This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Artemis

Bezos' Blue Origin Replies To Bezos' Washington Post Editorial On Space

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
February 18, 2020
Filed under ,
Bezos' Blue Origin Replies To Bezos' Washington Post Editorial On Space

Keith’s note: The Washington Post (owned by Jeff Bezos) ran a full page advertisement/op ed by Blue Origin (also owned by Jeff Bezos) in today’s Washington Post written in response to a recent editorial about space policy by the Washington Post editorial board.
NASA keeps falling victim to presidential whims, Washington Post (image of full advertisement)
“Mars (of which the Moon is a part)” is either nonsense or exactly what legislators in the House of Representatives seem to have their eye on today: putting humans on the moon only as a jumping-off point to explore the red planet in person. That’s different from the plan NASA is envisioning, despite the president’s contradictory tweets; the agency looks to Mars in the distant future but treats the moon as an end in itself — where it can establish bases on the far side and mine lunar ice, ostensibly for life support and rocket fuel. There’s a powerful argument that satisfying the human drive to know doesn’t actually require humans. Robots can do lots of exploring for lots less money than it costs to put people on (or float people above) celestial bodies; projects from the Curiosity rover to the Cassini spacecraft and beyond have taught us so. There’s also an argument that the private companies increasingly interested in low-orbit adventuring should be entrusted with as much as they’re able to carry out, to save NASA money and to ensure that exploratory work continues even as the whims of politicians shift. (Disclosure: One of those companies is owned by Amazon chief executive Jeff Bezos, who also owns The Post.) These shifting whims are the greatest threat to a space program constantly afflicted by whiplash. Preferable as a greater emphasis on robotics might be, leaders are unlikely to stop insisting on going places because we can. These long-term goals are most likely to be achieved if they’re guided by thoughtful science and professional planning, rather than the allure of a potential geopolitical coup or the grievances of constituent contractors. The longer the politicians argue back and forth about the moon vs. Mars, the less likely we are to go to either one.”
To which Blue Origin CEO Bob Smith responds:
“Recently, the Washington Post editorial board cited presidential whim as being at the heart of today’s efforts to push for greater United States leadership and focus in space. That view is representative of uniformed critiques that come from many corners and have helped stymie well-intentioned prior efforts to move our nation forward into space. It fails to recognize the massive shifts in the space industry that allow us to maje greater strides and the emerging threats that require us to re-double our efforts. Last year, the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Apollo landing on the Moon reminded us of the great pioneering capabilities and innovation that the U.S. has always demonstrated. But the first steps of Apollo were just that – the first steps in an unprecedented journey that is just beginning. … All the forces – economic, political, technological, cultural – are in place for this transformation and we are now participating in an historic moment. This inevitable expansion will not be stopped by those that waiver and merely critique, but will be forged by those across government and industry who are un apologetic in their vision, and who are unafraid to build and to dream.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

24 responses to “Bezos' Blue Origin Replies To Bezos' Washington Post Editorial On Space”

  1. Donald Barker says:
    0
    0

    The incessant use of the word “explore” in all its variants is the bane of human spaceflight. The word itself carries no connotation of permanence, no inference of sustainability, and therefor should not be used going forward with regards to human spaceflight if anyone wants to see humanity permanently diversify off Earth and become a multi-world species. This vernacular and associated thought process must be a direct result of our goals and vision for human spaceflight. Answering the question of WHY are we going is subtle but holds the true key. Going as explorers, means it will end one day. Going as settlers means we see it as permanent. And therefore we need focus on all activities which will make it so.
    This “inevitable expansion” is not so inevitable given the plethora of variables involved and the inevitable slow adaptation and status quo. Me thinks the flowery intentions and words, which have been put out over the past 50 years, remain just that, cliches and dreams without true substance.

