[FPSPACE] Mike Melvill astronaut?

[Igor Lissov]

Hi,

> This is a good idea, but why do we should use the 50 statute mile definition
> (a US Air Force definition)? Why don't we use the Federatin Aeronautique
> International definition of 100 km? This is a international organization so
> I think we should use this one.

Any definition would be arbitrary. I do not think it's good to go against 
tradition, which in the case of X-15 was very clear. Maybe it is possible
to use 50 miles for X-15 only and 100 km for SS1 just because these
were their announced goals. Hope nobody will set a goal of less than
100 km in the future.
 
> > Well, I *do* count Shepard and Grissom in the 'orbital' roster as their
> spacecraft
> > were designed for orbit and just tested in ballistic laps.
> 
> This doesn't sound good. Does this means that we also count the April 5
> anomaly, aka Soyuz18-1, as a orbital spaceflight? (Lazarev and Makarob were
> toghether the 9th soviet cosmonauts and the 27th humans to do two
> spaceflights, I think!).

Why not? Soyuz-18-1 and Challenger were orbital spaceflights aborted at
different stages of boost. My opinion is that spaceflight begins with the
first movement of the launch vehicle.

In the same logic, Soyuz T-10-1 (Titov-Strekalov) is not even a spaceflight
attempt because the launch vehicle was not launched.

Igor Lissov
My opinion only