That Other Rich Guy Who Is Also Space Crazy
Jeff Bezos’s Master Plan, The Atlantic
“Bezos is unabashed in his fanaticism for Star Trek and its many spin-offs. He has a holding company called Zefram, which honors the character who invented warp drive. He persuaded the makers of the film Star Trek Beyond to give him a cameo as a Starfleet official. He named his dog Kamala, after a woman who appears in an episode as Picard’s “perfect” but unattainable mate. As time has passed, Bezos and Picard have physically converged. Like the interstellar explorer, portrayed by Patrick Stewart, Bezos shaved the remnant strands on his high-gloss pate and acquired a cast-iron physique. A friend once said that Bezos adopted his strenuous fitness regime in anticipation of the day that he, too, would journey to the heavens. When reporters tracked down Bezos’s high-school girlfriend, she said, “The reason he’s earning so much money is to get to outer space.”
“The reason he’s earning so much money is to get to outer space.”
There are a lot worse reasons.
Sure. But let’s not get carried away. We could get into an argument about the ends justifying the means. Getting industry off the Earth’s surface is a fine idea. But I don’t want someone founding Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow and conquering the world to accomplish that. Not that Mr. Bezos has done anything quite that extreme, but…
Why? Do you really believe that NASA will accomplish it? Or governments in general? Compare the attempts of Russia to develop Siberia to the business leaders who had the vision to develop the American West.
Speaking of developing the American west, an interesting lecture about this (and many of us use the wild west analogy for the wild space), https://www.c-span.org/vide…
That wasn’t about private versus public efforts to industrialize space. Some governments could, but I’d object for the same reasons. A twenty-first version of Stalin’s Soviet Union probably could, but I’d rather not have it happen this way. In terms of private companies, they have, on occasion, treated their workers in ways I dislike. And been pretty free and easy with bribes and rigging elections to keep it that way. Again, I’m not implying Mr. Bezos or any of his companies are like that. I’m simply saying a very good, ultimate goal isn’t a blank check over the methods.
True, but over time that is corrected, either by competitors or government regulation. For example, because of the way Amazon treats used book sellers many are now listing on Abesbooks instead.
I appreciate the consistency of your argument, Thomas, but lionizing American business while ignoring excesses, or the despicable life-outcomes of those left behind, having nothing more to offer than labor, is just too much.
None of the cases you frequently cite: Antarctica, the railroad, space- none of these were accomplished by government alone, or private enterprise. Each benefited through bespoke marriage. Some were more awkward than others, it is true, but all were at least partially successful.
And comparing ‘business leaders’ to communist Siberia? I don’t even know where to start. The vision to develop the west? By the transferring public lands to cattle ranchers at deep, deep discount? By the diversion of water in support of unsupportable development? Were it not for Teddy Roosevelt (I think), why, I’d have the opportunity to buy a condo overlooking the Grand Canyon.
As I think about it, it’s me who has been cheated!
/Sunday morning screed
Exactly, government regulation, which is the balance available in free market economies missing in socialist ones.
In terms of public lands, the policy America had of transferring to those (ranchers, farmers, miners, railroads, etc.) that found ways to generate revenues from them helped accelerate western development and settlement.
“the balance available in free market economies missing in socialist ones”
That’s a neat, and accurate summary. I’ve thought of governmental regulation in this way: unrestrained economic activity can very quickly develop exclusionary, self-serving characteristics. Governmental intervention provides a level playing field.
More significantly: economic activity is motivated by avarice and profit seeking; these ambitions can be at odds with sensible social goals. Without some sensible regulation, economic activity becomes responsible for social policy.
And yes, that is the key, sensible regulation. The ICC served a purpose when it was created in the late 1800’s to regulate railroads, but by the 1950’s into the 1970’s its over reach on regulations almost killed the industry. It actually did kill the passenger train which only exists now with the heavily subsidized Amtrak.
So its like sports. Good rules and good referees make a great game. Poor ones kill it off.
