Is Senator Bill Nelson an Astronaut?

More like payload or ballast IMO.

NASA loves to ensure that non-NASA "astronauts" are called "spaceflight participants" so by that definition Nelson is not an astronaut. At any rate, I believe that the definition by the FAI should prevail. If one has flown above 100km then one is an astronaut. Or failing that one could use the US defintion of 80km.

The point is that NASA and Nelson can't have it both ways.

He meets the two definitions I've seen, which are a) he was trained to travel in a spacecraft, and b) he flew above 100 km and so earned astronaut wings. So yes, he's an astronaut.

Well yes and no, depending on how you specifically define the term.

This is an issue that is going to be debated for a while and is of particular interest to the budding Commercial Space Industry and the FAA as firms attempt to market the idea that “you too will become an Astronaut if you purchase a ticket and ride their spacecraft”.

The FAA is currently defining the term (and variations thereof) in the Federal Aviation Regulations applicable to Commercial Space Flight (CFR Title 14 part 400).

Those in the Astronaut Office and other purists seem to have mixed feelings about the awarding of the title since it degrades the currency of the word as it is now used.

As for Nelson, he was classified as a Payload Specialist by NASA which is defined by the Agency as an “Astronaut”, however, the term Professional Astronaut is often used to distinguish Pilot Pool & Mission Specialist Astronauts from Payload Specialists.

There is also the traditional definition applied (by the Air Force and Navy) that anyone who flew above 50 miles earned the Astronaut rating. Nuances such as "participating crew member" are often applied to that definition as well.

Others would argue, rightly so in my opinion, that folks like Brian Binnie and Mike Melvill who piloted Spaceship One are just as much “Astronauts” as anyone in the NASA Astronaut Corps.

Is it right or wrong for Nelson to use the title – or allow other to use it when referring to him? Well, you are not likely to achieve a consensus on that debate any time soon. All I know is that despite using political leverage to achieve the ride, he is far more entitled to the label than I am and I will always be envious.

Duh. Nelson was trained to fly as a payload specialist, and he did it. Alan Shepherd was just spam-in-a-can, but we call him an astronaut, and deservedly so. So your point is ... ?

The fact is that Bill Nelson made a Shuttle Flight as a Payload Specialist. There are other people who have made only one flight on a Shuttle mission, and are called "Astronaut". Sen. Nelson went through training to make the flight. The USAF classifies anyone who has flown above 50 miles as qualifying for astronaut wings, regardless of whether they achieved orbit or not.

So, YES! I would certainly classify him as an astronaut!

Ad LEO! Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!

While I don't want to answer the question per se, I would like to point out that the term "astronaut" does imply that he was at some point employed by NASA and his profession was an astronaut. This sounds like a one-off stunt to restore confidence after the Challenger disaster.

Well, he went as more of a tourist, but he didn't pay to go. So how about "deadbeat space tourist"?

I say that, technically he passed NASA's requirement of going up at least 50 miles, so he should be called an astronaut.

Although I think the definition varies by country, I believe here in the US we give 'astronaut' designation to anyone who who has traveled above an altitude of 50 miles.

Bill Nelson was not a career astronaut but was an astronaut, nonetheless. Same goes for Jake Garn.

The whole thing is kinda disheveled: NASA has career astronauts who have been in space only once (Mae Jemison, Mike McCulley) and non-career payload specialists who have flown more than once (Greg Linteris (two flights) and Charlie Walker (three flights).

Although I'm bothered that Senators and Representatives would use their positions to secure Shuttle flights, I won't take this away from them.

Is your question, "Should we abandon quantitative definitions set for decades by NASA (80 KM) or the FAI (100 KM) and start judging people by subjective ones instead?"

A more interesting question is why someone would pose such a question. Slow news day?

Frank's response: I recently had breakfast with Buzz Aldrin, who is pretty worked up over this type of designation. So I was interested in hearing what readers thought about it-and from the response, they had a lot to say!

No doubt Senator (then congressman) Nelson has done much to protect space funding going to FL in general and the Cape and it's workforce in particular. There's also no doubt that by flying on the shuttle he qualifies as an "astronaut." But no amount of flying skill, engineering expertise or scientific bona fides got him the seat on STS 61-C. What got him there was his mastery at navigating the halls of Congress. More appropriate terms might be "Congrenaut" or "Bureaunaut."

Although I think the definition varies by country, I believe here in the US we give 'astronaut' designation to anyone who who has traveled above an altitude of 50 miles.

Bill Nelson was not a career astronaut but was an astronaut, nonetheless. Same goes for Jake Garn.

