Jeff Foust has an interesting column at The Space Review today about use of the word "tourist" to apply to private citizens traveling into space.

Unlike Rick Tumlinson, I've never minded the term all that much--it captures a lot of what we're trying to accomplish in a single word, and clearly differentiates it from the NASA astronaut paradigm. And as Jeff points out, it's easier to criticize it than to come up with an alternative that people will readily use. In the nineties, when Dan Goldin's NASA could be cajoled or pressured into paying any attention to the subject at all, they resisted using the word, preferring the phrase "public space travel."

But Jeff makes a point that I'd never previously considered. If the resistance to the new launch legislation allowing space passenger travel without heavy FAA regulation for passenger safety arose from the use of the word, perhaps we do need to come up with substitute, at least in a formal sense. Clearly, the early flights for the next few years are not going to be for the masses, expecting airline-like safety, but if Reps DeFazio and Oberstar had the mistaken impression that they were, due to the t-word, it may be time to give it more thought.

How about "space adventurer"?

"Space Adventurer" sounds a little to Flash-Gordon-esque. You want something that conveys the absolute insane risk that any 'normal' person wouldn't undertake. Its like watching those Xtreme sports stuff on ESPN. No one in their right mind would try that stuff with a bicycle but you don't see anyone with any credibility suggesting that we outlaw stunt bike riding.

Hmm... playing with thesaurus.com:

Excursionist
Expeditionist

Since this is only for the government types you can get really nutty:

Private Payload Special-ist
Non-crew Flight Participant (NCFP)
Space Expedition Participant

Extreme tourism participant; or X-topper.

Lame? Yup, but its the best I can do right now.

Yeah? How about astro-nut? or "space cadet"?

I don't think that the probabilities match up in Jeff's piece. If there is a 1 in 10,000 chance of fail, and only 100 flights a year then we will go 100 years with no fail on average. How will safety hold back growth if there are no fails? Not an absorbing state as the stochastic process people say.

At the rate we are going, passengers should be called cold war re-enacters.

I am optimistic that given the number of motorcycle riders, convertible drivers, general aviators, mountain climbers, smokers and so on that there will be a ton of takers even at 1 in 500 fails. It should be addictive for those that can afford to go often.

Pioneer.

Couple it with the historical survivability rates of the American West. If OSHA safety rules were followed, people would still be looking at the Mississippi as uncrossable.

hundred klick club.

Emphasizes thrill-seeker & rich.

CREW.

Simplifies everything if they have a responsibility of some sort.

Hmmm...

Spam-man

Flight Observation Attendant Bumbkin -- FOAB

Trajectory Clodhopper -- TC

Space Googler

Mesospheric Surveyor

The problem with "space tourist" is not the term per se, but the connotation that is often imparted to it: private travellers are "only" space tourists. This may be said implicitly or explicitly, depending on the author. The effect (perhaps unintended in some cases) is to trivialize private spaceflight.

Shortly after Rutan won the X-Prize, for example, a JSC employee wrote a letter to the Houston Chronicle congratulating Rutan, but pointing out that what he's doing is space tourism, while NASA does space *exploration*. Ironic, because when Dennis Tito did bought a Soyuz ride to ISS -- just what NASA's doing now -- Dan Goldin called *that* space tourism.

I'm not sure it's necessary or desirable to have separate terms for Joe and Mary, who are doing similar things (like buying rides on Soyuz) just because they have different employers. In the case where one needs to make a distinction, it's easy enough to add an adjective, as we do for pilots, navigators, etc.

> If there is a 1 in 10,000 chance of fail, and only 100 flights a year then we
> will go 100 years with no fail on average. How will safety hold back growth if
> there are no fails?

What makes you think there will only be 100 flights a year?

> there will be a ton of takers even at 1 in 500 fails. It should be addictive
> for those that can afford to go often.

Perhaps, but if you have to replace equipment after only 500 flights, it will drive prices up, limiting the number who can afford to go.

The people buying seats on Soyuz flights are not that dissimilar to English aristocrats who'd travel to the American West in the 1820s through the 1870s looking for adventure. Some did it to write books, others for the hunting, others did scientific research and others because they were rich and bored. Most survived, but a few didn't.

We in the industry have been kicking this around for years.
We have yet to come up with a term everyone agrees on.

