Is Branson an astronaut?

[fohat.digs]

I think that a quickie little up-and-down is not really going to space.

Alan Shepard, well maybe, he went well over twice as high as Branson, but back in the day some Air Force pilots were given astronaut's wings just from flying their planes high enough.

But in my opinion getting into orbit should be the minimum criterion for a realistic claim of a person being an astronaut. Otherwise you have just barely gotten away from Earth's surface, and, of course, actual "escape" is an additional achievement of a much higher order.
 

[F eq ma]

Nope.   Just an ego with way too much money.   To me, being an astronaut is a profession and not a weekend jaunt.

[iri]

Branson reached the altitude of 85km vs Gagarin's 327km. Certainly not a cosmonaut grade flight

[absyrd]

Some guy on the radio is apparently an “astronaut in the ocean”, so I suppose this is plausible.

[Leslieann]

But in my opinion getting into orbit should be the minimum criterion for a realistic claim of a person being an astronaut. Otherwise you have just barely gotten away from Earth's surface, and, of course, actual "escape" is an additional achievement of a much higher order.

You can do an orbit without breaching "space", you just can't maintain it for long, also you can go quiet high without doing an orbit.

Height is the only valuable metric, though there is some argument about where "space" actually starts.


Personally, if only to snub Bezos, I vote Branson got there first.

[geauxflying]

It’s a huge accomplishment, and he’s spending his own money to advance science and explore our world. It’s kind of crappy to denigrate that. We can argue whether an orbit matters, or whether his altitude matters, or whether he left the atmosphere of earth, or blah blah blah… I would submit that none of it matters. He’s done something incredible, and it should be celebrated.

The curve of the earth is visible from around 35-40K feet. The ceiling of Class A airspace is 60k feet. Branson reached nearly 5x that altitude. The moon is still in earth’s atmosphere at ~240K miles, so no astronaut has ever completely left earth’s atmosphere. Whatever your personal definition of an astronaut is, you’ve probably not done anything close to this before, and it’s really a bummer to be denigrating it while we all geek out over soldering keyboards.

One day everyone may have the opportunity to be an astronaut. But it would never happen without people doing what Branson, Musk, Bezos, and new companies like Axiom Space are doing right now.

[jamster]

I'd say yes, just because Bezos is a far bigger prick

[fohat.digs]

It’s a huge accomplishment, and he’s spending his own money to advance science and explore

it would never happen without people doing what Branson, Musk, Bezos, and new companies like Axiom Space are doing right now.

I agree with both of these sentiments, and these are some of the rare examples of the ultra-ultra-wealthy who attempt to advance the species with some of their money.

And, of course, Virgin Galactic has 600 applications for future flights ....

[Findecanor]

In my book, an "astronaut" is someone who goes to space to do something useful in space.

That makes any question of drive, enthusiasm or ego irrelevant. I'm sure that many "traditional" astronauts/kosmonauts/tachyonauts were also full of those things.
If Branson, Musk or Bezos goes to space and when they are there, they just look around, boss people around and have fun, then they are still just "space tourists", no matter how much money and effort they spent to get there.

[yui]

Branson and Musk may be space tourists but Bezos in space is just plainly a bond villain

[Findecanor]

Bezos is a Bond villain.
Musk aspires to be one.
The Bond-villainesque Hank Scorpio in The Simpsons has been said to have been modelled on Richard Branson.

[jamster]

I agree with both of these sentiments, and these are some of the rare examples of the ultra-ultra-wealthy who attempt to advance the species with some of their money.

And, of course, Virgin Galactic has 600 applications for future flights ....

I think that what Branson is doing, whist very cool, has nothing to do with practical spaceflight. It's not something that can ever be scaled, nor can it ever result in achieving orbit.

[fohat.digs]

applications for future flights

something that can ever be scaled

Not true. I have always believed that the law of supply and demand requires that demand be satisfied and that supply will come into being to satisfy it.
(and remember, of course, that demand is not wanting something - it is being willing to pay the price for something)

Perhaps not in our lifetimes (mine anyway, I'm an old man) but an orbiting hotel in space will attract a sizeable number of tourists.

[jamster]

applications for future flights

something that can ever be scaled

Not true. I have always believed that the law of supply and demand requires that demand be satisfied and that supply will come into being to satisfy it.
(and remember, of course, that demand is not wanting something - it is being willing to pay the price for something)

Perhaps not in our lifetimes (mine anyway, I'm an old man) but an orbiting hotel in space will attract a sizeable number of tourists.

Low earth orbit is >160km. My understanding of Branson's approach is that it's a very high altitude plane launched off another plane (it can never get that high, hence not being practical) and vastly dependent on manual/pilot skill (hence not scalable).

At most, if there is a lot of demand, it will cater to people who want a certain view and five minutes of weightlessness, but it's not useful for research or industry.