The First Iranian-American Astronaut
Congratulations to Jasmin Moghbeli for being selected as a @NASA astronaut. But contrary to some news articles Jasmin is not the "first Iranian-American astronaut". @AnoushehAnsari was the first Iranian-American astronaut. Just sayin'. #MyDreamOfStars pic.twitter.com/OZajmEKwOT
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) January 12, 2020
AIUI Ansari was a Spaceflight Participant: different under the law and different wings are presented.
This is about terminology used in news articles, not legal definitions. In some contexts like what you are referring to the term is limited to professional astronauts serving as crew members. But in common usage it can also mean anyone who travels in space. Once large-scale space tourism gets underway I think the common usage of the term astronaut will likely change, but that hasn’t happened yet.
Anousheh Ansari was a breath of fresh air and enthusiasm during a somewhat bleak period in human spaceflight. Not to mention her and her family’s financial contribution towards private spaceflight with the Ansari X Prize. It would be nice if at least her name got mentioned in these type of articles so that more people would know about her.
The dictionary definition already means a person who travels in space. People trying to redefine that to only mean someone who’s (government) job it is to travel in space are trying to redefine the word.
People who claim that you can only call yourself an astronaut if it’s your job are on shaky ground as well.
There currently is no certification to become an astronaut like there is for a doctor, lawyer, or aircraft pilot.
More common jobs don’t have certifications either. Someone who writes can call themselves a writer. Someone who creates art can call themselves an artist. Someone who owns a business is an entrepreneur.
Up until now there have only been a handful of space tourists and they had to go through extensive training since they were considered essentially the backup flight engineer on Soyuz. So calling these dozen or so people astronauts doesn’t really dilute the meaning. But as I said I think a change will occur once mass tourism starts.
Sure anyone who writes can call themselves a writer, but if they list themselves as a writer on their resume it probably won’t go over very well in the interview when they are asked about it and their answer is “Oh I just keep a private journal and I also write little stories for my own amusement”.
I think the same would be true if someone listed themselves as an astronaut on their resume just because they once rode on Richard Branson’s suborbital tourist hopper.
There is a huge difference between calling yourself a writer or astronaut and putting the same on a resume. As more people travel in space, and call themselves astronauts, this will remain true.
The whining I see in online forums claiming that “space tourists aren’t astronauts” rings hollow as long as those “space tourists” aren’t putting “astronaut” on their resume.
Resume was just an example of social or professional situations where someone goes around calling themselves something that on further inquiry will likely lead to ridicule, or at best some loss of credibility.
Sure if someone doesn’t care about that then have at it. But if that is the result, which I think it will be, then this would indicate that the common usage of the word will have become more narrow in scope than it currently is, since until now there hasn’t been as much of a reason to make a delineation.
“The dictionary definition already means a person who travels in space.
People trying to redefine that to only mean someone who’s (government)
job it is to travel in space are trying to redefine the word.”
No you are wrong. Words can have multiple meanings.
Words can have multiple meanings. Good thing the FAA has at least part of this covered (professional, non-government, astronauts):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
So far, all of the Commercial Astronaut wings awarded by the FAA have been for suborbital flights. That opens up a whole other “can of worms” because some people don’t believe suborbital flights should count (sorry Alan Shepard).
Allen Shepard went to the moon so that’s a moot point. FAA jurisdiction ends once you get out of the atmosphere. Also NASA gave astronaut wings to X-15 pilots…
https://www.nasa.gov/missio…
So who is the authority that determines who’s an Astronaut NASA or the FAA?
The history books all say Alan Shepard was the first US astronaut to fly into space. At the time, his suborbital flight was a big deal.
As you stated some people didn’t think the sub-orbital flight should count but he went to the moon so the sub-orbital flight argument is moot point if he’s an Astronaut or not.
I think the point was about primacy. If suborbital flights don’t count, it would spoil Mr. Shepard’s record as the _first_ American astronaut. But the whole thing about firsts is a bit pointless. Technically Gagarin didn’t make the first flight into space. The official rules say you have to land a vehicle to claim a first. The Soviets tried to keep it quiet, but the Vostok capsule was a hard lander. The pilots jumped out with a parachute shortly before landing.
I never head of the “have to land a vehicle to claim a first” stipulation before. If that’s the case then the first folks into space were Young and Crippen (sp?) because everyone before the didn’t land their craft they rode it down.
You’ll have to talk to the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale about that. They are the ones who officially certify record flights. I think the intent is that the pilot can’t bail out and abandon the vehicle, which still claiming a successful flight. Landings, as in a touchdown of a capsule, would almost certainly be allowed. Even ejecting and parachuting down, which is what they did on the Vostok missions, would probably have been fine: It wasn’t technically according to the FAI rules, but it was planned and missions ended successfully. In fact, when the landing method came out a decade later, the FAI didn’t complain. But at the time, the Soviets were insistent on an unchallengeable “first” so they keep the details quiet.
