Bezos and Branson not yet astronauts, US says(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Bezos and Branson not yet astronauts, US says
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57950149
159 comments
"Playing with toys" is a really dismissive way to describe the combined effort of 1000s of engineers and blue collar workers who innovated on a scale existing space companies haven't in decades to produce a service that will be utilized by millions in the near future for a fraction of the cost it once was.
1000s of engineers are also involved in Lego and other actual toys :)
Racecars are my personal toys - only needed a few thousand from BMW for public production and a few hundred for the aftermarket support.
Racecars are my personal toys - only needed a few thousand from BMW for public production and a few hundred for the aftermarket support.
"Playing with toys" is a really dismissive way to describe the combined effort of 1000s of engineers and blue collar workers who innovated on a scale existing space companies haven't in decades to produce a service that will be utilized by millions in the near future for a fraction of the cost it once was.
On a competitive landscape, these companies are too late to the party with too little to show for it, and they are likely to be eclipsed by startups if they remain so slow in their progress.
It would be great if Bezo has a real rivalry with Elon, but sadly that is not the case.
On a competitive landscape, these companies are too late to the party with too little to show for it, and they are likely to be eclipsed by startups if they remain so slow in their progress.
It would be great if Bezo has a real rivalry with Elon, but sadly that is not the case.
You may be in for a surprise. Starting late and being "slow" aren't actually the big predictors for failure. Particularly in the tech industry we should all remember Apple, who was persistently identified as slow, late and only making incremental improvements until the ungodly profits and overwhelming success of their strategy forced all the grumpy types to quiet down.
And it turned out that as long as there are consistent incremental improvements "slow" is very hard to judge. In hindsight, Apple was moving very fast.
Not saying any particular venture will succeed, but the qualifications for success aren't speed nor earliness. Success comes from clear communication, solving a problem and correctly identifying opportunity.
And it turned out that as long as there are consistent incremental improvements "slow" is very hard to judge. In hindsight, Apple was moving very fast.
Not saying any particular venture will succeed, but the qualifications for success aren't speed nor earliness. Success comes from clear communication, solving a problem and correctly identifying opportunity.
Blue Origin has twenty years plus to make their case. SpaceX is slightly younger, but about the same age.
If anything, Blue Origin had a head start. They squandered it.
If anything, Blue Origin had a head start. They squandered it.
Who knows, Tesla was “late” to the car building gig, electric car research has been going on already. Now they seem to be ahead.
Perhaps they are treating the
1000s of engineers and blue collar workers
It's like modern-day Pyramids: large scale engineering projects made for personal vanity.
Which isn't to say they didn't advance engineering as a whole or weren't otherwise beneficial.
Which isn't to say they didn't advance engineering as a whole or weren't otherwise beneficial.
Speaking of vanity. How much thought did Bezos put into those Cowboy hats? It seemed like his was a calculated move? Single, and ready to mingle? "If I put them on everyone, I might come off better?
I'm actually a fan of his rocket company.
I did find it a bit sad we are so behind in terms of what I pictured the future to be when I watched Apollo land on the moon.
I'm actually a fan of his rocket company.
I did find it a bit sad we are so behind in terms of what I pictured the future to be when I watched Apollo land on the moon.
Before he exited the ship someone outside is seen gesturing for him to put the hat on.
It is 100% a calculated "I'm a space cowboy" image maker.
It is 100% a calculated "I'm a space cowboy" image maker.
What's the difference between them treating "1000s of engineers and blue collar workers as toys", and everyone else enjoying movies/games/trinkets made by humans?
It reduces the value of a human being? These billionaires are blowing money on their personal midlife crises when they could be raising worker wages and helping to end poverty with billions to spare. People were able to go into space before billionaires wanted to do it on a whim, you know.
>It reduces the value of a human being?
Why does it reduce the value of a human being? What's the difference between a billionaire employing 1000 people for his frivolous needs compared to a million people employing 0.001 people each for their frivolous needs?
>These billionaires are blowing money on their personal midlife crises when they could be raising worker wages and helping to end poverty with billions to spare.
And what about all the people living in 3bd room houses, driving luxury cars, buying electronics, when they can be saving a life for as little as $3000[1]? Are they bad people for spending $3000 on creature comforts when they can be literally saving lives with that money?
> People were able to go into space before billionaires wanted to do it on a whim, you know.
Ever since the cold war ended, "going into space" has moving ahead at a glacial pace. I for one welcome the increased funding.
This funding chart[2] that gets passed along captures this dynamic perfectly. Would people want fusion power regardless of billionaires? Yes. That doesn't mean I wouldn't want billionaires funding fusion research to speed things up.
[1] https://www.givewell.org/giving101/Your-dollar-goes-further-...
[2] https://external-preview.redd.it/LkKBNe1NW51Wh-8nLSTRdQtTha2...
Why does it reduce the value of a human being? What's the difference between a billionaire employing 1000 people for his frivolous needs compared to a million people employing 0.001 people each for their frivolous needs?
>These billionaires are blowing money on their personal midlife crises when they could be raising worker wages and helping to end poverty with billions to spare.
And what about all the people living in 3bd room houses, driving luxury cars, buying electronics, when they can be saving a life for as little as $3000[1]? Are they bad people for spending $3000 on creature comforts when they can be literally saving lives with that money?
> People were able to go into space before billionaires wanted to do it on a whim, you know.
Ever since the cold war ended, "going into space" has moving ahead at a glacial pace. I for one welcome the increased funding.
This funding chart[2] that gets passed along captures this dynamic perfectly. Would people want fusion power regardless of billionaires? Yes. That doesn't mean I wouldn't want billionaires funding fusion research to speed things up.
[1] https://www.givewell.org/giving101/Your-dollar-goes-further-...
[2] https://external-preview.redd.it/LkKBNe1NW51Wh-8nLSTRdQtTha2...
> And what about all the people living in 3bd room houses, driving luxury cars, buying electronics, when they can be saving a life for as little as $3000[1]? Are they bad people for spending $3000 on creature comforts when they can be literally saving lives with that money?
They aren't directly in charge of policies that cause so much misery to so many people.
They aren't directly in charge of policies that cause so much misery to so many people.
Sounds like we veered away from "is jeff bezos a bad person for employing 1000 engineers for his personal project?" to "is bezos a bad person in general?".
