Although this is both a law and policy blog, I normally talk about law. It’s how I am. However, with the riveting saga of what defines an astronaut continuing to unfold, we should all take note of the latest development. Just because it’s fun.
The FAA’s definition of a plain ol’ astronaut is not mandated by Congress. Nor has the FAA codified it in regulations. Thus, the FAA doesn’t need to go through notice-and-comment rulemaking to change it or the eligibility criteria. And it hasn’t.
New eligibility criterion. The FAA has issued a new order on how it runs its Commercial Space Astronaut Wings Program, tightening its eligibility criteria. Previously, to be awarded wings a person had to be flight crew on an FAA licensed launch and reach 50 statute miles. Those criteria remain in effect. Now, however, a person must also have “demonstrated activities during flight that were essential to public safety, or contributed to human space flight safety.” Under this new criterion, a pilot should qualify as an astronaut because his or her activities on board keep the public safe. (We all remember that the public consists of those not involved in the launch or reentry.) A pilot keeps the vehicle from hurting people on the ground.
More ambiguous is what activities might “contribute to human space flight safety.” They should likely encompass the safety of people on board the particular flight. Might it also include human space flight safety generally? If an engineer who designs a good pressure suit for space flight participants boards a rocket, looks out the window and merrily floats weightless, without performing the Heimlich Maneuver even once, would he be eligible for astronaut wings?
Honorary astronauts. The order also creates an “honorary” award, where the FAA has the discretion to identify and bestow an “FAA honorary award of Commercial Space Astronaut Wings to individuals who demonstrated extraordinary contribution or beneficial service to the commercial human space flight industry. These individuals receiving an honorary award may not be required to satisfy all eligibility requirements.” I can think of a few who might qualify.
The FAA is both sexist and ageist trying to strip 82 year old Wally Funk of her astronaut status.
The FAA has no substantive or moral authority. They are technocrats trying to manage in the rearview mirror and failing miserably. I hope commercial astronauts don’t give a sh*t about these arbitrary and random acts of institutionalism…
The FAA puts itself in a precarious position, spending time and money and succeeding in making no one happy, when it tries to implement a recognition program with no legislative mandate. It just seemed like a good idea at the time.
A better idea, one that I proposed to the FAA in 2018, was to partner with the NAA (National Aeronautic Association) and have the NAA, a civil non-profit organization, run an astronaut and spaceflight participant recognition program. The NAA is the oldest aviation organization in the US, founded in 1905, whose mission is the “advancement of the art, sport, and science of aviation and space flight by fostering opportunities to participate fully in aviation activities and by promoting public understanding of the importance of aviation and space flight to the United States.” This may not be well known, but the NAA issued all the pilot licenses in the United States until the Air Commerce Act of 1926. An astronaut recognition program falls right in line with the NAA’s mission and history.
The benefit would have been having a clear set of criteria for recognition (in line by the way with accepted definitions) established well before the first commercial flights rather than changing things right in the middle of the two recent flights. Now the FAA published an order, which probably took over a year to write and coordinate, so publishing it when it did was just poor planning and poor timing.
The FAA would have been better off to give this to the NAA.
I agree with you, Scott. This is a perfect example of something Congress didn’t explicitly ask it to do, and the FAA could and should have stayed out of. The FAA meant well by its astronaut wings, but now there will be unnecessary bad feelings.
I fault Congress, too, however. It passes laws giving the executive branch vast amounts of authority using language that is way too vague. The FAA relied on its promotional authority, which the FAA believes lets it do a lot. 51 USC 50903 says: (b) Facilitating Commercial Launches and Reentries.—In carrying out this chapter, the Secretary shall—
(1) encourage, facilitate, and promote commercial space launches and reentries by the private sector, including those involving space flight participants;
An agency can run far with that kind of mandate.