# Talk:Blue Origin NS-31

I'm seeing some debate in the edit summaries between Fram and Jrcraft Yt about whether to refer to the six people aboard the mission as the "crew" or "the passengers". I think it best to seek consensus as opposed to back-and-forth reversions.
Many of the reliable sources are referring to them as "crew": see e.g. Vanity fair, NYT, BBC. However, the dictionary definition is "a group of people who work together, especially all those who work on and operate a ship, aircraft, etc" (emphasis added).
I prefer "crew" because it is what is being used in the sources, but am putting it here for discussion. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 17:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

It's crew, as it has been without issue for every flight on Wikipedia, even suborbital launches of non-professionals. This is wide consensus. Apparently, this editor wis just calling it all "misinformation" which is ridiculous and unserious, especially in this context and not worth entertaining.  Jrcraft Yt (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
I agree we should change the title to passengers on all of these tourist flights.  There is hardly a consensus outside of these companies pushing the term crew as a marketing strategy.  They are passengers by any definition, however we only refer to them as crew on space flights? 2600:4041:3A3:E700:1E2D:B19E:7839:E8F7 (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
You might be right, but per WP:Rightgreatwrongs, Wikipedia is NOT the place to correct the dominant theory or nomenclature,  if the whole world calls them 'Crew', then Wikipedia should reflect that, and as far as I can tell, the whole world does call them crew.  If there are reliable people contesting that they are 'Passengers and not crew' then please reply with some links to those sources and we can discuss including that debate in the article. JeffUK 12:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
[1][2][3][4][5]... They all call them passengers and not crew. But do you have any sources stating "crew and not passengers"? Otherwise we have sources calling them crew, other sources calling them passengers, and dictionaries making it clear that passengers is the right word. Fram (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
An additional note, it's not just Blue Origin flights that refer to non-participating crew members as 'crew',  Dennis Tito, first paying space tourist was a 'Crew Member', and every Soyuz flight as part of the Space_Adventures space tourism programme lists the participants as 'Crew'.  'Crew' is clearly just 'the people on board' when talking about spaceflight.  Maybe that will shift if the distinction between 'crew' and 'passengers' continues but it hasn't yet.  Also note, it's not just space-flight, the 'Crew of the [ill-fated] Titan Submersible' included the tourists on board, in many reports (e.g.  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2kk1g66n7o) JeffUK 12:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Tito received extensive training (weeks or months, I forget which) on his duties to assist with the operation of the Soyuz as he was sitting in front of the controls of a semi-automated orbital spacecraft.
The passengers on a New Shepherd flight get a few hours of training on what to do in an emergency and how to buckle/unbuckle their seatbelts on a fully automated suborbital spacecraft. I don’t think there’s any controls they could even touch in an emergency.
It’s the difference of being allowed to sit on the flight deck of an aircraft and being a passenger on one. RickyCourtney (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
You may be interested in the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Space tourists: "crew" or "passengers" which goes in a quite different direction than the one here (and has an interesting NASA source, basically confirming that officially they are called passengers as well). Fram (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:CONLEVEL, I think any further discussion should be centralized at the pump. Sdkb talk 15:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Whatever the hell that was—they served us a whole steaming pile of garbage, dressed up like some "historic moment." Katy Perry out here literally kissing the dirt like the capsule just returned from a 3-year Mars expedition through a meteor shower. Guys, chill. I was thinking, “Damn, I hope that parachute forgot how to deploy------not that it was even a real re-entry.” Like, let’s stop calling it “re-entry” when you barely touched the Kármán line and floated like a glorified balloon. Where was the plasma trail? The mach 25 screech? Where’s the fireball drama, huh?
And then people be like, “OMG, they achieved soooo much in 11 minutes.” WHAT, bro? What exactly? How your ass feel up there for 600 seconds? You blink twice and boom—you’re already on your way down. These joyrides are turning into influencer space picnics.
When SpaceX Crew-9 performed that incredible rescue and brought back astronauts—one of them being Sunita Williams, a literal legend—it didn't even get half the spotlight. No screaming fans. No viral reels. Just pure dedication, precision, and heroism buried under clickbait headlines.
Let’s take a damn moment to respect what real astronauts go through. They spend 2–3 years training rigorously—studying orbital mechanics, space physiology, engineering systems of the ISS, learning medical protocols, surviving wilderness training, and mastering a level of mathematics that’d make most of us cry. And still, no red carpet for them.
The first and only all-women solo spaceflight? That was Vostok 6, with the iconic Valentina Tereshkova, who didn’t just float around but carried out significant research on how the human body responds during spaceflight. A true trailblazer.
And for God's sake, people don’t even know about Laika—the brave little dog who literally gave her life for science. Her sacrifice paved the way for all human space travel that followed. Without her, there would be no ISS, no space tourism, no SpaceX, nothing. 2405:201:900C:D17F:60E0:F75F:2C79:96A9 (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