It makes me sick that income inequality has gotten to the point that the top dogs can’t even flex against one another via jet aircraft and billion dollar super yachts anymore, so they are flexing with their own private NASAs, while our terrestrial infrastructure and healthcare system in the US is collapsing. It’s shameful.
You're just making excuses for them. They made a lot of money so they deserve to sit on it and use it just for themselves. I'm not talking about other people, I'm talking about people who only focus on continually acquiring money so they can blow it all on themselves when there is plenty for the rest of the world.
They created a lot of value in exchange for the money in the first place. Now they’re using that money to create further value (at least for SpaceX).
They made a lot of money and, as far as I’m concerned, they can spend it on whatever the hell they want. I have a ton of ideas on how people who aren’t me should spend their money, but I think it’s none of my business what they choose to do with their wealth, just as it’s none of my business what you do with yours.
They made a lot of money and, as far as I’m concerned, they can spend it on whatever the hell they want. I have a ton of ideas on how people who aren’t me should spend their money, but I think it’s none of my business what they choose to do with their wealth, just as it’s none of my business what you do with yours.
> They created a lot of value in exchange for the money in the first place.
The companies they owned created a lot of value. Some of it went to the employees, and some of it went to the owners.
If I say that more of that value should have gone to the employees, and less to owners, that's a different thing from butting in and telling people how to spend the money they earned.
The companies they owned created a lot of value. Some of it went to the employees, and some of it went to the owners.
If I say that more of that value should have gone to the employees, and less to owners, that's a different thing from butting in and telling people how to spend the money they earned.
Spending the money they earned by exploiting their workers. You don't acquire billions unless it's at the expense of many. Amazon workers are treated and paid like garbage so that Bezos can go fly in space. At the very least that money should go back towards the people on whose backs he built his empire. Of course, Bezos is not completely to blame here. The system in place here allows men like him to continually accrue wealth. But that doesn't mean that it is morally right. Hell, even the Carnegies and Rockefellers ended up donating a huge amount of money to the arts to try to clean up their reputations as capitalist monsters.
> People were able to go into space before billionaires wanted to do it on a whim, you know.
Yes, albeit at extremely high cost, which has always limited its utility.
Maybe you haven't been keeping a close eye on progress in space tech, but SpaceX is working towards reducing cost per kilogram by two orders of magnitude. 1/100th! Compared to the already relatively reasonably priced Falcon 9! And they're just about to do an orbital test of the system (Starship+Super Heavy Booster). This is after decades of government contractor launch providers like ULA happily milking the government with cost-plus contracts, where the costs only ever seemed to go the wrong way.
Blue Origin is aiming to be competitive with them with New Glenn, also a massive cargo-carrying rocket. Certainly not there yet, but they don't seem to be aiming for the space tourism flights for the superrich as an endpoint.
Virgin Galactic, shrug, but the sister company Virgin Orbit wing is doing interesting things with smallsat launches from a 747.
These are not all useless vanity projects.
Yes, albeit at extremely high cost, which has always limited its utility.
Maybe you haven't been keeping a close eye on progress in space tech, but SpaceX is working towards reducing cost per kilogram by two orders of magnitude. 1/100th! Compared to the already relatively reasonably priced Falcon 9! And they're just about to do an orbital test of the system (Starship+Super Heavy Booster). This is after decades of government contractor launch providers like ULA happily milking the government with cost-plus contracts, where the costs only ever seemed to go the wrong way.
Blue Origin is aiming to be competitive with them with New Glenn, also a massive cargo-carrying rocket. Certainly not there yet, but they don't seem to be aiming for the space tourism flights for the superrich as an endpoint.
Virgin Galactic, shrug, but the sister company Virgin Orbit wing is doing interesting things with smallsat launches from a 747.
These are not all useless vanity projects.
The question is what is the end goal? Because you are right. It does cost an exorbitant amount of money and resources. How will it benefit anyone beyond billionaires and corporations? A few satellite launches is literally the only thing I see being a benefit. The only other thing I see is maybe space travel but it is going to be in the realm of novelty/space tourism for a long long time.
The benefits are mostly somewhat (or extremely) long term.
Most immediately, there’s always the “internet for literally everyone” aspect, where even remote villages will be able to get access to the world’s information.
Much longer term, if we don’t develop a comfort with working in and building in with space, and we don’t wipe ourselves out some other way, we will certainly be wiped out at some point by an asteroid impact, massive volcanic eruption, or some other major catastrophe. All of our eggs are in the Earth’s basket.
Offworld mining wouldn’t pollute/despoil Earth, and elements that are rare here can be found in very high concentrations in asteroids. (A single asteroid could contain the same amount of platinum as has been mined in all of history).
It potentially opens up the ability to do things like deploying massive, thin solar shades as a way to try to slow global warming.
Large technical challenges spin off lots of new tech that get used elsewhere.
The last one that comes to mind, though I’m sure there are many others, is that it’s a big achievement that humans can be proud of together. It makes it clear that we can do more than just squabble over little pieces of this planet, and help us look outward. I think that that kind of inspiration shouldn’t be discounted.
And the point is that if SpaceX succeeds, it will no longer take exorbitant amounts of money and resources. It’ll become extremely routine and affordable even to regular people. I’d try not to view everything in terms of a power struggle with billionaires and corporations sucking up all the resources, that’s going to cast a dim pall on literally everything.
Most immediately, there’s always the “internet for literally everyone” aspect, where even remote villages will be able to get access to the world’s information.
Much longer term, if we don’t develop a comfort with working in and building in with space, and we don’t wipe ourselves out some other way, we will certainly be wiped out at some point by an asteroid impact, massive volcanic eruption, or some other major catastrophe. All of our eggs are in the Earth’s basket.
Offworld mining wouldn’t pollute/despoil Earth, and elements that are rare here can be found in very high concentrations in asteroids. (A single asteroid could contain the same amount of platinum as has been mined in all of history).
It potentially opens up the ability to do things like deploying massive, thin solar shades as a way to try to slow global warming.
Large technical challenges spin off lots of new tech that get used elsewhere.
The last one that comes to mind, though I’m sure there are many others, is that it’s a big achievement that humans can be proud of together. It makes it clear that we can do more than just squabble over little pieces of this planet, and help us look outward. I think that that kind of inspiration shouldn’t be discounted.
