>>663
>basically pay for the trip
in what kind of scenario would a ship captain go out to sea for absolutely no reason? Either they go to do some kind of work for which they receive a reward or they go out to relax (like on a yacht or something) in which case they may as well not be considered real captains, yes.
>its simply not a good definition
so what is your version then? I'm sure I could nitpick at it if I wanted.
>the astronauts of old are not prestigious because they were getting paid
sure, I agree with that. But the fact remains that all of the real astronauts so far have been hired by a government agency or (more recently) private company to do some kind of work.
>>667
>a wealthy explorer captain hiring a crew is not a real captain because they chose to go explore without getting paid or being chosen to do so?
when has that ever happened? Regardless you're conflating astronauts and sailors way too much. I don't see a private individual randomly buying a rocket to go to some place never explored before. Call me a pessimist or whatever, but everyone who could afford it values their life/time too much to do it or they'd fund someone else to do it for them.
>Jared Isaacman paying for a mars landing and then choosing his own crew would not make Jared Isaacman any less of an "astronaut" than the crew
what's with this looney example? He isn't going to pay for a several hundred billion dollar mission out of his pocket. He might get hired by NASA/SpaceX for it, sure.
>what matters is what they actually do, did they train for it
I agree with that and my definition is basically a filter for it. If someone gets paid to go, clearly they are doing something important and were trained for it. In the few edge cases you could come up with that defeat the definition, common sense is enough, just like it is with every other title.