The whole thing is kinda disheveled: NASA has career astronauts who have been in space only once (Mae Jemison, Mike McCulley) and non-career payload specialists who have flown more than once (Greg Linteris (two flights) and Charlie Walker (three flights).

Although I'm bothered that Senators and Representatives would use their positions to secure Shuttle flights, I won't take this away from them.

Space Tourist is the accurate term here.

Senator Nelson was the biggest waste of taxpayer money to send him to space.

Since it was a political junket, I'd say its quite cheeky for him to claim himself a former astronaut, but then again I don't think you'd want to 'disqualify' all Payload Specialists from being called astronauts. Besides the most commonly accepted definition of an astronaut does not specify how they got there, only that they reached above 50 miles altitude.

Common definition is "someone engaged in or trained for spaceflight". The literal definition is 'star [space] voyager'. The 'professional' astronauts would prefer that you not refer to those people who 'are just along for the ride' as astronauts, because they'd prefer you reserve the term for themselves. Unfortunately no one knows who they are anymore. The era of the 'hero astronaut' is going the way of the Mercury 7. Bill Nelson meets the common and literal definitions.

According to Wikipedia, he is:

"An astronaut or cosmonaut is a person trained by a human spaceflight program to command, pilot, or serve as a crew member of a spacecraft. While generally reserved for professional space travelers, the term is sometimes applied to anyone who travels into space, including scientists, politicians, journalists, and tourists.[1][2]"

The specific reference to politicians in the definition pretty much nails it.

Websters is just as accomodating:
": a person who travels beyond the earth's atmosphere ; also : a trainee for spaceflight"

Astronaut/Senator Nelson is right and I'll do everyhing I can to support him. At their rate of progress we are at least a decade away from a Shuttle replacement, assuming that Orion-Ares could be made to work at all. We won't know that for another five years.

If the US Government is spending so much money to keep jobs and the economy moving ahead, then it would be best for Shuttle to be continued to keep our Shuttle people in Science, Technology, and Engineering engaged and working. If it costs a few billion a year, then thats a drop in the bucket compared to the other money that the Fed is spending. We're not cleaning roads here - we have very limited expertise in these fields. We need some real leadership to assess how to use the Shuttle expertise to develop the next generation systems. If we go to a lower Shuttle flight rate, this ought to be easy to do. Besides the jobs program, Shuttle is needed to maintain and utilize ISS which we've spent $100 billion and a quarter century on already and won't be operational until later this year. Nothing else on the drawing board can or will do what Shuttle does. We are risking our investment in the ISS if the Shuttle is not available.

The current plan to shut down Shuttle is no plan at all. All my best to Senator Nelson and his effort to save US human space flight. We need to support him.

Lead, Follow, (or my personal favorite) Get Out of The Way.

He IS certainly a space cadet.....

"Space Tourist is the accurate term here."

Not even close. "Space tourists"/"participants" have paid *considerable* privately honestly earned money for a trip to ISS. And actually conducted research on their own dime (some twice like Simony just recently)

*This one* is a freeloader. (and the shuttle had carried a few of those before, so nothing new)

Who cares? Isn't there more important things to worry about or at least be concerned about?

I am a pilot and a flight instructor. I worked hard to get my commercial pilot certificate and my flight instructor certificate. I would be extremely annoyed if anyone that just happened to ride along in an aircraft was called a pilot. Now, I don't know what Senator Nelson did on his flight. If he just rode along, or was just a participant in experiments, then no, I don't think he should be considered an astronaut. If he underwent the same kind of training those in the NASA Astronaut Corps go through, then ok, call him an Astronaut. As far as comparing him and Al Shepard, give me a break. Al Shepard was the first American in space. We didn't know what to expect. Of course he didn't do much. We were taking baby steps then. To compare his flight to the mission Senator Nelson was on is like comparing the Wright brothers flight to Lindbergh's!

Maybe we should be more interested in the futility of trying to extend shuttle past 2010 at this point. From where I sit at Johnson Space Flight Center in Houston, the United Space Alliance, prime shuttle contractor, has had enough attrition of key people that there's no way to safely continue flying Shuttle.

And from what I hear, but don't know first hand, headquarters is going through motions with a replacement vehicle but almost no one, including people at Lockheed Martin who are building it think the mandated booster, derived from a shuttle solid rocket, has enough power to do the job.

This is a serious matter.

More ballast than Astronaut

He trained, and flew on the space shuttle as a payload specialist - that makes him an astronaut. There are more important issues at hand than arguing his title. If anyone of us, trained, and flew on shuttle, as a payload specialist, we would want to be considered an astronaut - I know I would, even if it be for one mission. As such, he deserves the title, regardless of how he attained the seat on shuttle.