NASA awards wings to its astronauts.
FAA is in charge of awarding “Commercial Astronaut” wings.
https://www.faa.gov/about/o…
So far, they’ve awarded wings to the crews of SS1 and SS2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
The US Military issues wings to its astronauts (technically on loan to NASA).
Wikipedia on all of the above here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
What’s the difference between a “Commercial Astronaut” and just an “Astronaut”? It seem like a silly distinction to me. The way I see it any one who goes into space is an Astronaut and those who get paid to go into space are Professional Astronauts. Kinda like an Astronomer v.s. an Amateur Astronomer like myself.
I’d hesitate to call myself an aviator; despite all the hours I’ve spent on aircraft, they were as a passenger and I can’t fly a plane. I see that as a much more meaningful distinction that who is paying the pilot (or if the pilot is just doing the job as a hobby.) I suspect the definition of an astronaut will eventually end up as something similar. The people who go into space and operate the vehicle are astronauts; the people who go up to do non-flight work are just passengers.
But, at the moment, official (government recognized) “astronauts” are recognized by a government agency. If it’s NASA or the military, it’s just an astronaut. If it’s the FAA, it’s a “commercial astronaut.” Yes, that’s a bit silly. But official, government terminology often is.
That depends on the base definition of Astronaut.
The definition of an astronaut is: “a person who travels beyond the earth’s atmosphere.” (see https://www.merriam-webster…
Using that as the base definition then what I wrote in my previous post is an accurate description. If you the change the base definition then it may not be accurate.
As for your pilot/aviator example an aviator is:
“the operator or pilot of an aircraft and especially an airplane” (see https://www.merriam-webster…
You are not an aviator but I am since I’m a private pilot but I’m not a commercial pilot because I don’t have commercial pilot license. I’m still considered an Aviator because I’m an operator of an aircraft even though I’m not paid for it. A commercial pilot has more training than a private pilot but both are still aviators because they both meet the definition of an aviator.
Anoushe Ansari received the same training that NASA employees receive in order to fly on a Soyuz. Russia requires that.
I think a better example is how we use the word sailor. Although in a general sense anyone who takes out their little sailboat onto the lake is a sailor, the more common usage is a crewmember on a ship. On a cargo ship I assume everyone on the crew is considered a sailor, but I’m not sure how the term is applied on cruise ships. I don’t know if the people who work in the restaurants for example are considered sailors since they are not involved in the operation of the ship, I am guessing not.
For sure the passengers would not be considered sailors, even though that is one of the dictionary definitions. They are free to call themselves that if they want to, and as with the term astronaut they can pull out the dictionary to support their claim, but that returns to my point that they risk ridicule if they push the idea too far, i.e. going around telling people that they are a sailor when all they did was go on a cruise to the Bahamas.
Of course the etymology of astronaut and cosmonaut both refer to being a sailor.
Not sure who is arguing that suborbital has anything to do with it, but that will become a moot point anyway once tourists start going to orbit. Yes tourists have gone to orbit already but as has been pointed out they were trained in the operation of the Soyuz capsule as they were actual crew members on the capsule.
Boeing and SpaceX have the option if they want to of carrying tourists to ISS on Starliner and Dragon. They will have to go through some training because NASA isn’t going to allow someone to just waltz onto ISS without being familiar with its layout and protocols and of course emergency procedures. But other than that there will be little difference between a Boeing and SpaceX orbital tourist and a Blue Origin or Virgin Galactic suborbital tourist.
And we expect that eventually there will be Bigelow hotels or something similar where it will truly be a flight to a tourist destination in space. By then there will probably have been hundreds of people who will have made suborbital tourist flights, which will eventually exceed the number of people who have flown in space previously. So the term astronaut will likely be used differently by the time orbital tourist flights become common. Although I’m sure the dictionary will still allow them to call themselves astronauts if they want to.
Either way, people who argue that Alan Shepard was not an astronaut after his Mercury flight, or who argue against Yuri Gagarin being the first to orbit the Earth, or for that matter argue against Anousheh Ansari being an astronaut, are really not taken seriously by anyone who is familiar with those achievements. Now if someone wants to argue that Jake Garn and Bill Nelson are not astronauts I’m not going to put up too much of a fight. Although I suspect that even if definitions change in the future, anyone who rode on the Space Shuttle will be pretty much grandfathered in.
As far as NASA is concerned, Jake Garn, Bill Nelson, and a host of other dignitary “Payload Specialists” were/are all NASA Astronauts. They had to go through similar training that commercial Soyuz spaceflight participants went through. No doubt NASA will show you lots of pictures of Garn and Nelson undergoing astronaut training.
None of them were professional astronauts employed by NASA for any length of time, but they all got their “astronaut wings” for flying.
True that Ansari was not a NASA Astronaut (i.e. a specific US government job). But she was still an astronaut by the very definition of the word: a person engaged in or trained for spaceflight.
She went through the exact same training as any other astronaut/cosmonaut whole flies on a Soyuz or lives aboard the ISS. She is an astronaut.
To fly aboard Soyuz you have to go through a year of training in Moscow. This isn’t the same as, for example, a Virgin or Blue ‘gas and go’ experience. Anyone who flies Soyuz is an astronaut (more accurately, a cosmonaut) in my book!
I have to say quite an accomplishment for Jasmin Moghbeli to get through the selection process though being a Marine test pilot gave her a good foundation. Hopefully Ms. Moghbeli will be able to fly in newer models of spacecraft and walk the surface of the moon.
Does the fact that these individuals have been selected by NASA as “astronauts” actually make them astronauts or “ascans” (astronaut candidates), until they have made a flight above the Karman line (100 km or 62.5 miles)? Wasn’t that the original criteria (or, in the early days flight above 50 miles) for pilots to win their astronaut wings? All credit and kudos to Ms. Moghbeli and her fellow selectees. Just askin’
Ad LEO! Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!
Back in the days when you were selected as astronaut, you were an astronaut and could wear the wings (i.e. the original seven were the greatest pilots anyone saw even before they made a spaceflight). I think there was a debate why Robert Lawrence was not on a memorial of perished astronauts, some say though he was selected for MOL he never made a spaceflight. But there were names of astronauts that never made a spaceflight i.e. Roger Chaffee so they later added Lawrence’s name.
Getting back to definitions, there will be NASA astronauts, ESA astronauts, Russian cosmonauts, spaceflight participant astronauts, commercial astronauts, BO astronauts, SpaceX astronauts, VG astronauts, and more. Then there are several other countries in addition to their private companies.
I just noticed that the next Cygnus cargo capsule will be named the S.S. Robert Lawrence.
I have always suspected that since very little information was made public about MOL this led to an unintentional oversight when they were creating the memorial mirror when they left out an MOL astronaut who was killed in training. As compared to the much more publicized T-38 accidents and of course the Apollo 1 fire, where it would have been odd to exclude Chaffee while recognizing Grissom and White.
Actually Lawrence was the trainer in that flight, they had been using modified F-104’s to basically simulate the much more expense X-15. It had a rocket motor attached which allowed high altitude flights, although not as high as X-15. For landing tests they simply cut thrust to idle, lowered gear and flaps and speed brakes, which did a pretty good job of simulating an X-15 on approach. One day the operations chief for the Aerospace Research Pilot School where Lawrence was assigned decided that he wanted to give it a try himself, and against protocol attempted a landing, with Lawrence sitting in the back seat giving him instruction. The major slammed the plane into the runway, both ejected but only the major survived, Lawrence was killed.
One oversight on the mirror that I have never heard mentioned is Valentin Bondarenko, the cosmonaut trainee who was killed in 1961 in a fire during a 15-day endurance test in an altitude chamber. The accident in the high oxygen atmosphere had some similarities to the later Apollo 1 fire that killed Chaffee and the others. In fact it has been speculated that if NASA had known about the accident it might have led to a change in thinking about the situation that they were putting Apollo astronauts in.
Beth Moses was awarded commercial astronaut wings after the Virgin galactic test flight. If that is recognizing her as one who crossed the karman line (us 50 miles, international 62 miles) and being an astronaut then surely the training for a soyuz flight and staying on the ISS qualifies you to be an astronaut regardless of if paid your own way or NASA paid.
There have been seven orbital space tourists to date (remarkably, one doing the trip twice, Charles Simonyi (Hungarian born American), in 2007 and 2009!). I think that the distinction between “orbital space tourists” and “sub-orbital space tourists” will quickly become a thing, similar to Blue Origin claiming (correctly) to be the first to have landed a rocket that went to space, while a multitude of SpaceX fans said, “wait a minute, that was a sub-orbital flight, not an orbital flight, they are miles apart!”. The upcoming tourist flights from Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic and Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin are all sub-orbital, and so although they will all go into space, they will be ultimately labelled as “sub-orbital space tourists”, maybe not right away but certainly as soon as actual orbital space tourists arrive. Meanwhile, as to the designation of the seven (so far) “orbital space tourists”, for sure they are astronauts, or cosmonauts, or taikonauts, whatever they want to call themselves.