Virgin Galactic
Discussion
To be honest, people are getting a bit hung up on what the expression "astronaut" actually means.
All through Mercury, Gemini and Apollo, anybody who was selected to be an astronaut was called an astronaut, whether they had flown in space or not. They tended to refer to unflown astronauts as "rookie astronauts" although that description was extremely unofficial. What they did do was give newly selected astronauts a silver "wings" badge which was replaced by a gold badge once they had made a spaceflight.
Things changed a bit with the arrival of the Space Shuttle because now, with crews of up to seven (as opposed to a maximum of three on Apollo) the number of people carried on each flight was going to rocket (sorry). There was also the dilemma of whether non-pilot astronauts were genuine astronauts as the Shuttle would carry scientists and engineers on board, many who couldn't fly a balsa wood glider let alone a highly complex spaceplane.
In the end, NASA decided that everyone who flew on a Shuttle would be referred to as an astronaut, even those who were making one -off flights, such as the odd senator or school teacher
What they did do was change the definition of unflown "astronauts". They became officially "Astronaut Candidates" - shortened (in the usual NASA style) to an abbreviation - Ascans.
With the arrival of fare paying passengers travelling into space, it is really silly to refer to space passengers as "astronauts" - any more than it would sound stupid if everybody who travelled on an aeroplane was called a "pilot" or everybody who travelled on a ship was called a "sailor".
All through Mercury, Gemini and Apollo, anybody who was selected to be an astronaut was called an astronaut, whether they had flown in space or not. They tended to refer to unflown astronauts as "rookie astronauts" although that description was extremely unofficial. What they did do was give newly selected astronauts a silver "wings" badge which was replaced by a gold badge once they had made a spaceflight.
Things changed a bit with the arrival of the Space Shuttle because now, with crews of up to seven (as opposed to a maximum of three on Apollo) the number of people carried on each flight was going to rocket (sorry). There was also the dilemma of whether non-pilot astronauts were genuine astronauts as the Shuttle would carry scientists and engineers on board, many who couldn't fly a balsa wood glider let alone a highly complex spaceplane.
In the end, NASA decided that everyone who flew on a Shuttle would be referred to as an astronaut, even those who were making one -off flights, such as the odd senator or school teacher
What they did do was change the definition of unflown "astronauts". They became officially "Astronaut Candidates" - shortened (in the usual NASA style) to an abbreviation - Ascans.
With the arrival of fare paying passengers travelling into space, it is really silly to refer to space passengers as "astronauts" - any more than it would sound stupid if everybody who travelled on an aeroplane was called a "pilot" or everybody who travelled on a ship was called a "sailor".
I think three senators flew on Shuttle flights - Jake Garn (who was so spacesick that NASA now refers to levels of space sickness as the "Garn Scale"), Bill Nelson and, of course, ex-astronaut, John Glenn.
Nelson is now the new Director of NASA - so he is obviously very keen on the US space programme.
Nelson is now the new Director of NASA - so he is obviously very keen on the US space programme.
Just watched the Launch and landing, I see in the press and on social media much amusement is had about the shape of Blue Origin I agree it looks like a special delivery.......but then again it is Amazon so why not
The term Crew is being miss-used as the group were just passengers as in the definition of what a crew is and does and what Passengers are and do so why are they not called passengers?
so a 10 minute joy ride for the uber rich at the cost of those sets for a 10 minute flight and a minute or so weightless its around £1.5 Million an hour
Does this benefit mankind maybe, is it a great leap of technology.....probably not manned rockets have been about since the 60's so other than self landing boosters which may save some resource there really isn't much new about this.
A car is a car is a car be it deisel, petrol or electric it just gets you from A-B
Oh and if these experiences are so 'great' we will see Bezos and Branson back up in their flights of vanity very soon it will be interesting to see if this happens or was this just a gesture to get those with money to buy seats.
Edited to say this is quite a good article and sums up why these Billionairs are involved in space and yes folks don't be shocked when you find out its not to benefit mankind.....Just personal and commercial gain
"Why is Bezos flying to space? Because billionaires think Earth is a sinking ship
Hamilton Nolan
He and his fellow space-obsessed billionaires are exactly like the rich men aboard the Titanic who pushed others aside to jump into lifeboats"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul...