You're totally right. This was a marketing stunt, not a research mission. As usual, the attention goes to the rich and beautiful.
Laika didn't give her life, it was taken from her.  2001:9E8:4629:F500:E043:88A5:261F:CAC7 (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
Laika will be always there in space to protect the astronauts. I wish the Soviets would have found the re-entry technology before taking her to space. She is the guardian of our galaxy. 2405:201:900C:D17F:60E0:F75F:2C79:96A9 (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
@2405:201:900C:D17F:60E0:F75F:2C79:96A9 I'm glad you brought up Vostok 6, as I saw the headline calling this the "first" and immediately thought of Tereshkova. Stickymatch 17:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
While this criticism is valid, remember WP:NOTFORUM. We just need to find WP:RS about the criticism of the mission.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

As @Fram pointed out, the reception section has, “No praise from non-participants”. To me that seems like a lack of a neutral point of view or undue weight on criticism over praise. There was some praise of the mission, even if there was more criticism. RickyCourtney (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

It has seemed to me that most reactions to this flight have been critical. Praise from non-participants should be included with a reliable citation, but a neutral point of view should mean impartially reporting criticism and praise in proportion to their weight in the reliable sources. Giving equal weight to praise and criticism when the reception is not balanced amounts to undue weight on praise. GenericHumanoid (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Show me the WP:RSs that praise it and I will add them.--Launchballer 20:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Not asking for equal weight, but at this point there is no weight given to praise. We have three lengthy paragraphs beating the point home that majority of the reception was critical (which is true) with no mention that the mission received at least some praise.
Some good comments from both a former astronaut and the passengers on this flight in this CNN article.
The point I'm driving at here, is encompassed by this article from Forbes which, in my opinion, does a good job of framing the "reception":
Supporters hailed it as a win for representation. Critics dismissed it as a billionaire’s vanity project featuring his girlfriend. The media and Hollywood are divided on whether this was a meaningful step forward for women in aerospace or was simply a high-altitude photo op engineered for headlines.
From Salon: "By the numbers, the New Shepard rocket’s 31st space mission really did make history."
There's also a gushing piece from Elle and a pretty positive spin from CBS News which may be too close to the participant. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Not WP:FORBESCON, Elle and CBS are too close to be independent, and WP:SALON.COM advises caution (though it should be alright for attributed opinion?). I also added Massimino's comment via a different source (arguably CNN reporting the contents of its own programming isn't WP:DUE).--Launchballer 23:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
The FORBESCON concern is valid, but it's far from the only source.
LA Times:
The celebrity launch was the nation’s first spaceflight where women filled each seat. The only other all-female crew in 64 years of human spaceflight was in 1963. That’s when Soviet cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova launched by herself, becoming the first woman in space. Tereshkova spent three days off the planet. Even after the latest launch, women represent barely 15% of the more than 700 people who have traveled into space. Sanchez said she deliberately chose women to launch with her, each of them eager to inspire both the young and old to dream big, and even commissioned special flight suits.
NY Times:
It was the first spaceflight to have an all-female crew since Valentina Tereshkova flew solo in 1963 for the Soviet Union on the Vostok 6 and became the first woman to reach space. But some critics have chafed at the suggestion that the all-female crew represented a moment of feminist progress.
USA Today has an article with the headline "History made: Katy Perry, Gayle King go to space on Blue Origin flight"
From Eric Berger at Ars Technica:
You may not like Perry's music or her association with Dr. Luke. But if she wants to call herself an astronaut, there's no one who can tell her she's not. Personally, I'm happy to call her one, along with the many other amazing women who have only reached space in the last few years because of the suborbital space tourism vehicles developed by Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic. The more the merrier.
RE CNN: I don't see it as that different than quoting a source from a taped interview in a newspaper.
Another broader concern I have is that we don't have similar reaction sections on inaugural flight Blue Origin NS-16 that also received copious critical reaction as Berger pointed out of being a mission about "boys and their toys" and narratives about "billionaire joyrides" to space. Yet, when it's a mission that's "advertised through the language of feminism" we have a reaction section with three lengthy paragraphs of critical views. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
There are about one and a half negative reception paragraphs, half a paragraph of positive reception, and a further paragraph of replies, and some of the Reception section was there when I got here and labelled under Criticism, which is a big no-no. I pillaged the above sources. Also, thanks for clearing up my bare URLs - I tend to type stuff out in the search bar and then copy it over.--Launchballer 14:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
I think alot of the negative reception comes from the timing - just a few weeks after the 2025 stock market crash, alot of people are struggling right now. Then here comes this "historical" all women flight, that is actually just one of the worlds richest men sending his fiance and a few celebrities (and one real rocket scientist) to space. It just seems like a frivolous expense.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

