The departure and return of Anousheh Ansari, the most recent paying passenger to go to outer space, seems to have re-stoked an old debate: are we correct in thinking of paying to go to space as ‘tourism’. (You would like to read the lengthy article first)
Of course, it is debatable to think of correct term for those who pay millions to go to the space. But it seems like it is just debatable and nothing more than that. This debate concerns only those who are on the hot seats of earning $$$ from the future tourism industry, as to what name they must use for their customers before sending them to the outer space.
Using the right terminology for ’space tourism’ is really a question for marketing professionals but this would not bother those who really want to make it to the micro gravity.
I think the concern here is an aging workforce that may offer most of the opportunities in the space industry in the coming years. A report commissioned by NASA last year found that, by 2011, nearly half of the organization’s scientists and more than a quarter of its engineers will be eligible for retirement. Only a quarter of engineers and scientists at the agency are under 40. We’ll have to think of ways to make the futuristic tourism industry to make its way to the large number of masses, only then this could be called an industry or else it’ll be simply a futuristic program (and someone might be thinking of using right terminology here also).
Some will travel into space for amusement, some will want to mix amusement and amateur science, and some will have do it as part of their profession. One of those is a tourist, another isn’t. The language will evolve as the market matures and the segmentations become more apparent in popular culture. And some words will make sense in some cultures but not in others.
Via: thespacereview
