posted 08-03-2015 06:54 PM               

No one denies that Smith, Jarvis and McAuliffe flew on the space shuttle. But they didn't fly in space. The same is true for all of the X-15 pilots, with the exception of Joseph Walker (unless you go by the U.S. Air Force definition of 50 miles rather than the 62 mile international rule).

posted 08-04-2015 12:34 PM               

It seems in our hobby, at least, stating "unflown astronaut," really means having not flown in space.

posted 08-04-2015 03:21 PM               

Don't meet the basic requirements for an achievement, then don't get credit for it. Just because it is a favorite topic (spaceflight) doesn't mean there should be exceptions. This same line of thinking is where participation trophies are now handed out to all players in some sport little leagues. Life is harsh and unforgiving. There aren't awards for just participating.

posted 08-04-2015 03:38 PM               

However, with the advent of missions like Virgin Galactic and their future commercial non-orbital space flights, those passengers are not nor should they ever be considered astronauts. Furthermore, we should also add an additional distinction regarding tourist/paying travelers, who should also not be considered astronauts. It is an occupational title as well and should be part of the designation.

posted 08-04-2015 03:52 PM               

With the advent of civilian (non-pilot) astronauts and later 'part-time' Payload Specialists during shuttle, the lines became blurred and led to understandable tension between the 'professional' ranks in the Astronaut Office and the civilian interlopers (scientists, teachers, politicians, company engineers) who would train or fly. One of the few who was accepted was Charlie Walker who flew three times.

If by the logic of an earlier post here the word 'honorary' should be applied, then several names on the space mirror memorial at the KSCVC should be amended or an asterisk applied. I can see the family of Maj. Robert Lawrence, among others, being upset at their loved ones' being downgraded in such a 'technical' way.

posted 08-04-2015 05:10 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Behling:
A person that dies on an attempt to scale Mt Everest does not get credit for making it to the top

---

Setting aside strict definitions, when you set out to climb Everest, you can usually turn back. There in lies the difference and in my opinion that difference defines them as astronauts.

Unflown should be reserved for astronauts who have never launched aboard a spacecraft... regardless of the outcome in my opinion.

posted 08-04-2015 07:16 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Behling:
A person that dies on an attempt to scale Mt Everest does not get credit for making it to the top.

---

posted 08-05-2015 02:43 AM            

I see "astronaut" as a job title or qualification, completely separate from the "flown in space" issue. So for STS-51L Smith was an astronaut, Jarvis and McAuliffe officially were not (depending on whose definition you take). That's a bit tough on them since they were part of the crew carrying out mission tasks, not just sitting back and enjoying the view - let's call them "unofficial astronauts" or "astronaut equivalent." None of them flew in space, neither did, for example See, Basset or Chaffee — all are astronauts or "astronaut equivalent."

X-15 pilots, I take the USAF 50 mile line, it's a nice round number with basically as much technical validity as the European 100 km round number (yeah I know, the higher the better), and they got there first. So yeah, eight of them are "astronaut equivalent." So by the way are Gagarin, Bondarenko, Nelyubov, Leonov, etc., regardless of whether or not they flew in space, and not that they would care.

Tito, Shuttleworth, Brightman, etc. are not "astronaut equivalent," they were passengers or just manifested, regardless of whether or not they flew in space. Your own personal agenda is not a mission task anymore than a businessman working on his flight to New York is carrying out a mission task. They are the/ a mission objective, not carrying out the task(s).

I'll leave others to argue the individual merits of claims by Garn, Al Saud, etc. Are you really an "astronaut equivalent" if you trained for a vehicle that never flew crewed in space (Buran, MOL, X-20 etc)? Well, your training was equivalent, so if the vehicle was really viable (rather than something I knocked together in my barn) then probably yes. If you were merely a candidate for something with no actual hardware (say MISS or NASP) then not really.

So I see the entire crew of STS-51L as basically being astronauts who flew on a spacecraft, but three of them did not fly in space. That does absolutely nothing to diminish their sacrifice. You can have an "honorary spaceflight" as well if you want it, but it's meaningless nonsense. The mission is in a similar category to Soyuz 7K-ST No16L (or T-10a), also not a space flight.

As for suggestions that because you may not be able to get out of a particular type of spacecraft in an emergency after liftoff - that as soon as you lift off it's a space flight even if it doesn't get into space - what?!!? No, that just makes it riskier. If the last Skylab crew had aborted on first stage and didn't reach space would they have been less "astronauts" than the 51L crew because they could turn back/get off? I think not. Whether or not you have a launch escape option on your machine may define part of your character, but it does not define you as an astronaut.