It’s fun hearing talk of conquest and corruption in corporate America in the backdrop of the icky things being dug up in Ukraine. Let us not forget how Elon and his lawyers had to kick in the doors of the Air Force or how Congress tried to starve out CCDev.
It’s the standard conundrum, who does one trust the most to pad their pockets under the table and make the rich richer and/or more powerful on the backs of you and I…business or government? My answer…both!. If we think that there isn’t any hidden, malignant, institutionally accepted corruption in one or the other, then we’re wearing blinders.
The author seems to have a personal grudge against Amazon which generates a bias in his writing. He also appears to have little knowledge of business history. Amazon is much like Sears was a hundred years ago, but the economy moves on and like Sears, Amazon’s power will peak and decline as competitors find openings to exploit.
I wish Musk and Bezos would fund robotic space science programs as well as launch companies. Bezos could sell off 10% of his stock holdings in Amazon and fund a whole fleet of robotic missions.
But than they would be in direct competition with NASA. NASA wouldn’t like that. The projects they are working on now, TSTO RLVs, are a technology goal NASA abandoned a generation ago as being impractical in favor of returning to 1960’s era capsules and big ELVs.
I find myself oddly in support of Mr. Bezos’ space vision, summed this way: put the dirty stuff in space, allowing Earth to re-wild. It’s quite possibly the opportunity of a millennium. Allow Amazon the effect the dream while keeping a very firm hand on the tiller.
Especially as NASA doesn’t seem to see the industrialization of space being its job other than an occassional token study.
I’m not sure that’s how NASA would react. The European Space Agency does lots of planetary exploration, and NASA is more than willing to cooperate. I don’t get any impression of hard feelings over competition. There are even studies in progress, concerning a Mars sample return, where NASA is practically saying to ESA, “Could you bring our samples back for us? Our budget many not be able to cover the whole job.” If SpaceX wanted to put a weather satellite in Mars orbit, I don’t think it would be offend many people within NASA. But it might be wise to avoid things on NASA’s to-do list, say anything on the list of potential New Frontiers missions.
It will be interesting to see what happens if Starship brings launch costs down to a couple hundred dollars a kiliogram to LEO. That is cheap enough for universities to raise funds from donors/foundations to do missions, especially if someone steps up to design a standard spacecraft bus, just plug in your instruments.
Well Steve Squyres joined Blue Origin recently so maybe Bezos does have an interest in that.
Which, in terms of corporate strategy, is brilliant. The author of that article in _The_Atlantic_ said he’d had bad experiences with Amazon strong-arming his publishers. Assuming that’s true, look at what they’ve done. They get their way with people who will put up with it. The ones they drive off go to smaller, niche markets which Amazon also owns. If you’ve had good experiences with AbeBooks, that’s great. But in terms of corporate maneuvering, that’s up their with some of Mr. Vanderbilt’s ideas.
It also fits with research that shows most of Amazon’s “store brands” failing.
https://www.bloomberg.com/n…
Most Amazon Brands Are Duds, Not Disrupters, Study Finds
By Spencer Soper
March 18, 2019, 7:11 AM CDT
But then that was true for Sears who once sold homes, automobiles, etc. under its brand about hundred years ago. Just a Amazon built a retail empire on the Internet, Sears built its original empire on USPO Rural Free Delivery and the complete rail network. But then other learn the secrets and its competitive advantage was lost.
I just came across a story about some comments Mr. Bezos made about meetings. As someone who has said PowerPoint is a worthless medium for technical discussions, I thought it was interesting, He described banning meetings based on PowerPoint presentations as “smartest thing we [Amazon] ever did.” Instead, they have meeting where everyone is given a six-page “narratively-structured” memo and half an hour to read it. The rest of the meeting is a open discussion about the subject of the memo. He feels that this is much more effective, and that memos are more useful than PowerPoint because they have “verbs and sentences and topic sentences and complete paragraphs.”
Good thing it’s Star Trek 🙂