Blue Origin Flight: Why Katy Perry and Co don’t qualify as astronauts who went to space |

This picture supplied by Blue Origin exhibits from left: Jeff Bezos, Kerianne Flynn, Katy Perry, Lauren Sanchez, Aisha Bowe, Gayle King, Amanda Nguyen, Sarah Knights, director of Blue Origin’s astronaut workplace, and Blue Origin CEO Dave Limp. (Blue Origin through AP)

When Katy Perry floated into microgravity aboard Blue Origin’s New Shepard rocket earlier this month—serenading fellow passengers with What a Wonderful World—it was billed as a triumphant second for girls in space. But not everyone seems to be impressed. Critics, together with space coverage analyst David Pollack, argue that regardless of the spectacle and the star energy, Perry and her fellow travellers weren’t really astronauts. And the controversy has much less to do with who was on board, and extra to do with the place—and how—they went.
The coronary heart of the criticism lies within the nature of the mission. Blue Origin’s New Shepard rocket, whereas undeniably superior, follows a suborbital flight path. It climbs to about 62 miles (100 kilometres) above sea degree—simply past the Kármán line, the internationally recognised boundary of space—earlier than falling again to Earth. That brief arc provides passengers about three to 4 minutes of weightlessness, not as a result of they’ve escaped Earth’s gravity, however as a result of they’re in freefall. As Pollack places it, it’s “more roller coaster than space odyssey.”
“Crossing the Kármán line isn’t enough,” Pollack defined in his post-flight critique. “You have to stay in space—or at least orbit Earth—to be considered a true astronaut.” Achieving orbit requires a horizontal velocity of about 17,500 miles per hour—one thing the New Shepard doesn’t even try. Instead, the car lobs passengers into space on a excessive arc, then parachutes them again down after simply 11 minutes whole within the air.

That’s not only a semantic distinction—it’s a useful one. Pollack and different consultants observe that orbital missions, like these undertaken by NASA or SpaceX, contain vastly extra complexity and threat. They demand life help, re-entry shielding, and sustained publicity to microgravity and space radiation. In distinction, suborbital hops are automated, brief, and require minimal coaching.
And that’s the place the time period “astronaut” turns into contentious.
In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) distinguishes between “commercial astronauts” and “space flight participants.” Since 2021, the FAA has clarified that solely crew members who “demonstrate activities essential to public safety or contribute to human space flight safety” throughout the flight qualify for astronaut wings. Blue Origin passengers, together with Perry, don’t meet that threshold. They weren’t piloting the spacecraft or contributing to mission-critical operations—they have been alongside for the trip.
Even Jeff Bezos, whose 2021 New Shepard flight helped revive the business space tourism race, has confronted related critiques. “It’s like calling someone who rides in an elevator a structural engineer,” one NASA veteran quipped on the time.
Of course, none of that is to say the expertise isn’t extraordinary. Floating above the Earth, nonetheless briefly, is a wide ranging feat. But for critics like Pollack, calling it “space travel” is truthful. Calling somebody an astronaut is a stretch.
In the tip, whether or not you’re moved by Katy Perry’s zero-gravity vocals or skeptical of the semantics, the talk underscores a broader query: As space turns into extra accessible, what does it actually imply to go to space?