And the point is that if SpaceX succeeds, it will no longer take exorbitant amounts of money and resources. It’ll become extremely routine and affordable even to regular people. I’d try not to view everything in terms of a power struggle with billionaires and corporations sucking up all the resources, that’s going to cast a dim pall on literally everything.
The problem is that Space X is a business. And while I would love to believe that they can bring about an egalitarian future in space, the main goal of any private corporation is to maximize profits. And it doesn't help alleviate my concerns that Elon is at the helm. But at this point, I don't think their progress is going to be obstructed too much so I hope that they do achieve long term goals that ultimately help humanity as a whole.
That’s kind of not the reason they’re building SpaceX, and that’s why they’ve stated that they don’t want to go public until after they reach Mars - they don’t want people breathing down their neck about their (probably unprofitable) goal of helping humanity become multi planetary.
Rich people usually amass wealth to give them the power to do what they want to do, but if you’re directly building a business to do what you want to do, and you already have enough money, then maximizing profit isn’t the goal, having it do what you want it to do is. Money is necessary for that, but it’s just the means to the end.
But if you do that really well, then usually it’s worth a good amount.
Rich people usually amass wealth to give them the power to do what they want to do, but if you’re directly building a business to do what you want to do, and you already have enough money, then maximizing profit isn’t the goal, having it do what you want it to do is. Money is necessary for that, but it’s just the means to the end.
But if you do that really well, then usually it’s worth a good amount.
ridiculous take. even if they blew all their billions on poverty aid it would not matter in the end. what reduces poverty is actual work and good economic policies, that much should be clear by now.
There's no incentive to change the status quo. The people who profit off of said policies are the ones who influence politicians and policy makers to keep them in place. The system is very much rigged so that the ultra rich can continue to accumulate obscene wealth while keeping wages low despite increasing global inflation. Bezos especially is guilty of this
Can you elaborate on “innovated on a scale existing space companies haven’t in decades...”? I’m not aware of anything they did that couldn’t have been done elsewhere provided the resources were dedicated and am curious of the significance. My position is more aligned with the parent post.
Reducing the cost of payload insertion by a factor of 100 qualifies in my book.
People had transportation before Karl Benz and Henry Ford. I don’t think they did anything that couldn’t have been done elsewhere provided the resources were dedicated.
People had transportation before Karl Benz and Henry Ford. I don’t think they did anything that couldn’t have been done elsewhere provided the resources were dedicated.
the NASA has been blowing dozens of billions in the past 20 years and still has no rocket to show and certainly nothing reusable.
> the NASA has
… been throwing money at SpaceX since (at least) 2006:
* https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/news/COTS_selection.html
The thing about R&D is that you do not know ahead of time what will work and what will fail. Some of NASA's programs failed and some have succeeded. But there was no way to know if SpaceX would be the winner, or SLS, or anything else.
SpaceX itself nearly failed:
* https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/29/elon-musk-9-years-ago-spacex...
> … and certainly nothing reusable.
Reusable was never done before (AFAICT). It turns out that it is actually technically possible and useful. But there was no way to know that ahead of time. It was a risk that SpaceX, and NASA by funding them, that just happened to work out.
… been throwing money at SpaceX since (at least) 2006:
* https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/news/COTS_selection.html
The thing about R&D is that you do not know ahead of time what will work and what will fail. Some of NASA's programs failed and some have succeeded. But there was no way to know if SpaceX would be the winner, or SLS, or anything else.
SpaceX itself nearly failed:
* https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/29/elon-musk-9-years-ago-spacex...
> … and certainly nothing reusable.
Reusable was never done before (AFAICT). It turns out that it is actually technically possible and useful. But there was no way to know that ahead of time. It was a risk that SpaceX, and NASA by funding them, that just happened to work out.
Yes, space engineering is impressive.
Bezos and Branson, less so. They just have money.
Bezos and Branson, less so. They just have money.
there are other billionaires who do nothing relevant at all with it.
How else would you describe a vanity trip in pursuit of being the “first billionaire in space”?
I'm struggling to decide if I should say I care less about what Bezos & Branson do, or about what is "US definition of astronauts", or if I should point out that your comment is countering its purpose of "giving less attention" to what these guys do, or if me answering your comment would be countering the purpose of saying that, or maybe if I should just drop all of that and start talking about how I'm an astronaut, since Earth is in space and I am sometimes kinda demonstrating activities that are essential to public safety during our flight...
I guess I'm saying that both our comments are not very constructive and don't really affect anything. Maybe so is the "news", but it never has been different with the "news", people were talking about stuff like that long before steam engine was invented.
I guess I'm saying that both our comments are not very constructive and don't really affect anything. Maybe so is the "news", but it never has been different with the "news", people were talking about stuff like that long before steam engine was invented.
Let me know if you’re ever in the Seattle area, happy to grab a beer any time :)
I don’t care about Branson, but SpaceShipTwo and its pilots are pretty neat.
As far as I know, SpaceShipOne and Two are the only vehicles that leave and reenter the atmosphere under manual control of the pilot since the X-15. the space shuttle had some manual control for landing, but was mostly autonomous otherwise.
As far as I know, SpaceShipOne and Two are the only vehicles that leave and reenter the atmosphere under manual control of the pilot since the X-15. the space shuttle had some manual control for landing, but was mostly autonomous otherwise.
The level of coverage these two got is deeply embarrassing. If I were a journalist I’d be ashamed for my colleagues fawning over some rich <bleep> buying a space ticket.
I think it shows why billionaires shouldn't own news outlets. They become their propaganda machines. Look at WaPo vomiting out puff piece after puff piece for their owner, Daddy Bezos.
I think the problem is that money runs the world, so rich people run the world. What can we do about that without abolishing capitalism? It's a hard question to answer.
Almost always, rich people are evil and don't care about other humans unless they can get some benefit from them. But I really hate how we are supposed to look up to them as well. They don't deserve fame. They are despicable human beings.
Almost always, rich people are evil and don't care about other humans unless they can get some benefit from them. But I really hate how we are supposed to look up to them as well. They don't deserve fame. They are despicable human beings.
History has plenty of examples of the people wrestling some control back from the rich and powerful without resorting to a Revolution. The most recent example is certainly the labor movement of the late 19th and early 20th century which gave us unions, 8 hour work days, and the weekend.