And I think a lot of the negative reception on this talk page is a violation of WP:NOTFORUM.--Launchballer 14:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
The section is rapidly becoming a random list of people who have said something about the flight; we need to summarise it into themes, the individual commentators aren't really important. I'm thinking - Ostentatious display of wealth against a backdrop of a cost of living crisis, Not actually helpful for feminism (just not, and Bezos' involvement), the description of them as 'crew' or 'astronauts', the environmental impact. JeffUK 15:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
The individual commentators are either RSs or have been reported by them. I rearranged it to 'feminism - money - Perry - responses'.--Launchballer 16:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Inquiry Now that editing and discussion have both slowed down, what steps would need to be taken before it would be appropriate to remove the orange tag?  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 14:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Since I first started this discussion, the neutral point of view issues became worse, not better. I've done my best to soften the phrasing to bring this article back into a neutral point of view, which includes avoiding attributing opinions to "most commentators" without strong sourcing, grouping positive and negative reactions separately to ensure proper weighting, and removing emotionally charged wording (like "gluttonous"). I feel that with this edit, the orange banner can come down. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
I would say that removing sourced criticism is itself an NPOV violation and have partially reinstated it; also, single-sentence paragraphs are discouraged by MOS:OVERSECTION.--Launchballer 17:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Launchballer above. While I'm not strongly opposed to trimming the reception section a bit, I think that edit maybe went a little too far. It made the text describing the passengers' responses to the criticisms longer & more in-depth than the criticism itself. Their responses got full sentences and quotations, while the criticisms were so brief and vague that a reader would have no idea what exactly they were if they didn't already know before finding the article. I also think describing the reception as "mixed" as opposed to broadly negative is inaccurate and creates a false balance, which NPOV tells us to avoid.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 17:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
I went back and forth on the word mixed and pretty much ran to change it when I saw this.--Launchballer 17:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
I am good with that. In the intro, I used the phrasing "the reception to the flight was predominantly negative". So I think your change is in line with that.
My only concerns are these two parts:
"Perry's participation was criticised by Callie Ahlgrim of Business Insider and Marina Hyde of The Guardian."
Okay, so what? What makes these two opinion writers any more notable than the dozens of opinion writers on the internet.
In one paragraph we say:
Public figures including Emily Ratajkowski and Olivia Munn questioned the flight's timing amid broader economic challenges.
Then we have the two opinion writers line, followed by:
Criticism also came from public figures. Amy Schumer, Olivia Wilde, Wendy's, and Kesha all uploaded sarcastic posts to social media.
Is it really necessary to have two sections dedicated to reaction from "public figures"? Also, while Ratajkowski and Munn offered substantive criticism, Schumer, Wilde, Wendy's, and Kesha made jokes. A lot of people made jokes. What makes them more notable than those other dozens of notable people and brands who made jokes on the internet.
I do however think that even after these changes, this section is now MUCH more in line with the spirit of NPOV. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
I would argue that Ahlgrim and Hyde were published in major outlets so deserve more weight, but as I'm in no mood to look for others I've trimmed it. Schumer et al have been printed in RS, but I did merge the two sections. Launchballer 19:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
That works. Thanks for the collaboration. RickyCourtney (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
I've very slightly expanded one of the sentences (diff) as I felt that "Public figures including [...] questioned the flight's timing amid broader economic challenges" was too unspecific to be understood by readers not already familiar with their criticisms. After re-reviewing the sources attached to this sentence, I've tweaked it to better explain that the criticism was the flight was (in their view) largely recreational in nature and an expensive form of entertainment amid a period of broader economic challenges. I think this helps to make the sentence more easily understood and less vague without compromising the neutrality of the section or adding excessive detail. I also believe this section is overall looking much better after your combined efforts to make it better comply with NPOV. Great work everyone!  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 14:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I plan on nominating this for GA once the DYK has run.--Launchballer 14:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)