The term Crew is being miss-used as the group were just passengers as in the definition of what a crew is and does and what Passengers are and do so why are they not called passengers?
so a 10 minute joy ride for the uber rich at the cost of those sets for a 10 minute flight and a minute or so weightless its around £1.5 Million an hour
Does this benefit mankind maybe, is it a great leap of technology.....probably not manned rockets have been about since the 60's so other than self landing boosters which may save some resource there really isn't much new about this.
A car is a car is a car be it deisel, petrol or electric it just gets you from A-B
Oh and if these experiences are so 'great' we will see Bezos and Branson back up in their flights of vanity very soon it will be interesting to see if this happens or was this just a gesture to get those with money to buy seats.
Edited to say this is quite a good article and sums up why these Billionairs are involved in space and yes folks don't be shocked when you find out its not to benefit mankind.....Just personal and commercial gain
"Why is Bezos flying to space? Because billionaires think Earth is a sinking ship
Hamilton Nolan
He and his fellow space-obsessed billionaires are exactly like the rich men aboard the Titanic who pushed others aside to jump into lifeboats"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul...
Edited by Toaster on Wednesday 21st July 10:34
Eric Mc said:
..apart from SpaceX and the Russians, nobody else is in a position to offer rides to non-essential passengers on orbital flights. The Chinese could but will not allow it at the moment.
We are a few years away from tourist orbital flights.
We’re actually not that far away. SpaceX’s will be launching the Inspiration-4 Crew Dragon flight on a Falcon 9 in mid-September. This will take 4 civilians up to a 540 km high orbit for 3 days. They won’t be visiting the ISS and interrupting operations there. In fact the capsule will have a glass dome where the docking port normally is to provide better views. We are a few years away from tourist orbital flights.
There are plans for further flights along these lines, starting toward the end of the year. From early next year, space tourist flights will also start to visit the ISS via SpaceX, because NASA is ok with that sort of commercial exploitation now.
There was a story about Bezos not being able to get insurance, I think that may have been why he stepped down from Amazon.
Possibly also a reason Musk hasn't flown on one of his own, his companies tend to be much more a leadership cult and him doing something risky could seriously worry his investors.
Possibly also a reason Musk hasn't flown on one of his own, his companies tend to be much more a leadership cult and him doing something risky could seriously worry his investors.
JuniorD said:
Once one of these big fireworks goes bang, sending some billionaires twinkling into the atmosphere I think the interest will wane somewhat. Which begs the question, would this be covered under a standard world wide travel insurance policy?
Even flying a light aircraft isn't covered under a standard world wide travel insurance policy!Anyway, we are always being told there are too many billionaires, so surely some of them exploding is exactly what large tracts of social media are desperate to see?
JuniorD said:
Once one of these big fireworks goes bang, sending some billionaires twinkling into the atmosphere I think the interest will wane somewhat. Which begs the question, would this be covered under a standard world wide travel insurance policy?
Both of these flights barley made the news a accident will make people question the value or otherwise of these joy rides. Toaster said:
JuniorD said:
Once one of these big fireworks goes bang, sending some billionaires twinkling into the atmosphere I think the interest will wane somewhat. Which begs the question, would this be covered under a standard world wide travel insurance policy?
Both of these flights barley made the news a accident will make people question the value or otherwise of these joy rides. RizzoTheRat said:
There was a story about Bezos not being able to get insurance, I think that may have been why he stepped down from Amazon.
Possibly also a reason Musk hasn't flown on one of his own, his companies tend to be much more a leadership cult and him doing something risky could seriously worry his investors.
This happened to a previous aviation pioneer (Douglas? Loughead?), I can't remember who. Started out flying stuff he built himself, created an aircraft company which gave a start to guys like Northrop and Lockheed and regularly piloted aircraft... then one day his bank says they'll stop funding his company if he insists on this risky whole flying business as he's also the CEO. Possibly also a reason Musk hasn't flown on one of his own, his companies tend to be much more a leadership cult and him doing something risky could seriously worry his investors.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff