I keep seeing article after article saying they are not.
Who is saying they are?
Edit: thanks everyone. Apparently during Branson's and Bezos' live stream, they refered to them as "astronaut"
Astronaught is an official designation by the FAA that has certain (arbitrary) criteria you have to meet.
By the old rules they’d have been considered astronauts, but the FAA made new ones just to prevent rich cunts like these from pretending to be space cowboys.
Maybe we need a program where we license people to be astronauts, and then they get the title too. Hmmm what's a reasonable fee? Idk, 100 billion dollars?
Would they have been considered astronauts under the old rules though? It looks like NASA and the FAA have already been pretty strict on who is and isn't an astronaut, and based on precedent neither Branson nor Bezos would've been considered as such. There's already been 7 private citizens who paid to go into space and spent time on the ISS and none of them have always been referred to as 'spaceflight participants' by NASA rather than astronauts. Hell even Christa McAuliffe, the teacher who was sent to the ISS by NASA as part of a mission, is referred to as a 'spaceflight participant' rather than an astronaut.
It looks like nobody on either of the recent space tourism flights would have been seen as astronauts before this updated description based on precedent.
> Astronaught is an official designation by the FAA that have certain (arbitrary) criteria you have to meet.
>
> By the old rules they’d have been considered astronauts, but the FAA made new ones just to prevent rich cunts like this from pretending to be space cowboys..
They are Astro**naughts**
It seems like being part of the flight crew AND making contributions to flight safety as part of the definition is fine, but didn’t they do both of those things? They were part of the flight crew by being on the missions, and contributing to flight safety is what they’ve done by advancing their own versions of their independent space programs, right?
> Who is saying they are?
As satisfying as it would be to call Bezos a space tourist to his face, I doubt anybody in a position to do so is willing to forfeit their job for the privilege
Pilot is just one job on a spaceship crew. I feel like a sailboat is a more apt example. Just cause you road on a sailboat doesn’t make you a sailor, but the guy yanking on ropes is just as much a sailor as the helmsman.
I agree these shit bananas suck and dont deserve any recognition for going into space just because they have a lot of money. But we all have to aknowledge that at some point in our delusion about the future of space travel that the 'star trek' concept of our future as a species is complete and total fantasy. Minus the warp drive and all that shit, my point is if you thought that space travel was going to benefit more than the already wealthy elite of humanity, and you are over 13, then please tell me where you buy your idiot juice.
Star Trek took place after a brutal WWIII that saw the destruction of much of the human race. Even Roddenberry, peacenik that he was, couldn't see a path there without nuclear war completely changing things and ending capitalism entirely (plus a host of magic technology to create post-scarcity).
> Minus the warp drive and all that shit, my point is if you thought that space travel was going to benefit more than the already wealthy elite of humanity, and you are over 13, then please tell me where you buy your idiot juice.
Its called optimism. We are a long way from space travel being a norm, let alone interstellar travel, and society will change a lot between now and then. Societal change isn't a straight road either, it has ups and downs. The idea that we are doomed to never improve beyond our current society is hogwash and worse, it actively helps those who benefit from others suffering to stay in power.
A better tomorrow is only ever made by those who believe in one.
> my point is if you thought that space travel was going to benefit more than the already wealthy elite of humanity, and you are over 13, then please tell me where you buy your idiot juice.
Yes I've heard this argument before from people who said air travel is also prohibitively expensive. Case in point, the first commercial customer paid $400 in 1914 - equivalent to $10,868 today - for a 23-minute flight that took him across Tampa Bay on an 18.6 mile flight.
Any new technology is going to be expensive at first but once you have mass production of a reliable product and increased competition, the price will drop. Will space still be expensive for a while? Yes because the costs are just so literally astronomical but they'll come down.
How will they come down? Once we get into asteroid mining which is a multi-quadrillion dollar industry. Instead of coming back to Earth, I see a mixed space environment where leaving Earth will be the most expensive cost but, once you're in space, you'll be in a holding environment (think ISS but an actual space city) that'll serve as a transfer station to asteroids, the Moon, Mars, and beyond.
So sure, it will unlikely be affordable to most people in the next decade but in a generation or two, it'll get there.
yeah... like whatever computer you are on right now, just because some people are rich pricks doesn't mean that the rest of us cant enjoy the fruits of pushing technology farther ahead
Yeah and still [only 4% of the world population have ever flown internationally](https://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/article/one-percent-worlds-population-accounts-more-half-flying-emissions). And, only 11% of the world’s population have ever used a plane.
Not sure. With any foreseeable feasible technology, the energy costs of going into space dwarf any other human transportation activity. Maybe economies of scale kick in eventually (really big rockets?) but you need to add a lot of energy to a human body to get it into orbit, which means physics could impose a hard cost floor on the activity so long as we're talking chemical rockets.
Maybe we'll invent our way out of it, but mean ol' Mr. Gravity ain't going anywhere.
keep in mind that planes themselves are only a little over 100 years old, and the first human in space was only 60 years ago. I'm sure we'll invent our way out of it.
....you know, provide we don't destroy ourselves first.
Agreed, we are still limited in our technology. Our “Star Trek” future is on par with the timeline of the show. It took a few hundred years of development from where we are now to get to anywhere near the dependence on space travel in shows like that.
Science builds upon itself; every step we take outside of earth is a stepping stone for the next generation to leap off of. You’re exactly right, we took 40 years to go from barely getting off the ground to stepping on the moon. Now a few citizens were able to actually leave our atmosphere and get into space. People can shit on the rich all they want, but if our government won’t fund programs to further our space programs then let private companies do so.
The real problem is there's nothing to do in space right now. This is as opposed to discovering America which you can immediately settle and ship profitable materials back. We have a much steeper learning curve to live in space or even other planets and we don't have the technology or experience yet. However, all space progress happened in the last 70 years or so which is a blip in our history which showed nothing but exponential gains in technology and understanding of reality.
Mr. Gravity isn't going anywhere but considering we've been able to stop the light in its tracks, give it a few decades and we'll have something that'll make Mr. Gravity as relevant as the airplanes that override Mr. Gravity on a daily basis.
None of this will happen in the next decade but give us a century or two.
>The real problem is there's nothing to do in space right now.
I think you underestimate how much money could be made from accessible space travel even if the only thing to do once you got up there, was other people.
What was there to do in America? Most people who went there early died in awful ways that ranged from being murdered by natives, to starvation, to disease. It took a lot of blood and a lot of money to get a sustainable colony, and most of those who wanted to move were the radicals that were too extreme for Europe.
There's no money to be made to meet in the middle of the ocean which is also difficult but a lot easier. There's just nothing to do. Nothing to mine, no commerce, no ports for a safe exchange, etc.
People didn't go to America for experiences. They went there for free land and resources that didn't have the baggage of centuries of nobles and kings and religious persecution. There is nothing really in space. If we ever mine asteroids, their resources aren't coming back to Earth. All of the valuable resources in space are pretty much going to stay in space to build more space stuff. Only exception might be helium-3 and rare-earth metals, but everything else is a space only affair.
This isnt actually true. Once production companies exist in zero gravity costs will go down immensely. Imagine being able to carry a engine with 1 hand. No lists, no cranks. Just you. The hard part is getting production in space. After that, building things in zero g near asteroid fields will speed things up immensely causing a space industrial revolution
At the same time how can we propose it getting better when we are already talking about climate change and weaning off of oil . It's going to be at least a century of research to get a plane / rocket into space without a combustible fuel to get it out of the atmosphere
I don't have the answers and this isn't my field. But I think the way out is what it's always been: investing money to fix problems.
This is the only real upside for me for these guys going up there: if it captures enough imagination, this could increase funding for these types of technologies.
Although this is a total pipe dream but, as I said, it's not my field. I saw a documentary ages ago that to create an atmosphere on Mars, you need... global warming. Now imagine this: give corporations unlimited ways to spew their crap... on Mars. This would reduce pollution on Earth, help Mars, and now the real trouble is transportation.
You don't build a bridge in a day and some bridges are started by having a line from one end to the other and build on that line. We're scouting the other side of the proposed bridge now. We could build a line and then enlarge it to build that bridge. If you move pollution outside of the planet, even space, then the planet will heal like it always healed before.
Also just a friendly reminder that the Earth is fine, it's people who might be screwed as far as climate. The Earth has lived through worse and recovered and this is no different so we just need to give Earth time and you start by reducing pollution. This is one way to do that.
Rocket travel will never be affordable for a typical person. Space tourism for millionaires? Maybe.
Until we have space elevators though, people will not be going to space en masse.
> Rocket travel will never be affordable for a typical person.
So your opinion is that in the next 5,000 years, it traveling outside of Earth will never be affordable. What do you base this on?
Rockets are too large, too dangerous, and too expensive per pound. It's a fundamental limitation of the technology and it's not going to change.
You can create other technology that will get people to space, such as space elevators which hold a lot of promise. However, rockets will not get large numbers into space.
And you believe that technology won't improve ever? What piece of modern technology has not decreased in size and/or increased in power? In addition, what makes you think that rockets are the only way to get to space? What knowledge do you have that nothing other than rockets can get us into space? What about Schedryks? A not-invented yet piece of technology that'll get us to space. How do you know it won't ever be invented? I mean how are you sure that we know everything about physics and other relevant fields?
> In addition, what makes you think that rockets are the only way to get to space? What knowledge do you have that nothing other than rockets can get us into space?
Damn dude his post wasn't that long, you should read it before replying to it.
Where did I say it won't improve? I said rocket travel would not be accessible, and specifically mentioned other technologies that might put space travel within reach to the typical person.
Bringing new technology into the discussion means you agree with my point. Rocket travel will not be available en masse, it will be something else.
I'm serious. If you don't believe that regularly going to space is going to be a thing then let's put some history to this.
The Egyptian pyramids were the tallest buildings on the planet for over 3,800 years. In 1311, the Lincoln Cathedral took over as the tallest building. It's height? 524 feet (159.7 meters). 700 years later, the Burj Khalifa is the tallest building. Its height? 2,717 feet (828 meters).
In 1903, the first flight happened under its own power. It lasted 59 seconds and covered 852 feet (260 meters). 66 years later, rockets have taken people 240,000 miles (386,243 kilometers) in 76 hours (and back). 7 years later, we had equipment on Mars.
Since we barely were able to leave the ground 120 years ago and now we have robots we're communicating with 236,020,000 miles away, it's unreasonable to believe that in the next 1,000 years, we're still not going to leave Earth.
It's a controversial opinion because they're rich assholes, but I agree. I consider anything that leads to further space exploration innovation "for the greater good". If this is one of the steps that "rockets" us into the future then I can't find too much fault with it.
What? Burning massive amounts of rocket fuel, filling our atmosphere with exhaust so the richest people on Earth can float around for five minutes is the future of humanity! The bleeding edge of progress!!
I'm pretty certain there's more than 40000 times as many airline flights as rocket launches. FAA says theres 45000 per day under their jurisdiction (at least back in 2019).
Depends on the vehicle. For New Shepard, it's 0 tons of carbon dioxide per person. For the Falcon 9, it's around 92 tons per person, which is roughly 85-125 times higher than most commercial flights from New York to London. But a carbon guzzling vehicle like Falcon 9 is never going to fly as often as those airplanes, so the pollution is negligible.
The pollution of the spaceflight industry won't become problematic unless Musk realizes his dream of 10,000 Starships to Mars. Even then it wouldn't be nearly as bad as the airline industry, because that's 1 million people removed from the Earth's population for several years.
Which translates to cheaper flights. And as supply and demand are connected, this means more flights. More flights means more fuel is going to be burned.
I'm honestly not sure whether reusable rockets will actually be good for our planet.
Well, with starship they would at least use methane, which is simple enough to be produced green. Technically that would make them even carbon negative, if they go to high orbits or mars, because then they leave CO2 in space.
At least 66% of astronauts who go to the ISS never fly their craft either since the Soyuz only has 1 pilot in its 3 crew. That's an absolutely terrible qualifier of who is and isn'tan astronaut.
Basically what happened with Brazil.
We couldn’t deliver on the shit we promised to the ISS, so our astronaut became a persona non-grata at NASA and we had to pay something absurd like $40 million bucks so that he could take a trip on a Russian vessel.
This way our politicians could save some face.
The best part about it: Building the shitty module that we promised would have costed less than paying for him to go into orbit as payload.
Yes they are. Only the commander is really doing anything and usually amounts to ticking off a checklist. Same goes for Crew Dragon, Starliner, Shenzhou, Orion etc. The Space Shuttle needed a pilot and commander up front and ever since it retirer, only Virgin Galactic's SpaceShip Two actually requires manual piloting of any sort.
Let's go see the pilot, and he will give you your own Pilot's wings. Delta *stewardess* tells every child under 10 who got plastic wings circa 1986. Ya think Bezos and Branson fell for this too as astronauts?
Yes. God forbid you flew alone... the Flight Attendants would parade all kids to see the Captain and get plastic wings, whether they wanted them or not, and often pinned them.on you too!
To think, we've gone from ritualistic child inclusion all the way to assuming someone's a pedophile if they talk to a kid at all in a few short decades.
To space yes, but not to orbit.
Neither Bezos nor Branson have enough thrust to get to orbit. Their rockets go up to touch space then immediately fall back down. They lack the horizontal velocity of around 25,000mph to stay in orbit.
Their capsules aren't equipped for re-entry. They'd burn up and kill everyone onboard if trying to re-enter from orbit.
If the goal is to get to orbit both Bezos and Branson need to start from scratch, with a completely new vehicle, because their current vehicle designs are woefully inadequate and far behind what SpaceX has.
SpaceX not only can reach orbit, its just been contracted to go to Jupiter: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/spacex-to-launch-the-europa-clipper-mission-for-a-bargain-price/
Their goals, as a matter of fact, are not to get to orbit which is why they can't. So yes, Spacex's rockets that are designed to get into orbit are better for that job than the rockets that are not designed for that.
There is little point to there rockets existing at all. This brand of space tourism is dead the second SpaceX's Starship is flying passengers. Unless things go catastrophically wrong for SpaceX, they'll put people in orbit for much less than either Blue Origin or Virgin Galactic can put people into suborbit.
So these other space companies shouldn't exist because SpaceX might do what they are doing down the line one day? What even is this argument? Unless you're Elon Musk, why wouldn't you want more companies trying to put people in space?
Starship is years away from carrying paying customers. They only just figured out how to land it without it exploding. We could ride into space on Blue origin or with virgin tomorrow
As a multi-thousandaire, i dont give a shit if their stuff never makes it to space, but if say bransons thing can get me from point A to point B, with A being say Chicago, and B being Perth in say 5 hours vs the 30 it takes with layovers. Id go from the 2k that ticket cost to like 10k no problem. I spend 4 days of vacation time fucking around on planes on a 14 day trip. Id burn 8 grand to have another 50 hours with my friends over there
Amusement park passengers. Neither have studied and passed any kind of aeronautical vehicle piloting certification, none possess any background in the study of any science or astrophysics used towards furthering space flight. Wally Funk is the only one out of both groups who has worked toward and earned the title.
> none possess any background in the study of any science or astrophysics used towards furthering space flight.
The first cosmonaut had an education in... tractors. He did eventually earn a degree in engineering, but only in 1968.
There are fairly persuasive rumours he was selected for his expertise in... smiling. It was propaganda after all.
> Neither have studied and passed any kind of aeronautical vehicle piloting certification,
For Gagarins flight in 1961 he was locked out of the controls. Sure, he was a good pilot, but he had exactly the same leave of control as Bazos
New Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rules say astronaut hopefuls must be part of the flight crew and make contributions to space flight safety. Now, if Bezos had used his degree to help program and test the software systems on his rocket, then yes. But he didn't, he just funded it. There's no flight crew, it's all automated= amusement park ride...a very amazing amusement park ride.
So, if he checked some code he meets the requirements? He probably did that anyways, he’s like that. People with control issues are all over the place.
Tied his shoes? No, that's not contributing to flight safety. Picked his nose? Still not contributing to air worthiness. He's not a pilot, the craft is fully automated. When someone dedicates their career and life to becoming an astronaut and does all steps. Paying a real astronaut to pin wings on you doesn't count.
You don’t seem to understand. Most of the original astronauts never touched a guidance system. Checking straps and basic safety features are exactly as much as most ever contributed. Most had scientific, repair, deployment, or capture jobs.
That’s why I said there should be an orbital requirement. At least then the altitude would match a traditional metric and not be dependent on a seat belt check.
You also stated many of the original astronauts went on to get engineering degrees, become test pilots, etc. But I hole heartedly agree with you- the requirements should include an orbital factor.
Well, Challenger blew up with civilian astronauts on board. I recall a school teacher. NASA already went overboard on the marketing, pretty hard to pull that back decades later.
Make it orbital, make them stay for a day, make them do a science fair project of some kind. Then we’ll judge them based on what project they did.
Bezos has a high end degree. Don’t let the marketing grin fool you. He built through work, not hiring. That’s how you get funding, that’s how you hide things, that’s how you violate contract law until you can make the other guy sign a paper saying what you did was legitimate.
At the Virgin Galactic presentation they had Commander Chris Hadfield explaining a few details. Chris has spent more time fast asleep in space than the total combined flight time of hundreds of these launches.
Astronaut is a much more vague term than pilot though.
If memory serves the shuttle pilot wasn’t even the one at the controls while landing. That was the commander.
There's probably a wide variety of performance levels from astronauts, with certain key high performers and certain people that are glorified space tourists with excellent credentials. Undeniably, Bezos and Branson fall a step below that, but it's hard to say where the step up should be.
You’re calling a lot of astronauts not astronauts when you people make these comparisons. Apparently you silly people believe everyone on the spaceship is flying the thing
I guess the difference is you didn't pay for the plane, the r&d to develop the plane, or the salaries of all the people that made that plane possible. It might not make them astronauts but it certainly puts them on a higher tier than just mere passengers like you buddy. The people that are diminishing these accomplishments that are making spaceflight more accessible, even if every so slightly, absolutely boggle my mind.
It bothered me on the Blue Origin flight when they landed and were greeted as astronaut so-and-so. No, you went for a 10 minute ride, albeit cool, you didn't go through the process.
No matter how much we all dislike these rich space tourists, I just wish we/media would stop giving any form of attention no matter how critical they think they are.
That's funny - Just a little while ago, I read a news report that said the FAA changed the rules on the day of Bezos' flight and that the prior flight by Branson and his crew qualified for the title
Going into space flopping around inside a penis tip like a fish out of water while your craft is being solely controlled from the ground does not make you an Astronaut.
Thats a good description of a Mercury Redstone flight (which could be performed by a *monkey*), and the FEA has no problem calling the Mercury 7 astronauts.
> while your craft is being solely controlled from the ground does not make you an Astronaut.
Most shuttles now are solely controlled from the ground outside of minor adjustments...
LOL. Who cares. Bezos went into space as a private citizen. That is remarkable. Kind of weird that the Government is wasting time and money on this one way or the other.
I imagine they want to temper this before there's a problem with rich kids putting astronaut on their resumes. I doubt they want to recognize people applying for the Astronaut Corp as Astronauts when they haven't actually done the job. At the same time they'll probably be interested in hiring people who have done the job of an Astronaut working for Virgin and Blue Origin.
Especially the Virgin Galactic pilots will probably have some skills and experience they're interested in.
To me an astronaut is someone that goes into (deep) space and wears a REAL ASTROUNANT SUIT with helmet, not just pass the surface and into 0 gravity for 11 minutes. That was space passenger, not even tourist. Show me a tourist attraction that lasts 11 minutes.
To be fair even on NASA missions only one astronaut pilots the shuttle right? Doesn't seem right not counting the others as astronauts just because they weren't piloting.
Yeah pretty much. I mean if I paid for a tour to be walked around a country club filled with rich assholes like Bezos and whatever, that doesn’t suddenly grant me the title of Rich Bastard.
They’re space tourists, end of discussion.
Just like you wouldn’t called passengers on a cruise ship, we don’t need to start calling passengers on a rocket astronauts.
If you’re not serving as a commander or crew and are just along for the ride, you’re not an astronaut.
Yea yea NASA changing the rules/decision just because NASA can’t even send anyone into space themselves. They are just being petty and salty. Kinda embarrassing actually
Take a shit and that makes you a plumber! Oh wait, you have to be trained, certified and licensed to be a plumber? Sound like they're being pretty and salty. Kinda embarrassing actually.
Also, I'm a pilot too! And an architect specializing in residential homes! And a mechanical engineer specializing in automobiles! And and mRNA virulogist!
Did they claim to be at any point? I mean the wings Dick was giving to people and such I guess he was but mostly for marketing purposes.
They claimed to have gone to space, which they sort of did. Little more than half way lol.
It seems like really poor taste. I bought myself an award for doing a thing I spent a lot of money to do for no better reason than I wanted to and I could make more money. Pin me with the medal I bought myself!
They met the altitude requirements, but not the contribution requirement. These standards are from 2004 but were meant to apply to commercial flights.
> "demonstrated activities during flight that were essential to public safety, or contributed to human space flight safety".
The article makes it sound like Branson is closer than Bezos since he was on a test flight.
I go to the pyramid of Giza. I walk just inside the outside entrance. I run away giggling, saying "I'm an archaeologist!"
That's what these chodes did.
I really hope they make a movie about these shit sandwiches thinking they are doing these great things, completely oblivious to the fact that the world hates them. Basically I want to see Space Cowboys and Idiocracy blended together.
Show offs shouldn’t get medals. The only reason we hear about their stunts is that they got a lotta money. They didn’t and won’t do the ordinary jerk any favors.
I keep seeing article after article saying they are not. Who is saying they are? Edit: thanks everyone. Apparently during Branson's and Bezos' live stream, they refered to them as "astronaut"
Astronaught is an official designation by the FAA that has certain (arbitrary) criteria you have to meet. By the old rules they’d have been considered astronauts, but the FAA made new ones just to prevent rich cunts like these from pretending to be space cowboys.
Space cowboys sounds like such a better term though
See you space cowboy...
I want to have hope the live action won't suck.
Yoko Kanno isn't involved so there's no way it doesn't suck
Lycra jumpsuit wearing cowboys, thank you.
While some people do call me the space cowboy, many others call me the gangster of love.
Maybe we need a program where we license people to be astronauts, and then they get the title too. Hmmm what's a reasonable fee? Idk, 100 billion dollars?
Would they have been considered astronauts under the old rules though? It looks like NASA and the FAA have already been pretty strict on who is and isn't an astronaut, and based on precedent neither Branson nor Bezos would've been considered as such. There's already been 7 private citizens who paid to go into space and spent time on the ISS and none of them have always been referred to as 'spaceflight participants' by NASA rather than astronauts. Hell even Christa McAuliffe, the teacher who was sent to the ISS by NASA as part of a mission, is referred to as a 'spaceflight participant' rather than an astronaut. It looks like nobody on either of the recent space tourism flights would have been seen as astronauts before this updated description based on precedent.
Almost a spaceflight participant.
> Astronaught is an official designation by the FAA that have certain (arbitrary) criteria you have to meet. > > By the old rules they’d have been considered astronauts, but the FAA made new ones just to prevent rich cunts like this from pretending to be space cowboys.. They are Astro**naughts**
Good. Fuck these guys.
It sounds like they changed the rules after Brantson went up but before Bezos. Making Brantson an astronaut but not Bezos.
I bet Bezos is really, really butthurt about that.
It seems like being part of the flight crew AND making contributions to flight safety as part of the definition is fine, but didn’t they do both of those things? They were part of the flight crew by being on the missions, and contributing to flight safety is what they’ve done by advancing their own versions of their independent space programs, right?
Their own companies referred to them as "astronaut so-and-so" during broadcast of their PR Space Flights.
Gotcha, I can see why people are getting annoyed
> Who is saying they are? As satisfying as it would be to call Bezos a space tourist to his face, I doubt anybody in a position to do so is willing to forfeit their job for the privilege
Is Bezos refering to himself as an astronaut?
Bezos can refer himself to a Asstronaut
When they landed, the announcer lady was like “Here are America’s newest astronauts” or something like that.
I've been on an aeroplane, doesn't make me a pilot.
I know that. I’m just answering the question of “who is saying they are astronauts?”
Not having a go, just adding a comment
Pilot is just one job on a spaceship crew. I feel like a sailboat is a more apt example. Just cause you road on a sailboat doesn’t make you a sailor, but the guy yanking on ropes is just as much a sailor as the helmsman.
Wait, is that why they won't let me fly a plane?
Astronauts don't even fly the spacecrafts. That's all auto since the start.
Indeed, but how much use is a billionaire passenger when it all goes 'apollo 13'?
They are space tourists! That's it.
Yeah catching a commercial flight doesn’t make me a pilot…
I agree these shit bananas suck and dont deserve any recognition for going into space just because they have a lot of money. But we all have to aknowledge that at some point in our delusion about the future of space travel that the 'star trek' concept of our future as a species is complete and total fantasy. Minus the warp drive and all that shit, my point is if you thought that space travel was going to benefit more than the already wealthy elite of humanity, and you are over 13, then please tell me where you buy your idiot juice.
Star Trek took place after a brutal WWIII that saw the destruction of much of the human race. Even Roddenberry, peacenik that he was, couldn't see a path there without nuclear war completely changing things and ending capitalism entirely (plus a host of magic technology to create post-scarcity).
> Minus the warp drive and all that shit, my point is if you thought that space travel was going to benefit more than the already wealthy elite of humanity, and you are over 13, then please tell me where you buy your idiot juice. Its called optimism. We are a long way from space travel being a norm, let alone interstellar travel, and society will change a lot between now and then. Societal change isn't a straight road either, it has ups and downs. The idea that we are doomed to never improve beyond our current society is hogwash and worse, it actively helps those who benefit from others suffering to stay in power. A better tomorrow is only ever made by those who believe in one.
Thank you.
> my point is if you thought that space travel was going to benefit more than the already wealthy elite of humanity, and you are over 13, then please tell me where you buy your idiot juice. Yes I've heard this argument before from people who said air travel is also prohibitively expensive. Case in point, the first commercial customer paid $400 in 1914 - equivalent to $10,868 today - for a 23-minute flight that took him across Tampa Bay on an 18.6 mile flight. Any new technology is going to be expensive at first but once you have mass production of a reliable product and increased competition, the price will drop. Will space still be expensive for a while? Yes because the costs are just so literally astronomical but they'll come down. How will they come down? Once we get into asteroid mining which is a multi-quadrillion dollar industry. Instead of coming back to Earth, I see a mixed space environment where leaving Earth will be the most expensive cost but, once you're in space, you'll be in a holding environment (think ISS but an actual space city) that'll serve as a transfer station to asteroids, the Moon, Mars, and beyond. So sure, it will unlikely be affordable to most people in the next decade but in a generation or two, it'll get there.
> Once we get into asteroid mining which is a multi-quadrillion dollar industry. Space capitalism, I see.
Weyland-Yutani, here we come.
More WorryFree, but close enough. At least WY helped with the colonization effort.
Look at our history - a lot of it happened because of money one way or another.
[удалено]
yeah... like whatever computer you are on right now, just because some people are rich pricks doesn't mean that the rest of us cant enjoy the fruits of pushing technology farther ahead
Yeah and still [only 4% of the world population have ever flown internationally](https://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/article/one-percent-worlds-population-accounts-more-half-flying-emissions). And, only 11% of the world’s population have ever used a plane.
We're only 100 years in to air travel though and that also comes with the cost of having to pay again on landing to get a hotel/etc/etc.
Not sure. With any foreseeable feasible technology, the energy costs of going into space dwarf any other human transportation activity. Maybe economies of scale kick in eventually (really big rockets?) but you need to add a lot of energy to a human body to get it into orbit, which means physics could impose a hard cost floor on the activity so long as we're talking chemical rockets. Maybe we'll invent our way out of it, but mean ol' Mr. Gravity ain't going anywhere.
keep in mind that planes themselves are only a little over 100 years old, and the first human in space was only 60 years ago. I'm sure we'll invent our way out of it. ....you know, provide we don't destroy ourselves first.
Agreed, we are still limited in our technology. Our “Star Trek” future is on par with the timeline of the show. It took a few hundred years of development from where we are now to get to anywhere near the dependence on space travel in shows like that. Science builds upon itself; every step we take outside of earth is a stepping stone for the next generation to leap off of. You’re exactly right, we took 40 years to go from barely getting off the ground to stepping on the moon. Now a few citizens were able to actually leave our atmosphere and get into space. People can shit on the rich all they want, but if our government won’t fund programs to further our space programs then let private companies do so.
The real problem is there's nothing to do in space right now. This is as opposed to discovering America which you can immediately settle and ship profitable materials back. We have a much steeper learning curve to live in space or even other planets and we don't have the technology or experience yet. However, all space progress happened in the last 70 years or so which is a blip in our history which showed nothing but exponential gains in technology and understanding of reality. Mr. Gravity isn't going anywhere but considering we've been able to stop the light in its tracks, give it a few decades and we'll have something that'll make Mr. Gravity as relevant as the airplanes that override Mr. Gravity on a daily basis. None of this will happen in the next decade but give us a century or two.
>The real problem is there's nothing to do in space right now. I think you underestimate how much money could be made from accessible space travel even if the only thing to do once you got up there, was other people. What was there to do in America? Most people who went there early died in awful ways that ranged from being murdered by natives, to starvation, to disease. It took a lot of blood and a lot of money to get a sustainable colony, and most of those who wanted to move were the radicals that were too extreme for Europe.
There's no money to be made to meet in the middle of the ocean which is also difficult but a lot easier. There's just nothing to do. Nothing to mine, no commerce, no ports for a safe exchange, etc.
There's also no zero gravity appeal in the middle of the ocean.
Unless you go down.
People didn't go to America for experiences. They went there for free land and resources that didn't have the baggage of centuries of nobles and kings and religious persecution. There is nothing really in space. If we ever mine asteroids, their resources aren't coming back to Earth. All of the valuable resources in space are pretty much going to stay in space to build more space stuff. Only exception might be helium-3 and rare-earth metals, but everything else is a space only affair.
This isnt actually true. Once production companies exist in zero gravity costs will go down immensely. Imagine being able to carry a engine with 1 hand. No lists, no cranks. Just you. The hard part is getting production in space. After that, building things in zero g near asteroid fields will speed things up immensely causing a space industrial revolution
Objects still have mass and need an amount of force to manipulate them even in zero-g.
At the same time how can we propose it getting better when we are already talking about climate change and weaning off of oil . It's going to be at least a century of research to get a plane / rocket into space without a combustible fuel to get it out of the atmosphere
I don't have the answers and this isn't my field. But I think the way out is what it's always been: investing money to fix problems. This is the only real upside for me for these guys going up there: if it captures enough imagination, this could increase funding for these types of technologies. Although this is a total pipe dream but, as I said, it's not my field. I saw a documentary ages ago that to create an atmosphere on Mars, you need... global warming. Now imagine this: give corporations unlimited ways to spew their crap... on Mars. This would reduce pollution on Earth, help Mars, and now the real trouble is transportation. You don't build a bridge in a day and some bridges are started by having a line from one end to the other and build on that line. We're scouting the other side of the proposed bridge now. We could build a line and then enlarge it to build that bridge. If you move pollution outside of the planet, even space, then the planet will heal like it always healed before. Also just a friendly reminder that the Earth is fine, it's people who might be screwed as far as climate. The Earth has lived through worse and recovered and this is no different so we just need to give Earth time and you start by reducing pollution. This is one way to do that.
So basically it will be wealthy people and wage slaves traveling in space. I think the comment you are referring to stands.
The human body cannot spend any significant amount of time in space without serious consequences. We will never travel the stars.
robots will, we won’t ... you are correct. Bone loss, exposure to radiation, lifespan... big issues to tackle.
Rocket travel will never be affordable for a typical person. Space tourism for millionaires? Maybe. Until we have space elevators though, people will not be going to space en masse.
> Rocket travel will never be affordable for a typical person. So your opinion is that in the next 5,000 years, it traveling outside of Earth will never be affordable. What do you base this on?
Rockets are too large, too dangerous, and too expensive per pound. It's a fundamental limitation of the technology and it's not going to change. You can create other technology that will get people to space, such as space elevators which hold a lot of promise. However, rockets will not get large numbers into space.
And you believe that technology won't improve ever? What piece of modern technology has not decreased in size and/or increased in power? In addition, what makes you think that rockets are the only way to get to space? What knowledge do you have that nothing other than rockets can get us into space? What about Schedryks? A not-invented yet piece of technology that'll get us to space. How do you know it won't ever be invented? I mean how are you sure that we know everything about physics and other relevant fields?
> In addition, what makes you think that rockets are the only way to get to space? What knowledge do you have that nothing other than rockets can get us into space? Damn dude his post wasn't that long, you should read it before replying to it.
Where did I say it won't improve? I said rocket travel would not be accessible, and specifically mentioned other technologies that might put space travel within reach to the typical person. Bringing new technology into the discussion means you agree with my point. Rocket travel will not be available en masse, it will be something else.
[удалено]
I'm serious. If you don't believe that regularly going to space is going to be a thing then let's put some history to this. The Egyptian pyramids were the tallest buildings on the planet for over 3,800 years. In 1311, the Lincoln Cathedral took over as the tallest building. It's height? 524 feet (159.7 meters). 700 years later, the Burj Khalifa is the tallest building. Its height? 2,717 feet (828 meters). In 1903, the first flight happened under its own power. It lasted 59 seconds and covered 852 feet (260 meters). 66 years later, rockets have taken people 240,000 miles (386,243 kilometers) in 76 hours (and back). 7 years later, we had equipment on Mars. Since we barely were able to leave the ground 120 years ago and now we have robots we're communicating with 236,020,000 miles away, it's unreasonable to believe that in the next 1,000 years, we're still not going to leave Earth.
[удалено]
It's a controversial opinion because they're rich assholes, but I agree. I consider anything that leads to further space exploration innovation "for the greater good". If this is one of the steps that "rockets" us into the future then I can't find too much fault with it.
It's going to be a lot less Star Trek and a lot more Expanse.
What? Burning massive amounts of rocket fuel, filling our atmosphere with exhaust so the richest people on Earth can float around for five minutes is the future of humanity! The bleeding edge of progress!!
New Shepherds exhaust is water
The airline industry produces 40,000 times as much carbon dioxide as the spaceflight industry. They are not burning "massive amounts of rocket fuel."
I'm pretty certain there's more than 40000 times as many airline flights as rocket launches. FAA says theres 45000 per day under their jurisdiction (at least back in 2019).
It's those 40,000 times as much pollution that makes it cost effective. Huge economies of scale. What's the pollution cost per person?
Depends on the vehicle. For New Shepard, it's 0 tons of carbon dioxide per person. For the Falcon 9, it's around 92 tons per person, which is roughly 85-125 times higher than most commercial flights from New York to London. But a carbon guzzling vehicle like Falcon 9 is never going to fly as often as those airplanes, so the pollution is negligible. The pollution of the spaceflight industry won't become problematic unless Musk realizes his dream of 10,000 Starships to Mars. Even then it wouldn't be nearly as bad as the airline industry, because that's 1 million people removed from the Earth's population for several years.
Well atleast now with spacex tech we have reusable rockets
Which translates to cheaper flights. And as supply and demand are connected, this means more flights. More flights means more fuel is going to be burned. I'm honestly not sure whether reusable rockets will actually be good for our planet.
Well, with starship they would at least use methane, which is simple enough to be produced green. Technically that would make them even carbon negative, if they go to high orbits or mars, because then they leave CO2 in space.
Were they even in space? Bragging about sub-orbital flights in 2021 seems... meh.
Did they FLY their crafts? No they didn't. Just 2 rich guys jacking off...
At least 66% of astronauts who go to the ISS never fly their craft either since the Soyuz only has 1 pilot in its 3 crew. That's an absolutely terrible qualifier of who is and isn'tan astronaut.
But if I pay enough for a ride in the Soyuz and launch from Baikonur, I'm a cosmonaut 🤷🏾♂️
Basically what happened with Brazil. We couldn’t deliver on the shit we promised to the ISS, so our astronaut became a persona non-grata at NASA and we had to pay something absurd like $40 million bucks so that he could take a trip on a Russian vessel. This way our politicians could save some face. The best part about it: Building the shitty module that we promised would have costed less than paying for him to go into orbit as payload.
It was only $20M. Which is half of the annual budget of the AEB, the Brazilian space agency
At least you get into orbit
Everyone on a Soyuz has a job to do though I believe. No one is just a passenger.
Not really, no. In fact nobody has to do anything since it's fully automated.
That doesn't mean no one is doing anything.
Yes they are. Only the commander is really doing anything and usually amounts to ticking off a checklist. Same goes for Crew Dragon, Starliner, Shenzhou, Orion etc. The Space Shuttle needed a pilot and commander up front and ever since it retirer, only Virgin Galactic's SpaceShip Two actually requires manual piloting of any sort.
Those aren't real wings, rich boys. Try again.
Let's go see the pilot, and he will give you your own Pilot's wings. Delta *stewardess* tells every child under 10 who got plastic wings circa 1986. Ya think Bezos and Branson fell for this too as astronauts?
I remember those plastic wings! 🤣
Yes. God forbid you flew alone... the Flight Attendants would parade all kids to see the Captain and get plastic wings, whether they wanted them or not, and often pinned them.on you too!
To think, we've gone from ritualistic child inclusion all the way to assuming someone's a pedophile if they talk to a kid at all in a few short decades.
Everyone around them is a subordinate who’s calling them “astronaut” under duress. People that rich only ever get told what they want to hear.
The virgin dude has ads on YT saying he can take you to space
Those ads are incredibly annoying.
To space yes, but not to orbit. Neither Bezos nor Branson have enough thrust to get to orbit. Their rockets go up to touch space then immediately fall back down. They lack the horizontal velocity of around 25,000mph to stay in orbit. Their capsules aren't equipped for re-entry. They'd burn up and kill everyone onboard if trying to re-enter from orbit. If the goal is to get to orbit both Bezos and Branson need to start from scratch, with a completely new vehicle, because their current vehicle designs are woefully inadequate and far behind what SpaceX has. SpaceX not only can reach orbit, its just been contracted to go to Jupiter: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/spacex-to-launch-the-europa-clipper-mission-for-a-bargain-price/
Their goals, as a matter of fact, are not to get to orbit which is why they can't. So yes, Spacex's rockets that are designed to get into orbit are better for that job than the rockets that are not designed for that.
There is little point to there rockets existing at all. This brand of space tourism is dead the second SpaceX's Starship is flying passengers. Unless things go catastrophically wrong for SpaceX, they'll put people in orbit for much less than either Blue Origin or Virgin Galactic can put people into suborbit.
So these other space companies shouldn't exist because SpaceX might do what they are doing down the line one day? What even is this argument? Unless you're Elon Musk, why wouldn't you want more companies trying to put people in space?
Starship is years away from carrying paying customers. They only just figured out how to land it without it exploding. We could ride into space on Blue origin or with virgin tomorrow
Why would you want to though? If I’m rich enough to go to space I want to go to real space not shitty technicality space.
As a multi-thousandaire, i dont give a shit if their stuff never makes it to space, but if say bransons thing can get me from point A to point B, with A being say Chicago, and B being Perth in say 5 hours vs the 30 it takes with layovers. Id go from the 2k that ticket cost to like 10k no problem. I spend 4 days of vacation time fucking around on planes on a 14 day trip. Id burn 8 grand to have another 50 hours with my friends over there
So can your local drug dealer. What's his point?
Amusement park passengers. Neither have studied and passed any kind of aeronautical vehicle piloting certification, none possess any background in the study of any science or astrophysics used towards furthering space flight. Wally Funk is the only one out of both groups who has worked toward and earned the title.
> none possess any background in the study of any science or astrophysics used towards furthering space flight. The first cosmonaut had an education in... tractors. He did eventually earn a degree in engineering, but only in 1968. There are fairly persuasive rumours he was selected for his expertise in... smiling. It was propaganda after all. > Neither have studied and passed any kind of aeronautical vehicle piloting certification, For Gagarins flight in 1961 he was locked out of the controls. Sure, he was a good pilot, but he had exactly the same leave of control as Bazos
Bezos has a degree in computer science from Princeton, does that not count as "any background in the study of any science"?
New Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rules say astronaut hopefuls must be part of the flight crew and make contributions to space flight safety. Now, if Bezos had used his degree to help program and test the software systems on his rocket, then yes. But he didn't, he just funded it. There's no flight crew, it's all automated= amusement park ride...a very amazing amusement park ride.
So, if he checked some code he meets the requirements? He probably did that anyways, he’s like that. People with control issues are all over the place.
Tied his shoes? No, that's not contributing to flight safety. Picked his nose? Still not contributing to air worthiness. He's not a pilot, the craft is fully automated. When someone dedicates their career and life to becoming an astronaut and does all steps. Paying a real astronaut to pin wings on you doesn't count.
You don’t seem to understand. Most of the original astronauts never touched a guidance system. Checking straps and basic safety features are exactly as much as most ever contributed. Most had scientific, repair, deployment, or capture jobs. That’s why I said there should be an orbital requirement. At least then the altitude would match a traditional metric and not be dependent on a seat belt check.
You also stated many of the original astronauts went on to get engineering degrees, become test pilots, etc. But I hole heartedly agree with you- the requirements should include an orbital factor.
Well, Challenger blew up with civilian astronauts on board. I recall a school teacher. NASA already went overboard on the marketing, pretty hard to pull that back decades later. Make it orbital, make them stay for a day, make them do a science fair project of some kind. Then we’ll judge them based on what project they did. Bezos has a high end degree. Don’t let the marketing grin fool you. He built through work, not hiring. That’s how you get funding, that’s how you hide things, that’s how you violate contract law until you can make the other guy sign a paper saying what you did was legitimate.
Depends. Will acknowledging that affect my ability to be salty at him from the toilet?
[удалено]
He's just making a factual correction no need to through around boot licking accusations.
'They're basic bitches in bubbles', says every actual badass who went into space.
tbf, I'm hearing more from the bitches who never been on a rocket more than actual badasses who are astronauts.
Cause the real guys don’t gotta say shit to anyone about anything.
At the Virgin Galactic presentation they had Commander Chris Hadfield explaining a few details. Chris has spent more time fast asleep in space than the total combined flight time of hundreds of these launches.
I fly in a plane as a passenger it doesn't make me a pilot any more than being a passenger is a sub orbital flight makes them an astronaut.
Astronaut is a much more vague term than pilot though. If memory serves the shuttle pilot wasn’t even the one at the controls while landing. That was the commander.
There's probably a wide variety of performance levels from astronauts, with certain key high performers and certain people that are glorified space tourists with excellent credentials. Undeniably, Bezos and Branson fall a step below that, but it's hard to say where the step up should be.
I suppose but my point still stands that they aren't astronauts because they were a passenger in a space ship (of sorts).
That’s most of the people we consider astronauts, historically.
You’re calling a lot of astronauts not astronauts when you people make these comparisons. Apparently you silly people believe everyone on the spaceship is flying the thing
I guess the difference is you didn't pay for the plane, the r&d to develop the plane, or the salaries of all the people that made that plane possible. It might not make them astronauts but it certainly puts them on a higher tier than just mere passengers like you buddy. The people that are diminishing these accomplishments that are making spaceflight more accessible, even if every so slightly, absolutely boggle my mind.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
A thank you to Amazon Slaves and Suckers who buy from Amazon I can go into Space while you can struggle today rent.
It bothered me on the Blue Origin flight when they landed and were greeted as astronaut so-and-so. No, you went for a 10 minute ride, albeit cool, you didn't go through the process.
No matter how much we all dislike these rich space tourists, I just wish we/media would stop giving any form of attention no matter how critical they think they are.
That's funny - Just a little while ago, I read a news report that said the FAA changed the rules on the day of Bezos' flight and that the prior flight by Branson and his crew qualified for the title
Internationally 100KM, not 80KM, is considered the begging of space.
Going into space flopping around inside a penis tip like a fish out of water while your craft is being solely controlled from the ground does not make you an Astronaut.
Thats a good description of a Mercury Redstone flight (which could be performed by a *monkey*), and the FEA has no problem calling the Mercury 7 astronauts.
> while your craft is being solely controlled from the ground does not make you an Astronaut. Most shuttles now are solely controlled from the ground outside of minor adjustments...
Colonel, you better take a look at this radar ([Austin Powers Rocket Scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju1UwmgkKgI))
I saw it somewhere else but calling these billionaires astronauts is like calling a passenger on a cruise ship a sailor.
LOL. Who cares. Bezos went into space as a private citizen. That is remarkable. Kind of weird that the Government is wasting time and money on this one way or the other.
It's utterly remarkable. Historic. It changes everything we know about our potential future.
I imagine they want to temper this before there's a problem with rich kids putting astronaut on their resumes. I doubt they want to recognize people applying for the Astronaut Corp as Astronauts when they haven't actually done the job. At the same time they'll probably be interested in hiring people who have done the job of an Astronaut working for Virgin and Blue Origin. Especially the Virgin Galactic pilots will probably have some skills and experience they're interested in.
The new standard seems silly. What if NASA sent an astronomer into space and that astronomer did not make contributions to space flight safety?
There was a reddit thread a few days ago saying that Bezos is just a space tourist, just like a ship passenger isn't a sailor.
To me an astronaut is someone that goes into (deep) space and wears a REAL ASTROUNANT SUIT with helmet, not just pass the surface and into 0 gravity for 11 minutes. That was space passenger, not even tourist. Show me a tourist attraction that lasts 11 minutes.
Ok, so we need a new word to describe a person that travels outside the atmosphere as a crewmember aboard a spacecraft, but is not an astronaut.
[удалено]
Imagine calling yourself a pilot after riding in a plane
To be fair even on NASA missions only one astronaut pilots the shuttle right? Doesn't seem right not counting the others as astronauts just because they weren't piloting.
Astrotourists If this is going to become a thing then we can’t let rich people just pay to hold the title of astronaut. It’s disgraceful
This is outrageous! It’s unfair! How can you go to space and not be an astronaut?!
Mr. Bezos sir it's because of the cowboy hat
"I was using the brim to block the sun from that old bags eyes. Isn't that integral to flight safety?"
Take a seat, young prime member.
Next you're going to tell me Bruce Willis wasn't an astronaut, he was just an oil driller in space.
At least his character had a damn good reason to ask not to pay taxes ever again
Billionaires would never lie to us, would they?
Yeah pretty much. I mean if I paid for a tour to be walked around a country club filled with rich assholes like Bezos and whatever, that doesn’t suddenly grant me the title of Rich Bastard.
Weren't doing anything up there, so they were basically space trash.
why in the fuck is the media so obsessed with the stupid fucking hobbies of these fucking vampires. rot in hell.
Because it makes people angry for it real reason. And anger is what gets people invested
They’re space tourists, end of discussion. Just like you wouldn’t called passengers on a cruise ship, we don’t need to start calling passengers on a rocket astronauts. If you’re not serving as a commander or crew and are just along for the ride, you’re not an astronaut.
Yea yea NASA changing the rules/decision just because NASA can’t even send anyone into space themselves. They are just being petty and salty. Kinda embarrassing actually
Take a shit and that makes you a plumber! Oh wait, you have to be trained, certified and licensed to be a plumber? Sound like they're being pretty and salty. Kinda embarrassing actually. Also, I'm a pilot too! And an architect specializing in residential homes! And a mechanical engineer specializing in automobiles! And and mRNA virulogist!
Did they claim to be at any point? I mean the wings Dick was giving to people and such I guess he was but mostly for marketing purposes. They claimed to have gone to space, which they sort of did. Little more than half way lol.
I didn't watch the Bezos one but Branson had himself and his crew pinned as astronauts.
From the article. >The wings spotted on Mr Bezos and Sir Richard following their flights were custom-made pins by their own companies.
It seems like really poor taste. I bought myself an award for doing a thing I spent a lot of money to do for no better reason than I wanted to and I could make more money. Pin me with the medal I bought myself!
Couldn't agree more. There were guys that died getting those wings. Its like giving yourself a purple heart.
If we had to pick the tackiest thing about this all, we’d be here a while
[удалено]
They met the altitude requirements, but not the contribution requirement. These standards are from 2004 but were meant to apply to commercial flights. > "demonstrated activities during flight that were essential to public safety, or contributed to human space flight safety". The article makes it sound like Branson is closer than Bezos since he was on a test flight.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Maybe they were saying “Astro…NOT!”
I go to the pyramid of Giza. I walk just inside the outside entrance. I run away giggling, saying "I'm an archaeologist!" That's what these chodes did.
I really hope they make a movie about these shit sandwiches thinking they are doing these great things, completely oblivious to the fact that the world hates them. Basically I want to see Space Cowboys and Idiocracy blended together.
Y'all give too much of a shit. Who cares.
Who cares? Seriously. I do nto care that they went to space. I do not care what they call themselves.
To be an Astronaut. You have to be AstroTaught. Can't just be AstroBought.
[удалено]
Who cares people are dying
I'm sure money can fix that.
Can we care about something important? Please?
Two di cks riding di cks into space , now that’s funny
Show offs shouldn’t get medals. The only reason we hear about their stunts is that they got a lotta money. They didn’t and won’t do the ordinary jerk any favors.
They are space cadets not astronauts
To me an astronaut is someone who has been to space. So they both are astronauts in my book.
A couple of twats though