On the subject of the mirror at KSC, I take that as strictly NASA MSC/JSC's view, quite arbitrary and hardly complete or definitive.

In the near future, the likes of Virgin, etc. can call their passengers astronauts if they want — whatever you need to do to sell tickets buddy. They are no more astronauts than the people who were sold tickets for a flip in a Curtis "Jenny" in 1921 from an Iowa cornfield were aviators. Passengers, pure and simple. No more astronauts than the people who take cruises round the Caribbean are sailors, they're passengers.

In the far future is a lunar colonist an "astronaut" the day they're born, when they step outside for a walk, or when they leave the Moon? And will anyone care?

posted 08-05-2015 05:22 AM               

The term Astronaut was given to the seven test pilots chosen to fly Mercury spacecraft, the Soviets used the term Cosmonaut for their space jockeys.

There is a distinction with aircraft pilots, they can be private pilots, professional pilots, military pilots, test pilots but they are all pilots. Co-pilots, flight engineers, navigators, etc. were names given to people who held other positions within the aircraft.

posted 08-05-2015 06:25 AM            

Since NASA subsequently used the term to refer to spacecraft crew with specializations other than pilot; their use of "astronaut" is now more akin to aviator, flyer or aircrew member than pilot. Note, that's NASA's use only, not necessarily other organizations.

Moving the goalposts to Earth orbit is no long term solution either. You're still left with the problems of colonies and tourists. Born on Mars then orbit Mars, not a space traveller or astronaut, really? Build a scramjet/rocket vehicle then fly it to Mach 10 before pulling up on a ballistic trajectory peaking at 200km but still not an astronaut equivalent, really? Take the wife and kids (little Sally-Ann is just three years old), on a two week vacation to the orbiting space hotel, chilling out in the "zero g spa" and soaking up the views — all astronauts, are you sure?

So I think the question becomes: If you're using the term "astronaut" or an equivalent, does it make sense in the given case? Your reasoning doesn't suffice to decide the case of STS-51L either. Bottom line, there are already way too many exceptions in existence to be able to say either that being an astronaut means you've flown in space (sorry Jim), or that flying in space means you're an astronaut (sorry tourists).

It makes sense in the case of STS-51L. They were trained, and launched on an intended space mission in a spacecraft. If they'd peaked out at 51 miles, or 101 km, yes they'd have officially flown in space, but they'd be no more "flown" or "astronauts" than they already are. Exactly where those lines are set is rather arbitrary. Their precise values have more to do with round numbers than physics.

A general trained spacecraft crewmember type of definition can be tailored to avoid both future problems and the need to make exceptions for the likes of Shepard (until 1971), Adams or Lawrence etc.

posted 08-05-2015 08:14 AM               

The term "astronaut" derives from the Greek words meaning "space sailor," and refers to all who have been launched as crew members aboard NASA spacecraft bound for orbit and beyond. Since the inception of NASA's human space flight program, we have also maintained the term "astronaut" as the title for those selected to join the NASA corps of astronauts who make "space sailing" their career profession. The term "cosmonaut" refers to those space sailors who are members of the Russian space program.

The crew of each launched spacecraft is made up of astronauts or cosmonauts drawn from various categories. The crew assignments and duties of commander, pilot, space shuttle mission specialist, or International Space Station flight engineer are drawn from the NASA professional career astronauts. A special category of astronauts typically titled "payload specialist" refers to individuals selected and trained by commercial or research organizations for flights of a specific payload on a space flight mission. At the present time, these payload specialists may be cosmonauts or astronauts designated by the international partners, individuals selected by the research community, or a company or consortia flying a commercial payload aboard the spacecraft.

posted 08-05-2015 09:50 AM               

During the Interkosmos flights of the late 70s and 80s, they added 'guest' to the title cosmonaut, and I'm sure the career members of the corps grumbled and rolled their eyes just as in the shuttle era during the 1980s.

posted 08-05-2015 12:24 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by David C:
So I think the question becomes: If you're using the term "astronaut" or an equivalent, does it make sense in the given case?

---

posted 08-06-2015 02:06 AM               

Modern astronauts' embroidered name tags feature a wings design, either based on the individual's military service wings or a generic wing design for consistency in appearance, but it is not intended as an award.

The NASA tradition is to transition from a silver to a gold astronaut pin to signify one having traveled into space.

At the time of STS-51L, none of the crew wore embroidered name tags. The leather name tags attached by velcro to their suits sometimes included a representation of the military service wings (as seen in this photo of Dick Scobee) but all were issued tags with no wings as well (as can be seen in this crew portrait).

posted 08-06-2015 12:04 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
And just to add, the pin is not an award either. While every NASA career astronaut receives a silver pin, they purchase their gold pins.

---