    • DJE51 says:
      0
      0

      I think using the word “explore” is alright. After all, we usually would explore somewhere before we decided to settle there. An old term that is not commonly used anymore is “conquer”, mostly because it has so many unfortunate connotations about what happened to indigenous peoples in the exploration and settlement of the “New World” (North and South America). But usually the terms “explore, conquer, settle” seem to be in chronological order. After all, “conquer the wilderness” is an often used and understood phrase, and doesn’t really mean anything about indigenous peoples, but rather conquering nature. In the modern sense, conquering the wilderness of mars, for instance, would provide a challenge without all the baggage of displacing any indigenous peoples (although possibly micro-organisms!). I think after the initial Starship landings on mars (I am an optimist, yes) then the subsequent advertising to entice settlers to mars may use the word “conquer” in regards to the hostile conditions there. Who knows, such an advertising campaign may even revive the old cult classic movie “Mars Needs Women”, make it into a prophetic movie!

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        Bob Zubrin beat you to the “Mars needs women” joke. He once made a point about why we speak English in the US and most of Canada. New France was mostly about extracting commercial resources from North America. They generally didn’t bring their families and settle down. The British colonies were real settlement. So when push came to shove around 1760, the French were badly outnumbered. That’s an oversimplification, but an interesting one and classic Zubrin. And he ended by saying that’s why Mars needs women.

        • DJE51 says:
          0
          0

          Awe, did he?! Man, just goes to show you I guess we have the same sense of humour. Oh well, will have to think about a better one for my next post!

  2. TheBrett says:
    0
    0

    Bland response on Blue Origin’s part to a mixed op-ed.

    I think if you’re not working towards a long-term presence from the get-go, there’s no point sending people when it’s just so much more expensive than robots (especially in the case of the Moon, where we could put up communication satellites in lunar orbit that would allow us to get the latency way down on telepresence-controlled robots on its surface).

    If you’re going to the Moon, it needs to be part of assembling a lunar research base that will really enable international cooperation/funding and long-term stays. Same for Mars, although the longer-trip duration for a Mars mission means you get more science anyways if humans are there for over a year at a time on the surface.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      No, the reason to go to the Moon is to create the industrial base needed to settle the Solar System. That is the only way it will be self sustaining. Science has the potential to contribute to that goal, but it’s needs to be more than mere science.

  3. RocketScientist327 says:
    0
    0

    JMHO and its Keith’s blog…

    #1 The problem is not JFK, RWR, GHWB, WJC, GWB, BHO, or DJT… it is congress with its power to control the purse strings of the federal government. Big lobbying power from “legacy partners” with NASA who have “experience” can simply buy policy.

    #2 This is the poster child for privatization of human and robotic space exploration and settlement. We must deliberately, purposely, and specifically use the word settlement. All launches lead to settlement.

    #3 (most) elected politicians only care about re-election. They will never push the bounds of space.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Which is why it needs to be a private effort, just like the development of North America was. Politicians are always too busy chasing after the next bright shining thing like the “Green New Deal.”

      • sunman42 says:
        0
        0

        I agree with that up to a point, which is that the “just like the development of North America” was, to a very great extent, not “private.” The Land Ordinance of 1785 (which followed the Northwest Ordinance) made most lots inexpensive to buy for anyone who settled on them in what became Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and part of Minnesota.

        The same concept was then repeatedly applied to land sales throughout the West, with the glaring exception of the Pacific Railroad Act of 1862, which gave (gratis) 6400 acres of land to the companies constructing the transcontinental railroad (which turned out to be the UP and CP) for every mile of track they laid down plus $16K ($48K in mountainous areas, $32K between two ranges) of government bonds for each mile.

        Similar methods were used to fund railroad development across the northern tier of states, and the land was generally sold to immigrants. (They get the job done.)

        So yes, the hard labor was private, but the profit was all provided by the taxpayers. Funny how that works out.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          You miss one little thing, namely how much that free land was worth without a railroad to transport goods to the market. Remember, this was an era when it took months to cross the country in a wagon train, compared to only 4 days by rail.

      • Donald Barker says:
        0
        0

        That is an extreme simplification of a very complicated history that used both private and federal money.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          Yes, but remember that the driving force was from the private sector pushing the government in the right direction. Indeed, consider just how many of the founding fathers were what we would call today entrepreneurs. Ben Franklin for example made his fortune from developing one of the first mail order catalog and magazine businesses with his print shop before “retiring” to go into politics and science.