The official term is "space flight participant." That's what's
in HR 5382. But even its adherents admit it's not a sexy term.
It's merely accurate - and even then, reasonable people can,
while agreeing on the definition, disagree on the connotation.
Not what does it mean, but what does it sound like? When
dealing with people who aren't up to speed on the issues,
connotation is important, which I think was Jeff's point in
wondering if we need a new term.

In general, the people who are going to be buying tickets and
riding on suborbital vehicles are going to be tourists. The
reason they will be going is that they want to go; the reason
the operator will be making the flight is to take them. That's
tourism.

More specifically, it's adventure tourism. It isn't a Princess
Cruise; it's a ride in a barnstorming biplane. Sure, there will
be fat guys with cameras, but they'll be expecting a fun, exciting,
physically challenging ride, not a cruise to Mazatlan. The
comparison to climbing Mt. Everest is an apt one, and actually
makes space vehicle safety records look good: the last year in
which no one was killed climbing Everest was 1975. The last year
before that was 1952 (Hillary and Norgay first summitted in 1953).
From 1953 to 2001, 1491 climbers have made the summit, and 172
climbers have died. That's over 10%. Space flight participation
will not be nearly this hazardous.

Even more specifically, it's space adventure tourism. But there
are a couple problems with that term: one, Space Adventures'
competitors would be fools to encourage its use; two, people
just don't use three word terms in daily conversation. Two words
is the maximum for common use, and one word is better.

-R

I personally rather dislike the term "space tourist" myself. I'd actually be somewhat embarassed to have a trophy or medallion which said "space tourist" on my wall, or to have someone refer to me as a space tourist. This may be because I'm an Orlando native, but it seems too tied up with the idea of wearing tacky t-shirts and being completely out-of-touch with your surroundings.

Tossing some ideas out (wordnet.princeton.edu is fun):

space passenger
spacerider
space peer
spacefarer (interesting pun)
space traveller
spaceseer (like sightseer)
spacehiker

I personally rather dislike the term "space tourist" myself. I'd actually be somewhat embarassed to have a trophy or medallion which said "space tourist" on my wall, or to have someone refer to me as a space tourist. This may be because I'm an Orlando native, but it seems too tied up with the idea of wearing tacky t-shirts and being completely out-of-touch with your surroundings.

Tossing some ideas out (wordnet.princeton.edu is fun):

space passenger
spacerider
space peer
spacefarer (interesting pun)
space traveller
spaceseer (like sightseer)
spacehiker

I personally rather dislike the term "space tourist" myself. I'd actually be somewhat embarassed to have a trophy or medallion which said "space tourist" on my wall, or to have someone refer to me as a space tourist. This may be because I'm an Orlando native, but it seems too tied up with the idea of wearing tacky t-shirts and being completely out-of-touch with your surroundings.

Tossing some ideas out (wordnet.princeton.edu is fun):

space passenger
spacerider
space peer
spacefarer (interesting pun)
space traveller
spaceseer (like sightseer)
spacehiker

Ack, very sorry about the multiple posts -- the page didn't seem to update properly. :(

I think the horse has already left the barn on this one, popular culture already considers the term space tourist as the phrase to use.

The first "Space Tourist" euphemism that popped into my mind was also "Space Adventurer." I like to flatter myself and think that great minds think alike.

The Space Adventures company would be very happy if the term "Space Adventurer" came into common usage. Maybe it will become a term like "Xerox" or "Kleenex," where the word specifically refers to people who are flown by Space Adventures, but everybody applies it to the generic knockoff products.

Jeff Foust's article already mentions one possible term:

"commercial spaceflight"

"commercial" meaning commerce; and
"spaceflight" meaning human spaceflight

"On cosmic holiday."

And for the aliens who will sneer at them as they travel, "Ugly earthlings."

I still like pioneer, the denotation (#2) fits - and the cognitive association with #1 almost fits. And there isn't anything else _current_ that the word is strongly associated with.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/22/P0322200.html

Or, a new word:
exoneer or 'one who ventures outside'.

Just to throw my two cents in...

Skyclimber, or
Starseeker

Trading a bit of accuracy for poetry.

I always thought passenger or crew pretty much took care of it? If the passenger happens to be on an orbital or suborbital craft, the context tells the story? But I do enjoy the word play.