Good stuff, if you need someone to glorify look to ancient philosophers like the Buddha. Bezos starts and ends at his business choices/fortune. Musk has that plus some innovative/meaningful business ideas, but neither are worthy of following per-se. Study their business choices, not their lives. =)
Playing with toys that they're destroying our (shared!) environment with, presumably in the hope they can make wads of cash in the future, potentially from people fleeing an increasingly inhospitable earth. Pretty gross.
Wish I could upvote this a hundred times. People seem to be under a spell to look up to these billionaires who couldn't care less about them, and who is consistently abusing them.
> They’re playing with toys, let’s move along.
"Don't be discouraged if what you produce initially is something other people dismiss as a toy. In fact, that's a good sign. That's probably why everyone else has been overlooking the idea. The first microcomputers were dismissed as toys. And the first planes, and the first cars. At this point, when someone comes to us with something that users like but that we could envision forum trolls dismissing as a toy, it makes us especially likely to invest."
http://www.paulgraham.com/organic.html
"Don't be discouraged if what you produce initially is something other people dismiss as a toy. In fact, that's a good sign. That's probably why everyone else has been overlooking the idea. The first microcomputers were dismissed as toys. And the first planes, and the first cars. At this point, when someone comes to us with something that users like but that we could envision forum trolls dismissing as a toy, it makes us especially likely to invest."
http://www.paulgraham.com/organic.html
This is completely in line with how the FAA operates with respect to air travel.
They are involved in certification for pilots, crew, and aircraft, but rarely do anything involving passengers. And that's exactly what these wealthy thrill-seekers are -- passengers -- they just happen to be flying aboard a spacecraft. The FAA is not interested in receiving or dealing with a barrage of nominations for "astronaut wings" from hundreds of wealthy thrill-seeking passengers. And honestly, they shouldn't have to.
We don't expect to get FAA designated "aeronaut" wings for flying in an airliner. Why should this be any different?
If you really want a wings pin, I'm sure you'll be able to buy one at the gift shop on your way out.
They are involved in certification for pilots, crew, and aircraft, but rarely do anything involving passengers. And that's exactly what these wealthy thrill-seekers are -- passengers -- they just happen to be flying aboard a spacecraft. The FAA is not interested in receiving or dealing with a barrage of nominations for "astronaut wings" from hundreds of wealthy thrill-seeking passengers. And honestly, they shouldn't have to.
We don't expect to get FAA designated "aeronaut" wings for flying in an airliner. Why should this be any different?
If you really want a wings pin, I'm sure you'll be able to buy one at the gift shop on your way out.
This is a misleading headline that is implying way more controversy than actually exists. The headline should be “FAA updates commercial astronaut criteria.” This is a very reasonable update to a specific FAA program using industry-standard* language to describe crew, not a wholesale redefinition of the word “astronaut.” The FAA made no comment on Bezos or Branson. None of the people on either of the flights even applied for FAA wings. Nobody from the government came out and said “you aren’t astronauts.” They just see a shift in the industry and responded accordingly before it became a problem.
I know a lot of folks here love to hate the FAA because of Boeing, but to borrow a popular phrase from this site, the FAA is not one guy. Yes, there are problems in the aircraft certification division. But this is a different branch, and this move is totally reasonable.
*I’m in the industry.
I know a lot of folks here love to hate the FAA because of Boeing, but to borrow a popular phrase from this site, the FAA is not one guy. Yes, there are problems in the aircraft certification division. But this is a different branch, and this move is totally reasonable.
*I’m in the industry.
Note the spaceshiptwo pilots already have commercial astronaut wings from earlier flights.
This seems very pretty to me. They obviously were not NASA astronauts anyway, I don't understand the point of adding extra clarification like this. Unless one of them had been trying to push for some kind of recognition, which I've seen no indication of, it just feels like some small and petty bureaucracy.
I can see it being a step to preserve a cultural status that someone feels belongs to a population, or that should point to a population and its representative government, more than an individual with lots of money.
Maybe an awkward step, but it does hit an interesting note in that way. Perhaps it's a move to point to a more appropriate way of reaching an ideal and also giving back to those who supported it. They do mention performing acts of benefit that seem to transcend just "going to space".
Maybe an awkward step, but it does hit an interesting note in that way. Perhaps it's a move to point to a more appropriate way of reaching an ideal and also giving back to those who supported it. They do mention performing acts of benefit that seem to transcend just "going to space".
I'm inclined to agree. While I agree that that sight of these two billionaires patting themselves on the back is rather distasteful (with their own self-made astronaut wings to boot), this feels like someone at the FAA just wanted to slight them on a technicality. They want to exclude these two while also not wanting to have hard definitions like "need to orbit the planet" to not discredit Shephard.
This decision has nothing to do with NASA astronauts. It’s about certifying commercial crew astronauts. And no one on these flights had even applied for the commercial crew designation.
[deleted]
[deleted]
This sounds pretty petty to stop them being classed as astronauts because of demo'ing safety techniques or what not. It would be better if the qualification was to orbit the Earth (this planet) at least once.
It’s a perfectly sane definition — not everybody aboard a boat is a sailor, not everybody aboard a plane is a pilot. Their definition is “astronaut is a title reserved for the crew, not the passenger”
That may be part of your definition but it has nothing to do with the definition or reasoning from the FAA, as described by the parent comment.
[deleted]
They had a definition. They changed it on the very day of the launch?
I'm sorry, but that's just bullshit. If you've got a definition of what exactly is a sailor and then you change it when I step in a boat, that's just ridiculous.
I'm sorry, but that's just bullshit. If you've got a definition of what exactly is a sailor and then you change it when I step in a boat, that's just ridiculous.
That's how good definitions are made. You refine them against examples.
When the government is involved? Absolutely not.
The government says, "Here is what is required for that classification", and then the very day you meet that classification the government says, "Psyche!", you're OK with that?
The government says, "Here is what is required for that classification", and then the very day you meet that classification the government says, "Psyche!", you're OK with that?
I don't think NASA uses a different technique for developing definitions from other engineers or scientists.
It was the FAA, not NASA, and you think there was some groundbreaking discovery by engineers or scientists on the very same day of the Blue Origin flight that led them to change the definition of astronaut?
