I could understand if they did it for Wally Funk, as she actually did the training back in the day, but the rest?
When rich people were allowed in the ISS they were called "tourists", which is befitting.
In "The Right Stuff", there is discussion on this topic, initially trapeeze artists were thought to be the ideal personnel for the space program due to the high dynamic forces they routinely experience. Another opinion being considered was to use death row prisoners. Finally it was decided to use military pilots from mostly a PR point of view.
I suspect that decision making process was dramatized in The Right Stuff. Test pilots make sense for several reasons: they already understand aeronautical concepts, are used to g-forces, have experience with state of the art machines, have a high risk tolerance, and are already familiar with following orders.
The storyline also involves the political reasons for putting people into space, asserting that the Mercury astronauts were actually a burden to the program and were only sent up for promotional reasons. Reasons for including living beings in spacecraft are barely touched upon, but the first option considered was to use a chimpanzee (and, indeed, chimpanzees were sent up first).
Another option considered was using athletes already accustomed to physical stress, such as circus trapeze artists. Wolfe states that President Dwight D. Eisenhower, however, insisted on pilots, even though the first crew members would not actually fly the spacecraft.
Probably more than this, following protocols but having an ability to think for themselves on their feet (as opposed to a grunt following minutia orders).
So the gatekeeping can go away
They were trained (not as well trained as NASA astronauts, but still trained well enough for such a short mission)
They were equipped with whatever equipments they needed for this flight.
They were deployed by a human spaceflight program.
So by definition, shouldn't they classify as "astronauts"?
But he had a role other than just being a passenger. He was there to make observations on the performance of the rocket and the spacecraft, as well as himself throughout the mission. There's a clear scientific role here that the Blue Origin tourists do not have. And while the controls were locked, Gagarin had the code to unlock them and was to take over the spacecraft in the event of automation failure or another manually recoverable emergency.
Throughout Mercury, the astronauts had to fight for control elements to even be included in the spacecraft because automation was considered the safer option.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan and these steps were incredible milestones, and I certainly wouldn't have wanted to switch seats with anyone.
Here, I am sure Bezos can/would argue that "someone had to make observations on the performance of the rocket and the spacecraft, as well as himself throughout the mission". Sure, the goal here is commercial, but it's hard to argue that Gagarin's flight was made to gain pure scientific knowledge to finally answer the pressing question of how humans react to spaceflight, rather than political/technological.
But still for the sake of discussion, I would argue that their mission required only 1 responsibility - that you be there. Even if they orbit around the Earth, modern spacecrafts are designed in such a way that crew member input is almost unnecessary. I wonder how much crew input is needed to dock on ISS in modern crafts...
I'm definitely on-board with calling Bezos a passenger.
"Although generally reserved for professional space travelers, the terms are sometimes applied to anyone who travels into space, including scientists, politicians, journalists and tourists."
When I'm on a flight I'm called a passenger, for example. They were passengers.
I’m under no obligation to recognize anyone as anything but an average human without proof they’re actually skilled as they claim.
Titles are political euphemism. I want to know someone’s profile to know who I am dealing with. You’re a doctor? Of ants. Not helpful when I need someone that studied human anatomy.
None of these titles explain the training involved. The honestly gained skill set based on direct learning.
Bezos isn’t a genius; he’s a politically elevated person due to financial success. Humans will never live among the stars as the meat bags we are; far more likely we etch a simulated human consciousness into a new medium than adapt this biology. We’re just watching one guy get his jollies off at our political expense.
Titillate the masses to keep them politically disorganized. Humans used to wage holy wars, invade other nations to do that. Now it’s engineering and economic spectacle.
What a trivial and boring people I live among. Collectively setting themselves aside to ogle this stuff.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaman_status_in_United_States...
[2] https://www.maritimeinjuryguide.org/maritime-lawsuit/qualifi...
I think w0de0 got to the heart of the matter (elsewhere in this thread) with their comment about astronauts being associated with public service. That rings true for me as to the source of the insult.
This is all about poking at Virgin Galactic. Virgin Galactic cleared 80km, which is the height that earns you astronaut wings in the USA. Blue Origin clears the Kármán line (100km), which is the internationally recognized standard for human spaceflight. So they're digging in hard on, "Jeff Bezos has been to space, Richard Branson hasn't," in an effort to imply that Virgin Galactic's flight from earlier this month doesn't count, theirs is the real first.
Christa was legit trained how to spacewalk.
Sure, McAuliffe trained to do so much more, but all of them fulfill the criterion you gave of what an astronaut is.
noun a person who is trained to travel in a spacecraft.
They were trained, and they traveled in a spacecraft.
This is such a historical moment and this is what people are focusing on?
What difference does it really make to you or to anyone? Who the hell really cares?
And this is the top comment here. Come on people. Enjoy things for a change.
I leave all of that aside, and agree with you on egalitarian and emotional grounds. The term in America rightly has implications of public service - of deserving the fantastically unique opportunity of exploring space on behalf of all Americans by virtue of intelligence, diligence, and impeccable ethics. Topically, this might be compared to Olympians: though all extreme athletes perform extraordinary feats, Olympians carry an extra responsibility to represent us as a nation. So too with people called "astronauts."
Whether or not one agrees with this understanding, I believe it is the practical understanding underlying your (and my) insult at the use of this term.
When you reach a certain threshold of wealth, you get access to an unbelievably efficient PR machine and you can become basically whatever the hell you want and rewrite reality to suit your imagination. Hell, you'll even get people to believe it and ruthlessly defend your reality.
There will be some shakeup in the is there clearly is a different between the type of astronaut that is trained to do experiments in space and repair a space station, and somebody who just sits in his seat and lets the space-craft fly.