Twenty-one current and former employees of Jeff Bezos’ space company Blue Origin published a damning essay on Thursday saying the company “turns a blind eye to sexism, is not sufficiently attuned to safety concerns, and silences those who seek to correct wrongs.”
Co-authored by Blue Origin’s former head of employee communications Alexandra Abrams, the essay describes multiple accounts of sexist and dismissive behavior from some of the company’s “one-hundred percent” male senior technical and program leaders and says “professional dissent at Blue Origin is actively stifled.”
The employees accuse the company’s CEO, Bob Smith, of brushing off dissent by discouraging staff from raising questions during internal town halls, asking a colleague to track “troublemakers or agitators,” and forcing out employees for speaking out about safety issues related to Blue Origin’s New Shepard tourism rocket. “Smith’s inner circle of loyalists makes unilateral decisions, often without the buy-in of engineers, other experts, or senior leaders across various departments,” the employees say.
In an interview with CBS this morning, Abrams, speaking out for the first time, said she was fired by Blue Origin in 2019, quoting her manager as saying, “Bob and I can’t trust you anymore,” referring to the CEO. “You cannot create a culture of safety and a culture of fear at the same time,” Abrams said in the interview. “I’ve gotten far enough away from it that I’m not afraid enough to let them silence me anymore.”
In a statement to The Verge, a Blue Origin spokesperson said, “Blue Origin has no tolerance for discrimination or harassment of any kind. We provide numerous avenues for employees, including a 24/7 anonymous hotline, and will promptly investigate any new claims of misconduct.”
The spokesperson also said Abrams was fired “after repeated warnings for issues involving federal export control regulations,” a claim Abrams denied to CBS News.
The essay, published on Lioness, a platform for whistleblowers, indicated Blue Origin sometimes overlooked safety issues to favor speed amid heated competition with other billionaire-backed companies like Elon Musk’s SpaceX or Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic. “Competing with other billionaires — and ‘making progress for Jeff’ — seemed to take precedence over safety concerns that would have slowed down the schedule,” the employees said.
A spokesperson for the Federal Aviation Administration, which manages launch safety and oversees flights of Blue Origin’s New Shepard rocket, said, “the FAA takes every safety allegation seriously, and the agency is reviewing the information.”
In the essay, the employees also recounted sexism from colleagues, including a former, unnamed executive who would call female employees “baby girl,” “baby doll,” or “sweetheart” and ask about their dating lives. “It appeared to many of us that he was protected by his close personal relationship with Bezos — it took him physically groping a female subordinate for him to finally be let go,” they said. Another passage included:
Additionally, a former NASA astronaut and Blue Origin senior leader once instructed a group of women with whom he was collaborating: “You should ask my opinion because I am a man.” We found many company leaders to be unapproachable and showing clear bias against women. Concerns related to flying New Shepard were consistently shut down, and women were demeaned for raising them. When one man was let go for poor performance, he was allowed to leave with dignity, even a going-away party. Yet when a woman leader who had significantly improved her department’s performance was let go, she was ordered to leave immediately, with security hovering until she exited the building five minutes later.
On top of the safety and sexism claims, the letter attacks Bezos and Blue Origin’s record on environmental issues. The employees say while Bezos touts his climate initiatives, Blue Origin has no plans to be carbon neutral or reduce its environmental footprint and that some machinery ordered by the company was done so without considering its waste levels or whether it’d need permits to manage the waste.
The employees also described harsh and demanding conditions that have “taken a toll on the mental health of many of the people who make Blue Origin’s operations possible.” The essay cites internal memos, including one that cast SpaceX as a model, “in that ‘burnout was part of their labor strategy.’”
On Friday, CNBC obtained a letter from Blue Origin CEO Bob Smith to his employees addressing the allegations. Smith said in the letter that the company would “reflect on what we can learn and improve” and that it has “no tolerance for discrimination or harassment of any kind.”
He also said, “the New Shepard team went through a methodical and pain-staking process to certify our vehicle for First Human Flight. Anyone that claims otherwise is uninformed and simply incorrect.”