That didn't happen. It was a political change by bureaucrats.
That didn't happen. It was a political change by bureaucrats.
It was clearly in response to the event, I'm saying it's a reasonable terminology refinement when faced with a new situation.
What new situation did the scientists and engineers suddenly face on July 20?
A bunch of non-crew passengers very publicly went into space which presumably wasn't on their mind when they came up with the definition originally.
What does that have to do with science or engineering?
Alan Shepard's first flight wasn't orbital, yet everybody agrees it made him an astronaut.
What's next, a passenger airline coincidentally cruising slightly above a certain altitude making everyone onboard astronauts?
X-15 pilots who flew above 50 miles were awarded astronaut wings, by the military at the time and then to the civilian pilots by NASA more recently.
“Pilots” is the key word. There are not X-15 “passengers” so there’s not a comparison to be had imho.
While a good point to base it on at first glance there is going to have to be a deep debate about at which point you really are/aren't a pilot and who gets to decide what that point is. Per BO this was the crew, though a lot don't want to see it that way.
Rocket launches, planes, and boats all have automation driven piloting now - and increasingly so. If being named the crew isn't enough then exactly what is the cutoff for being a "true" crewman of a vessel? And if you apply that cutoff to any other modern automated rocket launch system is anyone ever going to be an astronaut again then?
Rocket launches, planes, and boats all have automation driven piloting now - and increasingly so. If being named the crew isn't enough then exactly what is the cutoff for being a "true" crewman of a vessel? And if you apply that cutoff to any other modern automated rocket launch system is anyone ever going to be an astronaut again then?
The X-15 only has one seat. No one is saying Southwest passengers are “pilots” because of auto-pilot, though.
1 seat or not there is still criteria you're using to decide if the person in that seat is a pilot or not. I have a feeling you wouldn't call the rider of a fully automated single seater Southwest plane a pilot just based on it having 1 seat - it'd be more muddy than that as the true reasons you call the X-15 piloted are more than simple seat count. X-15 case is easier to quickly judge as the pilot still has a ton of flight control but understand there is still deeper criteria you're basing "pilot" or "passenger" on it's just more obvious. Now bringing this back around to the reason planes come up in the first place - who decides if the 3 listed as crew by BO are "crew enough" and would that criteria also block most we called "astronaut" prior to the BO flight. Rocket flights are extremely hands off and automated even compared to other heavily automated vessels these days yet that's not what has triggered the reaction that these folks aren't "true" crew.
Harrison Schmidt, notwithstanding his title being Lunar Module Pilot, never piloted anything. He was a passenger who read some gauges aloud and flipped some switches when instructed. We still call him an astronaut.
Flight engineers simply read gauges and flipped switches, but were still considered part of an airplane's crew:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_engineer
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_engineer
Yes, it would, just like the 10% or so of the world that are currently aeronauts. I could use aeronaut to describe myself but I don't because it's not an achievement. Yet I use the word to describe the Montgolfiers. It wouldn't diminish their achievement if I used the word to describe myself.
There are no commercial passenger airliners capable of flying above the Karman Line, let alone doing so on accident.
Branson's flight was not above the Karman line. But I think you're missing the point, the point isn't to say who is an astronaut or who isn't, that's childish nit-picking and more about bragging rights. There, however, needs to remain a distinction between people who are intensively trained and are flown to space to do exploration or accomplish scientific missions and those who happen to be on a ride.
> There, however, needs to remain a distinction between people who are intensively trained and are flown to space to do exploration or accomplish scientific missions and those who happen to be on a ride.
Definitions based on role get tricky. If someone outside NASA pilots a space shuttle up to the ISS and then takes it back down without personally doing science, are they not an astronaut? If they are, what about a copilot? Does it matter how many buttons the pilot/copilot presses?
Definitions based on role get tricky. If someone outside NASA pilots a space shuttle up to the ISS and then takes it back down without personally doing science, are they not an astronaut? If they are, what about a copilot? Does it matter how many buttons the pilot/copilot presses?
Absolutism doesn't work. But we can still have a role based definition for an astronaut that is pretty well understood, riding a craft to space without any intensive training for a short period of time and coming back down isn't one.
I don't think the training matters. NASA could grab someone right now and send them to do science on the ISS for a few months without intensive training. Okay, they wouldn't be able to do space walks, whatever. They'd deserve the title astronaut.
Duration of the trip works right now, but I don't know if that will continue to be a useful rule.
And I would like to know your answer to my question. If we get a space shuttle out of storage, and someone pilots it but does nothing else, are they an astronaut? With said pilot being non-NASA to avoid the "everyone on a NASA mission is an astronaut" rule.
Duration of the trip works right now, but I don't know if that will continue to be a useful rule.
And I would like to know your answer to my question. If we get a space shuttle out of storage, and someone pilots it but does nothing else, are they an astronaut? With said pilot being non-NASA to avoid the "everyone on a NASA mission is an astronaut" rule.
>NASA could grab someone right now and send them to do science on the ISS for a few months without intensive training.
Wikipedia's page on astronaut training suggests otherwise[0] - becoming an astronaut takes a year and a half to two years of training, and of course to do science on the ISS, you need to be a qualified scientist to begin with. NASA's requirements page[1] says you need a masters' degree in some STEM field.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut_training
[1]https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/postsecondary/feat...
Wikipedia's page on astronaut training suggests otherwise[0] - becoming an astronaut takes a year and a half to two years of training, and of course to do science on the ISS, you need to be a qualified scientist to begin with. NASA's requirements page[1] says you need a masters' degree in some STEM field.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut_training
[1]https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/postsecondary/feat...
> Wikipedia's page on astronaut training suggests otherwise[0] - becoming an astronaut takes a year and a half to two years of training, and of course to do science on the ISS, you need to be a qualified scientist to begin with.
That much training isn't required because the people involved will get hurt. It's required because NASA wants everyone on board to be all-around experts at space.
> NASA's requirements page[1] says you need a masters' degree in some STEM field.
The space station doesn't care if you have a degree.
That much training isn't required because the people involved will get hurt. It's required because NASA wants everyone on board to be all-around experts at space.
> NASA's requirements page[1] says you need a masters' degree in some STEM field.
The space station doesn't care if you have a degree.
