Why Commercial Spaceflight Passengers Shouldn’t Be Called Astronauts (The Katy Perry Mindset)

As commercial suborbital and orbital space tourism grows, there’s debate over whether paying passengers can call themselves “astronauts.” The core issue is one of terminology and legal status: under space law and U.S. regulation, are these private individuals astronauts or something else? This matters because terms like “astronaut” carry legal and professional meaning (they imply official duties, training, and specific obligations). Space industry law and policy deliberately distinguish professional crew or government astronauts from spaceflight participants. We must ask: should a privately-funded passenger, with minimal training and no governmental designation, be labeled an astronaut?

Rules

International and U.S. law set clear definitions. Under the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, “astronauts shall be regarded as the envoys of mankind” and states must assist them. In practice this term historically referred to professional spacefarers. U.S. law (51 U.S.C. § 50902) defines categories very precisely: a “government astronaut” is someone designated by NASA (e.g. a NASA employee or approved international partner) on a federal mission. By contrast, a “space flight participant” is explicitly defined as anyone aboard a launch or reentry vehicle who is not crew or a government astronaut. In other words, Congress and the FAA legally reserved “astronaut” for government‐designated personnel and required that private passengers be classified as spaceflight participants.

The Federal Aviation Administration’s regulations and policies reinforce this split. For example, FAA licensing rules (14 CFR Part 460) impose strict crew qualification and training requirements that do not apply to mere passengers. Each crew member must undergo extensive training for nominal and non-nominal (emergency) scenarios, demonstrate tolerance to high-G and microgravity, and even hold an FAA pilot certificate if serving as pilot. By contrast, an operator need only train passengers in basic emergency procedures. Moreover, the FAA has formally abandoned any special title for commercial flyers – its website explicitly states it “no longer designates anyone as an ‘astronaut’” under the Commercial Space Launch Act. Instead, the FAA maintains a human spaceflight recognition list for anyone (crew or participant) who crosses 50 miles altitude, but still treats them as a participant, not an astronaut.

Okay, But Why?

Applying these rules, a paying space tourist clearly falls into the spaceflight participant category, not “astronaut.” By law, only those with government or governmental-agency roles qualify as astronauts. A commercial passenger has neither the NASA designation nor the employment context; even if they reach space (by FAA’s informal 50‑mile rule), they remain a passenger under U.S. law. Calling them an astronaut mislabels their legal status and obscures regulatory responsibilities.

Operationally and scientifically, the distinction is also real. Professional astronauts undergo months or years of training in spacecraft systems, zero-G adaptation, navigation, emergency procedures, and mission tasks. They are trained to operate the vehicle and conduct science or maintenance in orbit. Passengers, by design, only receive a short briefing on emergency exit and seat restraints. They do not pilot the vehicle or perform mission activities; their role is essentially observational. This is analogous to how a first-class airline passenger isn’t called a pilot – they aren’t trained or employed to fly the plane.

The legal framework reflects these operational facts. Crew members must demonstrate physical fitness and flight skills; no such certification is required for a ticketed flyer. In fact, FAA regulations explicitly require passengers to sign waivers and be informed of the risks (FAA’s “informed consent” rules), recognizing they are not protected by the same safety certification as crew. If we start calling participants “astronauts,” it could blur these safety and liability distinctions. For example, an injured passenger might incorrectly assume they were entitled to all the training and rescue protocols of a government astronaut. Internationally, too, the term “astronaut” in treaties implies a state-registered crew member or envoy. Space law scholars note that “astronaut” traditionally means someone traveling into space for professional reasons, not a tourist. Equating a vacationer with a trained explorer risks diluting the prestige and legal meaning of the term.

In practical terms, using accurate terminology maintains clarity. Regulators track crew vs. participant separately for licensing and emergency planning. For instance, Part 460 licensing requires a test flight (with no participants aboard) before any passenger can fly. That rule is based on the idea that passengers haven’t proven the craft safe; calling them “astronauts” would ignore this precaution. Similarly, the FAA’s new criteria for “commercial astronaut wings” emphasize in-flight duties for safety, reinforcing that only those actively contributing to mission safety earn astronaut status. If every passenger were labeled an astronaut, these carefully drawn lines would collapse.

Conclusion

In summary, spaceflight terminology isn’t just marketing – it’s codified in law and policy. Commercial passengers do not meet the legal or operational criteria for “astronaut” status. By U.S. law they are spaceflight participants, and international law envisions astronauts as trained, envoys-of-mankind officials. For the sake of regulatory precision and public understanding, we should resist the temptation to call every new space traveler an astronaut. Preserving the distinction respects the historical role of astronauts and ensures we continue to provide appropriate training, oversight, and safety measures tailored to each category.