I’ve recently listened to a podcast with the german astronaut Matthias Maurer where he discusses this question - What exactly makes you an astronaut?
He stated that there are several definitions, mostly based around altitude but if you want the European Space Agency to call you an astronaut you also have to fly around the earth in space at least once. So by ESA definition, Katy Perry would not be an astronaut.
I’ve now seen 3 completely contradictory definitions of what an astronaut it. 1 by ESA, 1 by the FAA, and 1 by a dictionary. Clearly no one actually knows what an astronaut is exactly, and what the exact minimum requirements are for an astronaut to be called an astronaut. What everyone seem to at least agree on is that part of what makes an astronaut, is in some capacity to visit space.
I don’t take that to mean “no one actually knows what an astronaut actually is” because phrasing it like that floats in the sensationalism territory between click bait headlines and Trump ramblings. What I do take that to mean is that the term is evolving, both from a linguistics standpoint as well as a technological/societal standpoint.
What’s a phone? The average user here probably at least considers a device that makes telephone calls, but consider what’s actually sold as a phone today and what non-phone devices can communicate in phone-like fashion. The primary usage of my cellular smartphone is far from making phone calls - it’s a handheld computer with information, entertainment, and utility functions. If you argue that it can make phone calls and is therefore still a phone, then so is a modern car. If you expand to strictly internet channels such as FaceTime, zoom, or teams, then that’d include computers as phones. If someone says they’re going to buy a new phone tomorrow, we’re all picturing a smartphone.
There is no functional difference with the evolution of astronaut definitions. The accessibility is constantly improving. The purpose is expanding. The accessibility is still incredibly limited, on the global scale, so the original term still bears weight.
This is why Latin is used for sciences. The language is dead and no longer evolving. The rate of change is drastically slower, primarily driven by expanding definitions with discoveries rather than changing scientific properties entirely.
I wouldn’t call myself an astronaut after such a trip. I’d want to, I’d love to, I’d make jokes about being a spaceman, but I wouldn’t classify myself anywhere near the likes of anyone with a Shuttle or Apollo patch. I’d put it near U2 pilots and tourists
I’ve recently listened to a podcast with the german astronaut Matthias Maurer where he discusses this question - What exactly makes you an astronaut?
He stated that there are several definitions, mostly based around altitude but if you want the European Space Agency to call you an astronaut you also have to fly around the earth in space at least once. So by ESA definition, Katy Perry would not be an astronaut.
I’ve now seen 3 completely contradictory definitions of what an astronaut it. 1 by ESA, 1 by the FAA, and 1 by a dictionary. Clearly no one actually knows what an astronaut is exactly, and what the exact minimum requirements are for an astronaut to be called an astronaut. What everyone seem to at least agree on is that part of what makes an astronaut, is in some capacity to visit space.
I don’t take that to mean “no one actually knows what an astronaut actually is” because phrasing it like that floats in the sensationalism territory between click bait headlines and Trump ramblings. What I do take that to mean is that the term is evolving, both from a linguistics standpoint as well as a technological/societal standpoint.
What’s a phone? The average user here probably at least considers a device that makes telephone calls, but consider what’s actually sold as a phone today and what non-phone devices can communicate in phone-like fashion. The primary usage of my cellular smartphone is far from making phone calls - it’s a handheld computer with information, entertainment, and utility functions. If you argue that it can make phone calls and is therefore still a phone, then so is a modern car. If you expand to strictly internet channels such as FaceTime, zoom, or teams, then that’d include computers as phones. If someone says they’re going to buy a new phone tomorrow, we’re all picturing a smartphone.
There is no functional difference with the evolution of astronaut definitions. The accessibility is constantly improving. The purpose is expanding. The accessibility is still incredibly limited, on the global scale, so the original term still bears weight.
This is why Latin is used for sciences. The language is dead and no longer evolving. The rate of change is drastically slower, primarily driven by expanding definitions with discoveries rather than changing scientific properties entirely.
I wouldn’t call myself an astronaut after such a trip. I’d want to, I’d love to, I’d make jokes about being a spaceman, but I wouldn’t classify myself anywhere near the likes of anyone with a Shuttle or Apollo patch. I’d put it near U2 pilots and tourists