>That much training isn't required because the people involved will get hurt. It's required because NASA wants everyone on board to be all-around experts at space.
It's still a lot more training than Bezos and Branson got.
>The space station doesn't care if you have a degree.
Citation needed. Every source I've been able to find says NASA requires at least a Bachelor's degree for mission-specific training on the ISS, or a Masters' degree to qualify for the astronaut corps. Given how expensive time and equipment on the ISS is, I seriously doubt they're sending high-school dropouts up to do research.
It's still a lot more training than Bezos and Branson got.
>The space station doesn't care if you have a degree.
Citation needed. Every source I've been able to find says NASA requires at least a Bachelor's degree for mission-specific training on the ISS, or a Masters' degree to qualify for the astronaut corps. Given how expensive time and equipment on the ISS is, I seriously doubt they're sending high-school dropouts up to do research.
I'm not sure how to be clearer.
When I say NASA could do something, that means if they wanted to.
NASA doesn't want anyone that isn't a super duper expert, but they don't need that rule.
When I say NASA could do something, that means if they wanted to.
NASA doesn't want anyone that isn't a super duper expert, but they don't need that rule.
NASA has 13 astronauts, the entirety of the 2017 class, who have a combined total time in space that is less than Jeff Bezos has. Which is to say none of them have been in space and when they do go t will be aboard commercial spacecraft. If they happen to take a trip on top of a falcon 9 rocket in a crew dragon capsule, they will be passengers. Yet they are currently called astronauts and would likely be given “wings” upon completion of their first flight as a passenger on a crew dragon.
Someday there will be.
Will civilians on vacations to the moon be considered astronauts?
I'm fine either way honestly.
Will civilians on vacations to the moon be considered astronauts?
I'm fine either way honestly.
With how automated space flight has become I think either nobody will be an astronaut anymore in short order with how automated every step is or the term will come to mean "person who travelled through outer space" until the point it is no longer interesting enough to be worth noting.
It was space race and US was not about to let USSR to be only the country that put human in space for 9 more month.
Alan Shepard also landed on the moon so he definitely qualifies
He meant Alan Shepard pre moon landing.
Wikipedia says they're a space tourist. It used to say spaceflight participant.
Jeffrey Preston Bezos (/ˈbeɪzoʊs/ BAY-zohss; né Jorgensen; born January 12, 1964) is an American business magnate, media proprietor, investor, and space tourist. [0]
Sir Richard Charles Nicholas Branson (born 18 July 1950) is an English business magnate, investor, author, and space tourist. [1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Branson
Jeffrey Preston Bezos (/ˈbeɪzoʊs/ BAY-zohss; né Jorgensen; born January 12, 1964) is an American business magnate, media proprietor, investor, and space tourist. [0]
Sir Richard Charles Nicholas Branson (born 18 July 1950) is an English business magnate, investor, author, and space tourist. [1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Branson
Honestly, just being a passenger is not the exact same thing as an astronaut. Although the timing of this definition seems a bit suspect.
Well said! I would imagine if I have to manufacture my own wings — like Southwest does for children — that’s the dead giveaway this ain’t the real thing.
What makes the FAA think they have exclusive domain to define the word astronaut?
...the agency says would-be astronauts must have also "demonstrated activities during flight that were essential to public safety, or contributed to human space flight safety".
What exactly counts as such is determined by FAA officials.
This definition is selective and stupid. I agree a single, suborbital stunt flight doesn't make the cut in my personal vernacular. But if someone e.g. serves as a science officer on a flight or simply spends three months on the ISS doing nothing more than shooting professional photos I would call them an astronaut.
Christa McAuliffe didn't make it past launch but Wikipedia calls her an astronaut and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who wants to refute that.
...the agency says would-be astronauts must have also "demonstrated activities during flight that were essential to public safety, or contributed to human space flight safety".
What exactly counts as such is determined by FAA officials.
This definition is selective and stupid. I agree a single, suborbital stunt flight doesn't make the cut in my personal vernacular. But if someone e.g. serves as a science officer on a flight or simply spends three months on the ISS doing nothing more than shooting professional photos I would call them an astronaut.
Christa McAuliffe didn't make it past launch but Wikipedia calls her an astronaut and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who wants to refute that.
The FAA decides who gets an astronaut pin from the US government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Astronaut_Badge
You can call yourself one, if you like. They just won’t recognize it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Astronaut_Badge
You can call yourself one, if you like. They just won’t recognize it.
This seems like a step by the FAA towards a new kind of airman certification as space travel becomes more accessible.
It's probably fair to call anyone who was ever airborne in a Wright brother's craft an airplane pilot, but I'm not one if I fly Delta today.
It's probably fair to call anyone who was ever airborne in a Wright brother's craft an airplane pilot, but I'm not one if I fly Delta today.
Just because I took a ferry doesn't mean I am a sailor.
99% of sailors don't contribute to public safety.
Did she get wings posthumously? She was astronaut by training, and people may call her that, but she didn't get the wings as far as I can tell. Bezos isn't even an astronauts by training, definitely doesn't have the wings - but people may call him anything they like.
the term "astronaut" is not tied to universal characteristics such as having been to earth's orbit. instead, the term was introduced by NASA and is explicitly reserved for crew members of NASA space programs who have been to orbit or beyond. therefore there are also no soviet astronauts
Uh, indeed one would likely use the word "космонавт" talking about soviet astronauts, and one could claim that "astronaut" is somehow NASA-related since USA was the second country that had astronauts, but the word "astronaut" was introduced in science fiction long before NASA even existed and is not even an English word. So that claim is dubious at best.
If you haven't pooped in zero-G, you're not an astronaut.
Who cares about whats these (b)(m)illionaires do with their "space" toys?
Virgin galactic would have been interesting 17 years ago right after scaled composites actually won the Ansari X Prize and put a human in "space". 17 years later and multiple spaceX failures and successes later? Much more underwhelming.
Back in 2001 Denis Tito paid 20mil to spend 10 days at the ISS. That is a milestone. Not that Bezos spent 10min in "space" in 2021.
Virgin galactic would have been interesting 17 years ago right after scaled composites actually won the Ansari X Prize and put a human in "space". 17 years later and multiple spaceX failures and successes later? Much more underwhelming.
Back in 2001 Denis Tito paid 20mil to spend 10 days at the ISS. That is a milestone. Not that Bezos spent 10min in "space" in 2021.
