3 ms·
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 o
by version_five 5y ago
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.
- aquova 5y agoI'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.
- themodelplumber 5y agoI 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".
- jdavis703 5y agoThis 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 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]