Blue Origin has struggled with internal strife in the past.
In 2020, The Verge reported that Blue Origin employees were outraged by the pressure they faced from senior leadership to continue in-person work and travel for a New Shepard test launch during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, when much of the country was locking down to curb the virus’s spread. Responding to employee concerns in one meeting, Jeff Ashby, the company’s senior mission assurance director and a former NASA astronaut, said: “I would say that you should ask yourself, as an individual, are you acting as a toxin in the organization, fanning discontent, or are you really trying to help our senior leaders make better decisions?”
Update September 30th, 2:35PM ET: Added additional information from the essay and a statement from the FAA.
Update October 1st, 11:27AM ET: Updated with information from Smith’s letter to Blue Origin employees.
]]>Virgin Galactic is cleared to resume flights of its SpaceShipTwo space plane, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said Wednesday, after capping a safety investigation into issues that came up during the company’s July flight carrying its founder Richard Branson. During that mission, SpaceShipTwo strayed from its designated airspace on its descent from space, and Virgin Galactic didn’t tell the FAA about it when it was supposed to.
With the investigation now closed, the FAA required Virgin Galactic to make changes “on how it communicates to the FAA during flight operations to keep the public safe,” it said in a statement. Virgin Galactic said that includes “updated calculations to expand the protected airspace for future flights” and “additional steps into the Company’s flight procedures to ensure real-time mission notifications to FAA Air Traffic Control.” Another change: “Updated calculations to expand the protected airspace for future flights,” the company said.
“We appreciate the FAA’s thorough review of this inquiry,” Virgin Galactic’s CEO said.
The July 11th mission, called Unity 22, carried Branson and three company employees to the edge of space and back over Virgin Galactic’s Spaceport America facilities in New Mexico. The company’s SpaceShipTwo, a winged suborbital space tourism plane with two pilots, flew 53.5 miles high, executing a highly publicized demonstration mission. The company has a backlog of some 600 paying customers waiting for their chance to fly.
The mission appeared successful until months later, on September 1st, when The New Yorker reported that pilots had been alerted to warning lights during their rocket-powered ascent to space. Those warnings indicated the spaceship wasn’t ascending vertically enough to be able to free-glide back to Earth after reaching space.
“We appreciate the FAA’s thorough review of this inquiry. Our test flight program is specifically designed to continually improve our processes and procedures,” Virgin Galactic CEO Michael Colglazier said in a statement, adding that “our entire approach to spaceflight” is focused on safety. “The updates to our airspace and real-time mission notification protocols will strengthen our preparations as we move closer to the commercial launch of our spaceflight experience.”
The company’s next flight, Unity 23, is a research mission flying three members of the Italian Air Force. Virgin Galactic has said the FAA probe hasn’t affected the timeline for Unity 23, but another technical issue might push things back. Earlier this month, the company said “a third-party supplier recently flagged a potential manufacturing defect in a component of the flight control actuation system that they supply to Virgin Galactic,” and that “the earliest the Company expects to open its flight window for Unity 23 is mid-October.”
]]>Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin “gambled” with its Moon lander proposal last year by hoping NASA would be willing to negotiate its $5.9 billion price tag, agency attorneys argued in blunt legal filings obtained by The Verge. NASA, cash-strapped with a tight budget from Congress, declined to negotiate and turned down Blue Origin’s lunar lander in April and picked SpaceX’s instead, sparking ongoing protests from Bezos’ space company.
NASA officials haven’t talked much about Blue Origin’s legal quarrels beyond occasional acknowledgements that the company’s protesting — first at a watchdog agency and now in federal court — is holding up the agency’s effort to land humans on the Moon by 2024. But in hundreds of pages of legal filings The Verge obtained in a Freedom of Information Act request, agency attorneys exhaustively laid out NASA’s defense of its Artemis Moon program and doubled down on its decision to pick one company, SpaceX, for the first crewed mission to the lunar surface since 1972.
