4 ms·

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 n

by soheil 5y ago

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.

Dylan16807 5y ago
> 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?
- soheil 5y ago
  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.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    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.
    - krapp 5y ago
      >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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut_training [1]https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/postsecondary/features/F_Astronaut_Requirements.html https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/postsecondary/feat...
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        > 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.
        krapp 5y ago
        >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.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        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.

by soheil 5y ago

Dylan16807 5y ago

> 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?

soheil 5y ago
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.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  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.
  - krapp 5y ago
    >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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronaut_training [1]https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/postsecondary/features/F_Astronaut_Requirements.html https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/postsecondary/feat...
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      > 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.
      - krapp 5y ago
        >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.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        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.