Hacker News Reader

Comment by sandworm101 | Hacker News Reader

Wrong. A founding principlal of NASA is that it is entirely a civilian agency. This was a big deal (no military overflights) and nasa vehicles are never armed. (One russian space station was, Almaz). And while NASA once handled spy satalites (Shuttle's NRO launches) they were owned and operated by other civilian agencies (cia, nsa, nro etc).

Maybe they mean to say first crew without any former soldiers? Ok. That might be true, but is a fine line to draw. I have never heard of any other organization be openly proud of not employing veterans on a project. Does this mean that any country with mandatory military service, making everyone a former soldier, is unable to ever launch a civilian crew?

View on HN

This is borderline “a difference without a distinction”. NASA and the military have a very cozy relationship. NASA was partially a solution to a political problem. Sure astronauts are on “detached duty” but I doubt the astronauts would agree they are not military people. This flight of all truly “civilians” does seem different. It is meaningful.

It's spaceflight, rocket technology. I dont see any organization launching such massive rockets without substanial military ties. SpaceX lauches spy satalites all the time and employs lots of x-military people but i dont call it any more military than nasa (nasa is not currently handling any military projects).

If we really want to draw legal lines, the US still has selective service in place. Any American males on this flight are subject to it, giving them a small tie to the US military in that they has registered as potential recruits. They have a number and a card somewhere. The fact that someone is x-military does not mean they are never again a civilian. Being drafted doesnt mean you are soldier forever. Lots of all x-military flights have happened.

This crew does have a US military veteran, so even that distinction isn't accurate.

Maybe they are the first lottery winners? The first non-government employees?

Fun tangent, Russian cosmonauts had pistols to defend themselves from bears and wolves in the Siberian wilderness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TP-82_Cosmonaut_survival_pisto...

I think "civilian" in this context just means none of the crew are professional astronauts. It's still very much a test flight, though, so basically they're facing all of the danger as any previous astronaut or cosmonaut crew, with less of the training.

So "civilian" now means "amature", or at least "non-professional"?

Definition 2b

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilian

Not quite, just that it's not strictly a military reference. Local police are not military organizations either, but they often refer to ordinary citizens as civilians. A lot of people (some even in these comments) think of NASA as a quasi-military organization, and I think SpaceX is just playing into that popular perception to project the idea that they are ready to accept paying passengers on a regular basis. Which may be true, as long as the paying passengers have a high tolerance for mortal risk.

Local police are still civilians. Anyone who is allowed to quit whenever they want is a civilian. Soldiers don't have that choice.

The dictionary begs to differ, see tolbish's link.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com