before too long...

Maybe some of these people work for ASAP...