NASA's Astronaut Biographies site lists the Senator under the category Payload Specialist Astronauts. Sadly, Christa McAuliffe is listed only as a Space Flight Participant. I for one would like to see her status upgraded to full astronaut. As for the Senator, whatever it takes to keep him focused on fully funding the space program is fine with me. I think the title Space Admiral Nelson has a nice and familiar ring to it.

Hell no!

Basically, he used his then Congressional position to bully his way onto a shuttle flight and as far as I am concerned that doesn't make him an astronaut.

He was just a passenger and from what I hear not terribly popular or of much use to his crew.

The capital-A "Astronaut" is a job title, referring specifically to NASA. You are an Astronaut if you are selected by NASA to go through Astronaut training, regardless of whether you have actually flown in space. An Astronaut gets trained on the whole vehicle.

The lower-case-a "astronaut" is someone who has flown in space, either aboard a US spacecraft or who is an American. A Payload Specialist is a temporary designation and it is not their job, and they have specialized training for only the duties they are supposed to do.

Similar arguments can be made for Cosmonaut vs cosmonaut.

Nelson and Jake Garn were lower-case astronauts, while the people who flew with them on their flights were upper-case Astronauts. Nelson and Garn were members of Congress.

Mae Jemison was an Astronaut, as were Frank Caldiero, Yvonne Cagle, Gus Loria, Patty Robertson, Stephen Thorne, Roger Chaffee, Charles Bassett, Elliott See, Duane Graveline, etc.

How he got there was admittedly shady. How much of it he really remembers (especially when he's chucking crates of monkey wrenches at an Agency that needs all the help it can get) is also open to question.
But like it or not, and I don't, he got above the limit for something besides blood alcohol, so yes, in spite of the current "popularity" of the bilious phase "spaceflight participant", he is an astronaut. So are Ansari, Simonyi and all the others.
Astronaut has never belonged to NASA exclusively. It was a science fiction term before 1958. So, for that matter, was Cosmonaut.
This is all smoke and mirrors, folks.
We should stop worrying about what people who have been up to the black call themselves and each other. What we need to do is make sure that the group of people that have the experience to argue over the label gets bigger. It's been too small for too long, and it's up to us to do something rather than whine about the color of the cat,while fewer and fewer mice are being caught.
Roci

This question and these answers are a brilliant summary of where we stand today.

At the moment, to be called an astronaut is a claim to significant achievement but we all hope the day will come when it is no more or less impressive than being a sailor or aviator.

Similarly, to be called a passenger may be an insult now but with any luck, the day will soon come when passengers are the point of space transportation.

Pity we've been stuck here so long, but maybe not much longer?

Not an astronaut but he certainly can be credited with pulling off one of the top boondoggles

He met the more-or-less commonly agreed upon criterion for being an astronaut, but he never held the job title, so yes, he was an astronaut, but no, he was not an Astronaut.

He's really just "Self-loading Cargo", but "Self-loading Ballast" could work too.

I once drew on a napkin so I guess that makes me an artist. Or at least an MLAS designer...

"As far as comparing him and Al Shepard, give me a break. Al Shepard was the first American in space. We didn't know what to expect. Of course he didn't do much. We were taking baby steps then. To compare his flight to the mission Senator Nelson was on is like comparing the Wright brothers flight to Lindbergh's!"

Oh, so the Wright brothers weren't "aviators" then? What does what we call Nelson have anything at all to do with what we were expecting when he did his flight? As if, for example, the hordes of ISS travelers didn't know what to expect when they got there? By that measure, they aren't astronauts either. Hey, I'll even give you another break!

Alan Shepard was a very brave guy to get on top of a rocket. But there are a whole lot of very brave guys and gals who have done that since and, frankly, Nelson was one of them. They are all astronauts. OK, "space hero" he ain't but neither are they.

That the word astronaut seems to be viewed by some as some kind of honorific, expressing not just existence at altitude, but also accomplishment at altitude (as recognized by some, but perhaps not others), makes that word conditional in a way that actually cheapens it. Aldrin seems to be looking for a way to inflate what is already his hugely honorable legacy, and I find that kind of cheap as well.

Here is my Bill Nelson story: In 1985-86, I was putting my journalism degree to great use by cutting grass and painting out-of-bounds posts at the Carrollwood Country Club golf course in Tampa. So one Sunday morning in January '86, I am out there as the sun barely begins to peek over the horizon, setting up the course with another guy, and he says, Hey, look at that! And we both turn, and high in the eastern sky: There goes Bill, roaring into space. We had an excellent view. Lots of color. It was a total surprise. I will never forget it. And yes, I had a similar unobstructed view of Challenger a few weeks later. Is/was Bill Nelson an astronaut? Yeah. No question.

