4 ms·

The risk/reward doesn't seem to make sense for Bezos. If Shatner dies, it'll be the end of their program. If he lives, maybe a marginal benefit? The man is 90,

The risk/reward doesn't seem to make sense for Bezos. If Shatner dies, it'll be the end of their program. If he lives, maybe a marginal benefit? The man is 90, and his health is not stellar. He legit could die of anything.

mataug 5y ago
> The risk/reward doesn't seem to make sense for Bezos. If Shatner dies, it'll be the end of their program. If he lives, maybe a marginal benefit? The man is 90, and his health is not stellar. He legit could die of anything. The whole space tourism idea has the same issue, if a rich billionaire, regardless of health condition, dies then Blue origin would have the same problem. This seems on the surface to be a PR stunt to boost Bezos massive ego.
AdamHominem 5y ago
Neither Virgin nor Blue Origin actually go into orbit or even "space", and both have a trash safety culture and a not-much-better record: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/30/science/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-safety.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/30/science/jeff-bezos-blue-o... https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-red-warning-light-on-richard-bransons-space-flight https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-red-warning-lig... This is obviously a PR stunt, but the point of the stunt it to get people to think Blue Origin = "space"
- DerekL 5y ago
  No, Blue Origin really does go into space. But it's good to point out the huge difference between going to space and staying there.
Barrin92 5y ago
tbf given that it's Shatner you could morbidly enough spin it as a "Captain Kirk at last goes home, cultural sci-fi icon dies in space" thing, I have no doubt they would be rolling with that angle
Maursault 5y ago
The risk vs. reward doesn't quite make sense for very nearly all ambitions of manned space exploration. But this isn't space exploration, it is civilians in space, which always was and always will be a dumb idea. Though 7 died in the Challenger disaster, 6 were astronauts, and 4 of those were military. They, and the 7 astronauts lost in the Columbia disaster, knew and understood the risks of space flight. Christa McAuliffe was neither an astronaut nor had a military career. Of all the mistakes NASA has made, the worst of them was killing a school teacher. Blue Origin and SpaceX have some astoundingly bad ideas specifically regarding civilians in space. There may be a compelling demand for it, but that doesn't make it moral or rational. I rate putting civilians in space on par with selling cocaine, except cocaine, as dangerous as it is, is not nearly as dangerous as space flight.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- sokoloff 5y ago
  The school teacher was among 11K applicants to the program. I don’t find it immoral to allow non-military to put themselves voluntarily at risk.
  - Maursault 5y ago
    The ethics here rests on two essential imperatives: the free and informed consent of the volunteer and the evaluation of risk verses benefit to the volunteer and to the country. NASA astronauts train for 18-24 months before their first space mission. McAuliffe's selection was announced in July 1985 for the shuttle mission in late January 1986, giving her about 6 months of training, again, with no former military or aviation experience. She gave free consent, but arguably, with her lack of experience and training, her consent could not be informed of the massive risk. I'm not all that clear on what possible benefit to her person jump-seating a Space Shuttle mission could be to her, and less clear on what possible benefit there could be to the nation, and not merely the politics of President Reagan. Contrary to your findings, there really is no latitude here in the question of the morality of the Teacher in Space program, nor any initiative to send lay volunteers into space, because it is not possible for informed consent to be given by a lay volunteer, and there is no clear benefit to society risking amateurs for a joy ride. The morality issues only deepen if the volunteers become paying customers.
ikerdanzel 5y ago
Good news is better than bad news. But bad news is still way better than no news. This is basically a Tesla into space type of stunt. Bezos knows people will remember Blue Origins because a Star Trek captain was on it. Either dying or not, it is still very memorable. Blue Origins will be immortalized. As for Shatner, I am not surprise if he secretly wished to die on the trip. Many many people I know of have their bucketlist that is something like that....to die somewhere uncommon and go out of life spectacularly. If you reach 90s, you likely have lots of life regrets...why not go out with a bang eclipsing all regrets.
usrusr 5y ago
The reward is that when the richest person on earth is running out of exciting new things to buy, "going into space(ish) with William Shatner" scores rather high. Wouldn't be surprised to see Bezos join that second trip.