          • Donald Barker says:
            0
            0

            Many people think they can empathize with and put themselves in the mind set of people living 200 years ago, or whatever, when they cant even really do it for 100 years ago. there are variables, and psychological through processes due to living in the time that we only partially understand and this is one of those cases. Just because you are human does not mean you really understand humans.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            No one is talking about their mindset. The life, and opinions, of Ben Franklin and other national leaders is well documented. All you have to do is read what they wrote and look at their actions.

          • tutiger87 says:
            0
            0

            Their actions. Like slavery and exterminating the natives?

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Ben Franklin fought against slavery although other founders of the nation embraced it. Same with relationships with the First Nations peoples. Some spoke up for them like the fur entrepreneurs that traded with the First Nations, while others saw them as a barrier to expanding the nation.

            Also recall that the slavery debate that started during that era eventually ended slavery, a practice that had been accepted globally by the vast majority of nations since the dawn of time. BTW you do know the first war America fought was against a North African kingdom in modern day Libya that was capturing American ships and selling their crews and passengers into slavery? I trust you also know that the last place slavery was outlawed was in Mauritania, a North African nation in the early 1980’s?

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I think it’s a little unfair to expect people to change the world in a day, or even to expect them to suddenly realize _all_ of the really horrible things about the society they were raised in. I’m willing to both credit someone like Jefferson or Madison with things like creating a functional democracy, etc. and also condemning their acceptance of slavery. (Although Jefferson’s treatment of a certain woman and their children does strike me as something worse than condemnable.) If someone removed 10% of the problems of his time but didn’t care about the other 90%, should we give him credit for the 10% or vilify him for the 90%?

    • sunman42 says:
      0
      0

      No, half the problem. Congress is where unrestricted PAC funds can be channeled so taxpayers’ money can be redirected to the large enterprise(s) of choice. The other half is, in fact, Presidential, because, despite the fine wording of the Space Act, the purpose of NASA is whatever the Executive and Legislative branches can agree on. Not exploration, not science, not technology development, unless they align with those joint political wills.

    • Dewey Vanderhoff says:
      0
      0

      you left out LBJ

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        Which might make sense. There wasn’t really a change in the President’s orders to NASA between Kennedy and Johnson. Although, by that logic, Bush (sr.) should also be left out. His lunar initiative was more of an extension of Reagan’s directions to NASA rather than a change in direction. I’m not sure what to say about Nixon. The descoping and cuts to Apollo had already started before he took office, and it was pretty clear the Apollo Applications Program was going to be Skylab and not much else. I’m not sure if Mr. Nixon’s decisions were a change, or simply making the reality of the situation official.

  4. fcrary says:
    0
    0

    I guess it’s nice to know that Mr. Bezos’ companies don’t collude together, or from the sound of it, even talk to each other. Unless someone decided an invented argument or controversy is a good way of getting attention… Honestly, the editorial and the reply aren’t really in disagreement. Instead of starting off by saying the whole idea of “presidential whim” being a problem is wrong, Blue Origin could have simply pointed out that this is true for NASA, but NASA isn’t the same thing as the American space program anymore. That would have flowed better into the rest of the reply and communicated the same thing.

  5. richard_schumacher says:
    0
    0

    Bob Smith’s reply mis-spelled “waver”.
    He should get back to us when BO puts something into orbit.

  6. Sam S says:
    0
    0

    Is it just me, or did Blue Origin’s “response” not actually address the main point of the editorial at all?

    Editorial: Policy changes every time a new President is elected are paralyzing America’s manned space program.

    Response: The current President’s policy is really cool, USA #1 in space, shoutout to a decades-ended manned program (Apollo) and a bunch of unmanned space programs, NASA is getting a budget boost.

  7. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    Yes, and what is sad is that much of the technology that would be needed for space settlements (water recycling, waste recycling, high density closed agriculture) will generate technology that has the potential to greatly reduce our impact on the Earth’s environment.