In NASA’s main response to Blue Origin’s protest, filed in late May, senior agency attorneys accused the company of employing a sort of door-in-the-face bidding tactic with its $5.9 billion proposal for Blue Moon, the lunar lander Blue Origin is building with a “National Team” that includes Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. Blue Origin was “able and willing” to offer NASA a lower price for its lunar lander but chose not to because it expected NASA to ask and negotiate for a lower price first, the attorneys allege, citing a six-page declaration written by the company’s senior vice president Brent Sherwood in April.
“a well-funded private space company backed by Jeff Bezos”
In the declaration, Sherwood complains that NASA “did not afford Blue Origin, a well-funded private space company backed by Jeff Bezos, any opportunity to submit a revised business position” when NASA found out it wouldn’t have enough money from Congress to fund two lander proposals. He said Blue Origin had already committed “almost one billion dollars” of corporate contributions and private investments to the Moon lander bid, and “had the financial potential to increase” that.
Backed by the world’s richest man, Blue Origin indicated in its protest that the $5.9 billion price — nearly double SpaceX’s proposal — was partially based on an assumption that NASA would have more than enough money from Congress to pay for the proposal, even as Congress had been indicating a month before Blue Origin submitted its proposal last December that it wouldn’t give NASA all the funding it said it needed. In NASA’s response, the attorneys said companies were instructed to submit their best proposal first. They pointed to seven instances where NASA told bidders its award decision, and whether to pick one or two companies was based on how much funding it’d end up getting from Congress.
But Blue Origin argued that NASA should’ve canceled or changed the terms of the program when Congress voted to give the agency only a quarter of what it requested. Blue Origin has also argued that it was unfair of NASA to only invite SpaceX to tweak parts of its proposal after selecting it for a potential award, one of many claims that NASA attacked over hundreds of pages of legal rebuttals.
Overall, NASA effectively called BS on that argument, saying “Blue Origin made a bet and it lost.”
“Blue Origin made a bet and it lost.”
Blue Origin “made an assumption about the Agency’s HLS budget, built its proposal with this figure in mind, and also separately made a calculated bet that if NASA could not afford Blue Origin’s initially-proposed price, the Agency would select Blue Origin for award and engage in post-selection negotiations to allow Blue Origin to lower its price. All of these assumptions were incorrect,” the four NASA attorneys wrote in the so-called Agency Report, dated May 26th. “Realizing now that it gambled and lost, Blue Origin seeks to use GAO’s procurement oversight function to improperly compel NASA to suffer the consequences of Blue Origin’s ill-conceived choices.”
The company disagrees with NASA’s assessment. “I wouldn’t say that we didn’t offer our best offer when we put in our proposal … I think we did give a great offer,” Megan Mitchell, Blue Origin’s vice president of government relations, told The Verge in an interview. “I’m not going to comment on NASA characterizing it as gambling — we disagree with that.”
The lunar lander program is the centerpiece of NASA’s efforts to get humans on the Moon under a speedy 2024 timeline, set two years ago by the Trump administration. SpaceX, the sole awardee of the Moonshot phase of the program, will carry out two core missions: a demonstration mission to the Moon’s surface without any astronauts and a subsequent mission with astronauts. Blue Origin’s National Team and defense contractor Dynetics were the two bidders with lunar lander proposals that lost to SpaceX.
“This time, the bet simply did not work out in Blue Origin’s favor.”
Blue Origin executives may have thought that the negotiation tactic would work because it had in the past. In April 2020, a year before SpaceX’s $2.9 billion award was made, all three bidders were awarded some NASA development funding in an initial phase of the program intended to help the companies build up their respective lunar landers. SpaceX got $135 million, Dynetics got $253 million, and Blue Origin’s National Team got $579 million.
Blue Origin had initially proposed roughly $879 million for those development contracts when proposals for the award were due in November 2019, NASA filings indicate. Blue Origin offered a roughly $300 million discount and dropped the price by about 35 percent, to $579 million, after NASA requested meetings to negotiate. The agency attorneys said the outcome of these discussions, where Blue Origin ended up winning the biggest chunk of funding, inspired Blue Origin’s “gamble” with the subsequent competition, where it pitched its Blue Moon lander for $5.9 billion. “But NASA had no obligation to make this request” for a negotiation that time around, they wrote.