Good. They were “passengers” much like someone sitting on a jet is not a “pilot”.
Not to diminish what their companies are doing - I believe there’s real value from getting people excited about going up and a better way of life for the people of the future.
But they are not astronauts and that’s ok. I would like to go to space too but I will never be an astronaut.
Not to diminish what their companies are doing - I believe there’s real value from getting people excited about going up and a better way of life for the people of the future.
But they are not astronauts and that’s ok. I would like to go to space too but I will never be an astronaut.
You could contrast them with Richard Garriott, who actually did undergo astronaut (or rather cosmonaut) training, and participated actively as a crew member on his ISS trip.
I tend to agree that just strapping yourself in and hanging on for a few minutes shouldn't earn astronaut wings. But that's not really what their efforts were all about, and it seems disingenuous of the press to focus on it.
I'm also not going to walk up to Wally Funk and tell her she's not a Real Astronaut. Bezos is getting zero credit for reversing a genuine historical injustice here.
I tend to agree that just strapping yourself in and hanging on for a few minutes shouldn't earn astronaut wings. But that's not really what their efforts were all about, and it seems disingenuous of the press to focus on it.
I'm also not going to walk up to Wally Funk and tell her she's not a Real Astronaut. Bezos is getting zero credit for reversing a genuine historical injustice here.
I realize that Bezos and Brandon are only astronauts because they are wealthy.
At the same time, any NASA astronaut is only an astronaut because a well-funded system choose them. Its not like any of these people figured out how to take a plane and get it to space with cool flying technique.
If anything, Bezos and Branson did more personally than anyone else to get to space since they spearheaded these projects from the start.
At the same time, any NASA astronaut is only an astronaut because a well-funded system choose them. Its not like any of these people figured out how to take a plane and get it to space with cool flying technique.
If anything, Bezos and Branson did more personally than anyone else to get to space since they spearheaded these projects from the start.
You might want to check out the resumes of early astronauts; at least one had a PhD in orbital dynamics. I also suspect 99% of people would fail NASA astronaut training.
The astronauts were all chosen because they had a set of skills and experience that were actually relevant to the task of going to space. These guys were selected on the basis of their ability to sell books.
They were relevant in 1960. Those skills aren't relevant today.
I don't think the skills it takes to be a captain of a ship are the same as they are in 2020 as they were in 1720. That doesn't mean you aren't a ship captain if you operate a cruise ship today.
I don't think the skills it takes to be a captain of a ship are the same as they are in 2020 as they were in 1720. That doesn't mean you aren't a ship captain if you operate a cruise ship today.
I was not aware that their crew were billionaires too
Your post has no connection to the post you replied to.
People are calling this petty, but it seems like a correct and necessary distinction as private spaceflight becomes more popular and attainable.
What makes it necessary? “Necessary” suggests import. What significant thing comes of this change or what negative thing come of not making this change.
It’s only purpose is to create exclusivity that then implies that government, bureaucrats and employees, are more important to space activity than private industry. Which is BS. What this really is is ensuring government can still pat itself on the back.
It’s only purpose is to create exclusivity that then implies that government, bureaucrats and employees, are more important to space activity than private industry. Which is BS. What this really is is ensuring government can still pat itself on the back.
> The Commercial Astronaut Wings programme updates were announced on Tuesday - the same day that Amazon's Mr Bezos flew aboard a Blue Origin rocket to the edge of space.
This was already for a program that designates who can be classified as a “commercial” astronaut. If the FAA regulates this, why wouldn’t it be necessary for them to clarify the difference between passengers and crew? We just had two such flights, I believe the implication is there will be more flights into space.
This was already for a program that designates who can be classified as a “commercial” astronaut. If the FAA regulates this, why wouldn’t it be necessary for them to clarify the difference between passengers and crew? We just had two such flights, I believe the implication is there will be more flights into space.
Doesn't this mean that, other than the pilots, everyone who got a ride on a shuttle wouldn't get their wings?
[deleted]
No, NASA crew automatically counts.
Seems a bit of a double standard
Not really, NASA gives astronaut wings to everyone who flys in NASA missions. These private missions were not NASA missions. Therefore NASA would not grant wings.
If you are a pilot, they will give you wings whether it is a NASA mission or a private mission. If you are a passenger, you get wings on a NASA mission but not a private mission. That's the double standard.
[deleted]
Seems fair, tourist cargo doesn't rise to the level of "astronaut". It should take more than a huge pile of money to put a person in those ranks.
> It should take more than a huge pile of money to put a person in those ranks.
It does take more. There are lots of people with huge piles of money and they’re not even part of the subject of this conversation.
It does take more. There are lots of people with huge piles of money and they’re not even part of the subject of this conversation.
Because they don't want to spend $billions of their money on it. They could. Has Bezos contributed more to Blue Origin than money & some (probably very effective, based on reputation) level of management? Nothing I'm aware of. Just investment & management.
That's not nothing, but investing in & managing an aerospace company, and taking a ride on the rocket, doesn't make someone an astronaut anymore than investing & managing a construction company, and living in one of its buildings, makes a person an architect.
That's not nothing, but investing in & managing an aerospace company, and taking a ride on the rocket, doesn't make someone an astronaut anymore than investing & managing a construction company, and living in one of its buildings, makes a person an architect.
I'm pretty sure they both just wanted to go to space.
Who cares. They'll be flying in space and soon being an astronaut will be as ordinary as going on an airplane.
Just as sitting in a passenger's seat for couple fast laps does not make you a race driver.
This is one of those items where all there really is to say is refer to an xkcd.
https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/
People can define space any way they like, but I think "going to" space should require going at least 90% of the way around the world.
Which has the side effect of implying you've spent over an hour "in" space.
https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/
People can define space any way they like, but I think "going to" space should require going at least 90% of the way around the world.
Which has the side effect of implying you've spent over an hour "in" space.
This new definition has nothing to do with being orbital.
Why does the Federal Aviation Administration get to define who's an astronaut anyway?
Anybody can define anything. And while I have no opinion on whether Bezos and Branson specifically should be considered astronauts, the FAA definition as described is ridiculously arbitrary.
Anybody can define anything. And while I have no opinion on whether Bezos and Branson specifically should be considered astronauts, the FAA definition as described is ridiculously arbitrary.