mataug 5y ago

> The risk/reward doesn't seem to make sense for Bezos. If Shatner dies, it'll be the end of their program. If he lives, maybe a marginal benefit? The man is 90, and his health is not stellar. He legit could die of anything. The whole space tourism idea has the same issue, if a rich billionaire, regardless of health condition, dies then Blue origin would have the same problem. This seems on the surface to be a PR stunt to boost Bezos massive ego.

AdamHominem 5y ago

Neither Virgin nor Blue Origin actually go into orbit or even "space", and both have a trash safety culture and a not-much-better record: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/30/science/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-safety.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/30/science/jeff-bezos-blue-o... https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-red-warning-light-on-richard-bransons-space-flight https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-red-warning-lig... This is obviously a PR stunt, but the point of the stunt it to get people to think Blue Origin = "space"

DerekL 5y ago
No, Blue Origin really does go into space. But it's good to point out the huge difference between going to space and staying there.

Barrin92 5y ago

tbf given that it's Shatner you could morbidly enough spin it as a "Captain Kirk at last goes home, cultural sci-fi icon dies in space" thing, I have no doubt they would be rolling with that angle

Maursault 5y ago

The risk vs. reward doesn't quite make sense for very nearly all ambitions of manned space exploration. But this isn't space exploration, it is civilians in space, which always was and always will be a dumb idea. Though 7 died in the Challenger disaster, 6 were astronauts, and 4 of those were military. They, and the 7 astronauts lost in the Columbia disaster, knew and understood the risks of space flight. Christa McAuliffe was neither an astronaut nor had a military career. Of all the mistakes NASA has made, the worst of them was killing a school teacher. Blue Origin and SpaceX have some astoundingly bad ideas specifically regarding civilians in space. There may be a compelling demand for it, but that doesn't make it moral or rational. I rate putting civilians in space on par with selling cocaine, except cocaine, as dangerous as it is, is not nearly as dangerous as space flight.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sokoloff 5y ago
The school teacher was among 11K applicants to the program. I don’t find it immoral to allow non-military to put themselves voluntarily at risk.
- Maursault 5y ago
  The ethics here rests on two essential imperatives: the free and informed consent of the volunteer and the evaluation of risk verses benefit to the volunteer and to the country. NASA astronauts train for 18-24 months before their first space mission. McAuliffe's selection was announced in July 1985 for the shuttle mission in late January 1986, giving her about 6 months of training, again, with no former military or aviation experience. She gave free consent, but arguably, with her lack of experience and training, her consent could not be informed of the massive risk. I'm not all that clear on what possible benefit to her person jump-seating a Space Shuttle mission could be to her, and less clear on what possible benefit there could be to the nation, and not merely the politics of President Reagan. Contrary to your findings, there really is no latitude here in the question of the morality of the Teacher in Space program, nor any initiative to send lay volunteers into space, because it is not possible for informed consent to be given by a lay volunteer, and there is no clear benefit to society risking amateurs for a joy ride. The morality issues only deepen if the volunteers become paying customers.

ikerdanzel 5y ago

Good news is better than bad news. But bad news is still way better than no news. This is basically a Tesla into space type of stunt. Bezos knows people will remember Blue Origins because a Star Trek captain was on it. Either dying or not, it is still very memorable. Blue Origins will be immortalized. As for Shatner, I am not surprise if he secretly wished to die on the trip. Many many people I know of have their bucketlist that is something like that....to die somewhere uncommon and go out of life spectacularly. If you reach 90s, you likely have lots of life regrets...why not go out with a bang eclipsing all regrets.

usrusr 5y ago

The reward is that when the richest person on earth is running out of exciting new things to buy, "going into space(ish) with William Shatner" scores rather high. Wouldn't be surprised to see Bezos join that second trip.