posted 10-21-2005 09:33 AM               

PM: Are you officially an astronaut?

GO: I don't consider myself an astronaut. I'm a space traveler; I've been in orbit. But I have far too much respect for astronauts and cosmonauts to call myself that. I just feel honored to be able to travel next to these people.

posted 11-01-2005 04:02 PM               

Definition: A person trained to pilot, navigate, or otherwise participate as a crew member of a spacecraft.

posted 11-02-2005 11:02 AM               

Unfortunately I wasn't able to do most of my science. Last year I wanted to grow crystals for our company and also bring our infrared camera up to view the Earth. But that had export restrictions and I wasn't allowed to take it out of the country via Russia, it's used for night vision — defense. So that sort of nixed my experiments. But I was able to do medical experiments for the European Space Agency. One was on vestibular stability where I'd do head motions during weightlessness. Tilt your head from side to side, yaw pitch and roll.

posted 11-02-2005 11:34 AM               

In my opinion, he was very courageous to make the trip in spite of recent events with Challenger and Columbia, but he is not an astronaut. Astronauts travel in space for a living. My copy of Webster's New World Dictionary defines an astronaut as "One trained to make flights in outer space." If we go strictly by this definition, Olsen would be an astronaut because he was trained to make a flight in outer space.

Notice that this definition does not state that an astronaut must have "flown" in space, only that he/she is "trained" to travel in outer space. I guess that the editors of this dictionary did not realize how important the distinction would be.

Greg Olsen was not or is not an astronaut, although he traveled in space much more than many astronauts, cosmonauts and taikonauts. The distinction seems to be that an "astronaut" must be trained to travel in space for a living, not as a lark or a stunt or just for the heck of it.

posted 11-02-2005 11:49 AM               

The definition in Webster's cited by Bill is that of a NASA Astronaut (formal title). Anyone trained for space flight by the agency is an Astronaut, regardless if they have flown.

No definition of astronaut, Astronaut, or cosmonaut defines who must pay the bill to justify the title. Everyone who has entered space, whether government, industry or self-funded has gone through the same basic training. Their credentials are the same.

I have spoken with numerous active NASA Astronauts who have seen the self-funded and industry-funded astronauts and cosmonauts as their equals. I have never met one that thinks the opposite. They would just as soon pay for their own ride to space if they could afford to so.

posted 11-02-2005 02:20 PM               

I believe you are probably correct in stating that most active duty astronauts have no problem with the self-funded participants. Or tourists... whatever you want to call them. That is, most of the flown active duty folk. The majority of The Vast Unflown would just as soon that the tourists wait, at least until their own seat assignments have been made.

The Old Guard, however, feel quite differently. Only a small minority of the former/retired astronauts (and I'm not talking about payload specialists here) support the idea of folks buying seats to space. It's an ego thing, for sure, but it is almost a consensus. Interesting. The issue has been boiling around in ASE (in terms of accepting the Tourons as members) for quite some time now, with the "Seniors" waving arms and stamping feet, while the "Juniors" yawn and smile indulgently.

There was a big brouhaha about the FAA awarding Binnie and Melvill astronaut wings back awhile ago, particularly in that the FAA took the liberty of using the official astronaut [office] insignia in the center of the commercial space pilot wings (without asking, tsk tsk). I know there was some activity going on to get the FAA to use some other insignia (which we were part of), but I'll not comment further on that, pending resolution.

posted 11-02-2005 02:44 PM               

My comments were based on who is flying today (or at least, will be next year). As to taking seats, I think the attitude would be largely different among the active corps if NASA was flying tourists on shuttles. However, as it is now only aboard the Soyuz - and not all current astronauts desire to fly on that vehicle (nor do all want to spend six months on the space station) - they see the tourism trade (and their money) as an enabler rather than a disadvantage. We have even seen a few astronauts leave NASA to pursue careers with the new suborbital efforts (Searfoss and Herrington most notably).

Its also good to keep in mind that the former astronauts faced this issue once before with similar results. It took many years before the payload specialists were invited to JSC reunions and embraced by their peers. It may take equally long for the self-funded flyers to be similarly recognized.