Oops. I didn't make myself very clear. Because of that, Hugh misunderstood my meaning:
My comment:
"As far as comparing him and Al Shepard, give me a break. Al Shepard was the first American in space. We didn't know what to expect. Of course he didn't do much. We were taking baby steps then. To compare his flight to the mission Senator Nelson was on is like comparing the Wright brothers flight to Lindbergh's!"

Hugh's comment:
Oh, so the Wright brothers weren't "aviators" then? What does what we call Nelson have anything at all to do with what we were expecting when he did his flight? As if, for example, the hordes of ISS travelers didn't know what to expect when they got there? By that measure, they aren't astronauts either. Hey, I'll even give you another break!

I was addressing the "spam-in-a-can" comment regarding Al Shepard's Mercury flight. It was implied( at least to me ), that because he didn't do much on that flight, it didn't entitle him to be called an Astronaut. Or, I suppose, that since Senator Nelson did more on his flight than Al Shepard did on his, that Senator Nelson deserved to be called an Astronaut. What I meant to imply was that, even though their first flights were very short, the Wright brothers absolutely deserved to be considered aviators, even though Lindbergh did so much more than they did.

My apologies for the confusion.

Alan Shephard flew, and tested three axis spacecraft control during his flight. He didn't do much with it because he only had 15 minutes, but he was a pilot in the vehicle, not just spam in a can.

Those who are selected based on their skill, and wait several years to fly should get more recognition than someone who just comes in and strong arms their way onto a flight. Lots of Payload Specialist were trained to fly for a reason and had to wait for their specific payload before they flew.

These are the rare exceptions, and even then are still people who wanted to fly and experience space. Lots of people might have been annoyed that they flew, but they still had a desire to fly and found a way to do it.

On behalf of those of us who would give our left one to go (and likely never will...due to financial constraints and the fact that we couldn't now pass the physical), let me say that I wouldn't care what they called me...passenger, astronaut, Astronaut, or supercargo...if I could make the trip!

A more productive use of everyone's time would be to e-mail President Obama, asking that he issue an Executive Order extending the prohibition against destroying Shuttle External Tank and SSME tooling beyond the April 30, 2009 expiration date, so that our options are left open in case Ares I & V don't prove viable with the current configurations! Note that I am not necessarily advocating for or against the retirement of the Shuttle fleet in 2010 (though I think the hard deadline is DANGEROUS in accomplishing the 9 or 10 remaining flights)! But we should NOT CLOSE OUT OUR OPTIONS on the use of the tooling as a backup to the Constellation launch vehicles currently proposed/in work!

Ad LEO! Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!

Frank's Note: So Jim where's the money gonna come from to keep these production lines open? I mean, these companies aren't gonna do it for free. Why not put the money to better use in advancing Constellation-and maybe seeking rides to ISS aboard the Shenzhou?

Astronaut is as astronaut does. I think he is as much of an astronaut as Lisa Nowak and without the attempted murder thing.

"Those in the Astronaut Office and other purists seem to have mixed feelings about the awarding of the title since it degrades the currency of the word as it is now used."

Someday in the future, "astronaut" will have become as antiquated a term as "motorist" is today...

Not defending Nowak or her actions but at least, she went through the demanding selection process of both the US Navy and NASA! She should have her ass kicked severely for bemirsching the astronaut title.

Nelson-just a self serving politician using devious means for the ultimate "junket"!

Was Nelson officially the first lawyer in space? His astronaut bio at http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/nelson-b.html is pretty weak from technical standpoint and is simply a Congressional bio.

@Chad Overton

Nelson & Garner's flights were before the Challenger explosion.

Seems like the reason for the congressmen to fly on Shuttle was something about advocating civilians or teachers in Space - and they were willing to "walk the walk".

Regardless of how either of them actually performed their assignments, there may have been some misunderstanding of their comments (some interpreted as whining).

They may have been expressing their admiration of how difficult it is to be in space.

At the time, it did take some courage to be willing to demonstrate their convictions. But little did they know the behind the scenes stuff - as the Challenger explosion later revealed.

When the shuttle program began, NASA was going to let the term 'Astronaut' fade away. There would be Pilots, Mission Specialists and Payload Specialists....akin to pilots, flight attendents and passengers in the commercial aviation world. The Space Shuttle was to open up space to everyone who was in good health and wanted to do useful work in low Earth orbit. In my opinion, that's the way it should be, if we are truly going to become a spacefaring society.