Yeah no idea. I declare Bezos an astronaut. I believe I have equivalent jurisdiction.
Names can change, NACA became NASA. The FAA has been the regulatory body for commercial space activities since 1995, and their focus on space will likely increase overtime rather than developing a new regulator.
"Yes, that button, push it now".
This makes me wonder... who matches with whom if we map the current set of space tourists to the cast of Avenue 5? (Only a thought experiment. Nothing to see here, move along.)
Bezos and Branson get too much of the coverage. I don't want to read another word about billionaires. I'd prefer to read about the space stuff.
I must be a bus driver or a pilot...
maybe Space Cowboy & Knighted Ryder ?
Does this deserve to be #1 on HN?
Stuff floats around wildly on the front page. An hour later and when I check at random it's #20. So if we make the question "does this deserve to be on the front page" then sure, why not say it's one of the 30 most notable things today that are suitable for HN.
It is precisely the kind of semantic argument that the HN crowd finds interesting, yes.
People are focusing on the pettiness and timing but the US government had very good reasons to do this (and other countries should follow suit):
1) The increasing commercialization of spaceflight provides many opportunities for unscrupulous grifters seeking to con scientifically illiterate millionaires, potentially at great risk to human life. Governments really should clamp down on who is and isn’t qualified to call themselves an astronaut.
2) As someone who supports companies like SpaceX being involved in space exploration: it is extremely gross for the focus to the on the personal feelings and childish fantasies of three billionaires, one of whom is notorious for blatantly abusing his employees, the other notorious for blatantly lying to his customers[1]. Branson seems by comparison to be an ok person... but he’s not an astronaut, and it’s disrespectful to real astronauts to suggest otherwise.
[1] While Bezos at least seems to acknowledge that he bought his ticket, the fact that Elon Musk still calls himself “Chief Engineer” at SpaceX is an embarrassment, and a slap in the face to all the engineers who actually show up to do work at SpaceX.
1) The increasing commercialization of spaceflight provides many opportunities for unscrupulous grifters seeking to con scientifically illiterate millionaires, potentially at great risk to human life. Governments really should clamp down on who is and isn’t qualified to call themselves an astronaut.
2) As someone who supports companies like SpaceX being involved in space exploration: it is extremely gross for the focus to the on the personal feelings and childish fantasies of three billionaires, one of whom is notorious for blatantly abusing his employees, the other notorious for blatantly lying to his customers[1]. Branson seems by comparison to be an ok person... but he’s not an astronaut, and it’s disrespectful to real astronauts to suggest otherwise.
[1] While Bezos at least seems to acknowledge that he bought his ticket, the fact that Elon Musk still calls himself “Chief Engineer” at SpaceX is an embarrassment, and a slap in the face to all the engineers who actually show up to do work at SpaceX.
https://www.ycombinator.com/future/elon/
Elon: Yes, it's a good question. I think a lot of people think I must spend a lot of time with media or on businessy things. But actually almost all my time, like 80% of it, is spent on engineering and design. Engineering and design, so it's developing next-generation product. That's 80% of it.
(2016; unreliable source: Elon Musk himself)
Elon: Yes, it's a good question. I think a lot of people think I must spend a lot of time with media or on businessy things. But actually almost all my time, like 80% of it, is spent on engineering and design. Engineering and design, so it's developing next-generation product. That's 80% of it.
(2016; unreliable source: Elon Musk himself)
The idea that Elon Musk is spending 35 hours a week (or even 20) engineering at SpaceX is preposterous. He is blatantly lying here, or pretending a few hours of doodling each week constitutes “chief engineering” work.
While Bezos at least seems to acknowledge that he bought his ticket, the fact that Elon Musk still calls himself “Chief Engineer” at SpaceX is an embarrassment, and a slap in the face to all the engineers who actually show up to do work at SpaceX.
Funny, those engineers don't seem to have any problem working for him under the title "Chief Engineer." Maybe we should ask some of them for their opinions, since theirs are the only ones that matter.
Funny, those engineers don't seem to have any problem working for him under the title "Chief Engineer." Maybe we should ask some of them for their opinions, since theirs are the only ones that matter.
> The wings spotted on Mr Bezos and Sir Richard following their flights were custom-made pins by their own companies.
Ouch. The BBC will not be getting 100M from Bezos, with this (not really) ad hominem content :D
Ouch. The BBC will not be getting 100M from Bezos, with this (not really) ad hominem content :D
[deleted]
From the press coverage, you'd think the only reason Bezos and Branson did this was to impress reporters.
Reporters tend to think awfully highly of themselves, even more so than your average billionaire does.
Reporters tend to think awfully highly of themselves, even more so than your average billionaire does.
Well at least the ones hired by a state-controlled media organization.
And yet , Bezos and Branson are the object of this article, while the nameless beurocrat who decided to put out a press release to specify that the 2 men are not astronauts....well he's just a nameless beurocrat, who is not mentioned and in fact, the subject is a generic "US" instead.
Relevant : http://www.paulgraham.com/fh.html
Relevant : http://www.paulgraham.com/fh.html
I mean, who cares what their definition is? Considering the planets issues right now is there meaningful outcomes from this other than billionaires show off?
Could we make new internationally recognised titles like “world hero” or “better than 10 novel peace prize winners”. Billionaires could compete to eliminate debt in a poorer country or reduce carbon by 10 parts per million and win it? Would that stroke their ego enough to part with cash to tackle meaningful problems their companies are currently heavily contributing to?
We all promise to tell them all the time how great they are for having parted with small percentage of their incomprehensible wealth.
Could we make new internationally recognised titles like “world hero” or “better than 10 novel peace prize winners”. Billionaires could compete to eliminate debt in a poorer country or reduce carbon by 10 parts per million and win it? Would that stroke their ego enough to part with cash to tackle meaningful problems their companies are currently heavily contributing to?
We all promise to tell them all the time how great they are for having parted with small percentage of their incomprehensible wealth.
When their respective companies seriously contend with the likes of SpaceX, then maybe they can have some of my attention. But just like with SpaceX for me, I don’t give a shit about Elon, and no one should give a shit about Bezos and Branson. Congrats to them on their wealth, now let’s move on.
For good measure, maybe this post should just be replaced with the Wikipedia page for astronaut.