I disagree with the Caribbean vs. tanning bed analogy. You could just as well make the analogy that ballooning is like going to the Caribbean without the obnoxious casinos or time-share spiel. Sure, some people will like the thrill ride, but for others, skipping the vomit-inducing parts of the trip will be a bonus. Reducing the risk and having a voluminous cabin to walk around in with plenty of amenities is a bonus in my opinion. Being locked into a claustrophobic tin can, peering through a tiny periscope, and urinating in your suit could be described as part of the “authentic Al Shepard experience”, but I’m willing to sacrifice the authenticity.

The travel industry already has a segment called “Adventure travel” (around $89B spent on it in 2009), so being an “Adventure Astronaut” would not be a big leap.

However I don’t see the terms sticking in general usage, just as “pilot” is the generic term for someone that is a pilot, regardless if it’s for pleasure or work. Same with “tourist”, I think it’s generic enough to describe someone that is visiting from somewhere else, regardless if they are going to Cleveland or Low Earth Orbit.

http://www.cctcorp.com/tourism/WP-SpaceTourism-043002.pdf

So I make the following suggestion. Let’s call folks traveling to satisfying their interest in space as space tourists, including the millions who visit KSC and JSC each year.

Then let’s call private individuals that actually fly into space (above 100 kilometers) for leisure and adventure “Adventure Astronauts”. This not only is a more descriptive term, it also places them in the proper tourist industry classification as Adventure Tourists.

Meanwhile those who travel to space for business purposes, as have many of the private individuals that bought Soyuz rides, would be classified commercial astronauts, a term already in use by the FAA AST.

This classification system is not only more descriptive, but is also far more functional in terms of space policy, regulation and marketing. For example, a key motivational goal for adventure tourists (like those climbing Mt. Everest) is the personal challenge and risks involved. So by using the term Adventure Astronauts you render the arguments that suborbital HSF needs to be “as safe as commercial air travel” null and void since doing so would be counter productive to the market served. It would also serve to bunt public outcry if there is an accident, since the public expects folks taking adventure risks to die occasionally, as on Mt. Everest. The public tends to feel in these cases that the folks involved need the risks and freely choose to take them.

And under that system these balloon flights would be seen as both space tourism, given the key role of high attitude ballooning in HSF history, and adventure ballooning.