As far as Nelson and Garn are concerned, it was the sign of the times back then. If you paid to have the shuttle carry your satellite into orbit, you could send a representative up with it. In addition to Congressmen and teachers, there was talk of sending journalists, artists, musicians into space. It turns out the shuttle wasn't as safe as people thought, so NASA gave up on making a spacefaring society, and went back to its roots of exploration (NASA meatball logo, and bringing back the term 'astronaut'.) The shuttle would only be flown by qualified astronauts, and even when Barbara Morgan flew, she was trained as an astronaut. When she trained as back-up for STS-51L, she was taught not to touch anything. What a difference!

One more comment, a political comment. Nelson new what would happen to the Space Shuttle program when he voted for Obama. The shuttle will be gone in 2010, and Orion will fly in some form in 2018 at the earliest. Nelson got exactly what he voted for, so give it up, let the shuttle go, as we take two steps backwards in the development of piloted spacecraft, and hope that Orion isn't canceled in a year or two.

I don't know. Is Michael Dukakis a "former tank commander"?

As some people have cited the 50-mile rule, it should be pointed out this is used only by the U.S. military: NASA, FAI, etc. attach no significance to the 50-mile mark.

There's no universally accepted definition of where you are "in space" on a suborbital flight, although there is a consensus that if you are in orbit, you are in space.

I'd suggest "astronaut" be reserved for those who make flying in space their profession, whether they operate a space vehicle or perform other space-related tasks for which they are trained: you don't call everyone on an airliner the "pilot." On balance, I'd disqualify the politician-passengers from using the title and just say they flew in space.

Anyone who straps that big a roman candle to their ass is an astronaut in my book. No ifs, ands, or butts!

LOL @ Norm Hartnett (& concur!)

@Luke
"In addition to Congressmen and teachers, there was talk of sending journalists, artists, musicians into space. It turns out the shuttle wasn't as safe as people thought,"

They've put teachers & such in space since then, so I don't think the Shuttle safety is an issue anymore for the astronaut corps.

But wasn't there a lot of resistance to the public space access plan back then too, mostly from DOD?

The cold war was still in season back then & Shuttles were also being used for DOD launches & it seems like there was a lot of pushback from the military to civilian astronauts.

There was some talk that politics, aka a Reagan speech or something, influenced the Go fever for the Challenger launch - contributing to the accident.

But, seems like most people knew that Christa McAuliffe was scheduled for a Cold Weather launch specifically to maximize the political payoff so she'd be in space during political season in DC. And Cold weather launches were known to have to O-ring blow-thru probs...

With Columbia, there's the foam material change that somebody authorized to allegedly appease environmental groups but apparently didn't properly certify because of the consequences of shedding that appeared afterwards, which were known...

So whether there was any deliberate situational manipulation to support, or detract from, public in space or shuttle shutdown plans, or whether there was collective-group-think-subconscious- acting out of both Challenger & Columbia may be worthy of at least a book someday from one of those laidoff space writers (or a "Cold Case" style relook from an Attorney General/FBI style investigation).

To MoonLady:

You are correct, three teachers have gone into space, but they have been selected and trained as astronauts, not payload specialists as Christa McCauliffe was. One of the big selling points of the shuttle back then was if you book a satellite on the shuttle, you get to send up a payload specialist (Robert Cenker, Greg Jarvis, and payload specialists from Mexico, Saudi Arabia, etc.) There was a debate for sure if civilians should go into space, fueled mainly by the Jake Garn flight, followed by Nelson.

There was much talk about Reagan talking to the the Challenger crew during the State of the Union Address, but the Challenger commission investigated that, and there was nothing in the flight plan, TV schedule, equipment checklist, etc that would support that theory. Yes, some people knew that colder temperatures caused o-ring blow-by, but as Richard Feynman noted, it didn't raise alarms in the minds of the NASA folks, they simply said hey, we have more blow-by for this launch at this temperature, I guess we have more margin than we thought....a kind of russian roulette Feynman said.

As far as the foam issue, NASA folks thought it of more of a turnaround issue than a safety of flight issue, so didn't really investigate it has seriously as they should have. Human errors for sure. Challenger took away America's innocence about the dangers of spaceflight. For the first time we really realized how dangerous spaceflight was. I think many people who wanted to go back then would still go today, but would be saying many more prayers sitting on the launch pad awaiting launch.

Thanks for the comments!

Luke

Luke said (about Challenger):

"For the first time we really realized how dangerous spaceflight was."

"We" meaning the current generation of the public. The Apollo generation knew spaceflight was dangerous, and many of the engineers (but sadly not all) on the inside of the shuttle program also knew it was always dangerous...that's why they did their jobs so diligently. Some that had risen into management had chosen to forget.