“This time, the bet simply did not work out in Blue Origin’s favor.”
Sherwood’s declaration from April was one of several attempts to show that NASA was prejudiced in favor of SpaceX and acted unfairly against Blue Origin. But NASA said “a vague commitment to a sizeable, non-specific discount is not enough to demonstrate prejudice.” Months later, and just four days before the Government Accountability Office (GAO) ruled on Blue Origin’s protest, Bezos himself stepped in and got specific in an unusual open letter to NASA administrator Bill Nelson. Bezos said he would give the agency a $2 billion discount on Blue Origin’s proposal.
But it wasn’t enough to change minds at NASA. The GAO ultimately sided with the agency, saying that showing examples of prejudice “is an essential element of any viable protest,” and that Blue Origin failed to do so. As for Blue Origin’s argument that NASA’s discussions with SpaceX were unfair, since Blue Origin didn’t get the same chance to talk, the GAO brushed it off, saying agency officials have “broad discretion” to meet when and with whom they please under the type of contracting rules involved. “An agency’s decision not to initiate discussions is a matter we generally will not review,” GAO attorney Thomas Armstrong said in a ruling.
A tiny win at the GAO, and a springboard to federal court
Blue Origin’s protest, though, wasn’t a complete failure. It alleged that one of the ways NASA gave SpaceX an unfair advantage was when the agency, for SpaceX only, “waived” its requirement to schedule government safety reviews before each launch of its Starship vehicle in its proposal. These safety reviews, called Flight Readiness Reviews, should come 14 days before each rocket launch within the company’s plan to get to the Moon, per the rules of the competition. Blue Origin’s proposal had indicated it could send Blue Moon to the lunar surface in as much as three commercial rocket launches with a safety review for each launch.
SpaceX’s proposal involved 16 launches, with just one official safety review. The 16 launches include one launch of an orbital fuel station, 14 launches of “fuel tankers” to fill up the fuel station in orbit, and one launch of the Moon-bound Starship that will fill up at the fuel station to travel the rest of the way to the lunar surface (launching off Earth uses up a lot of fuel, so Starship will need a top-off before it carries on to the Moon). SpaceX said each of the roughly 14 fuel tankers would launch 12 days apart, a cadence that NASA officials said was “logically inconsistent” with its requirement to have a safety review 14 days before each launch. So when NASA invited SpaceX to negotiate the terms of its proposal, they agreed to have three reviews in all, one for each type of rocket launch — one for the orbital depot, one for all the tankers, and one for the Moon-bound Starship.
But that’s where NASA messed up, Blue Origin claims. And for once, the GAO’s Armstrong partially agreed. NASA attorneys said the agency’s rules were broad enough to allow flexibility with the reviews, but Armstrong sided with Blue Origin’s interpretation that a single review had to come before each launch. Still, Armstrong denied Blue Origin’s overall argument because the company didn’t explain how NASA’s alleged screwup gave SpaceX an unfair advantage.
To Blue Origin attorneys, the GAO ruling was valuable feedback for a new legal challenge, this time in the US Court of Federal Claims — the last venue capable of hearing contract grievances.
Blue Origin sued NASA in court weeks after the GAO rejected its protest. In its complaint, which was shrouded under seal until last week, the company centers its new fight on the main area it fell short on during the GAO dispute: proving NASA was prejudiced against Blue Origin and gave SpaceX an unfair advantage. The debates over SpaceX’s Flight Readiness Reviews, where the GAO signaled its support for Blue Origin, is the basis for its unfair advantage argument.
“That is not what SpaceX proposed, it is not in the final architecture, and that’s the problem,” Blue Origin’s Mitchell said of the revised safety reviews. “For Blue Origin, and I think more broadly for our entire industry, this is a serious safety issue.”
“These claims from a losing bidder are patently inaccurate”
Pushing back on Blue Origin’s arguments in a white paper sent to lawmakers earlier this month, a copy of which was obtained by The Verge, SpaceX said it plans to conduct safety reviews prior to every Starship launch, as it has in the past “for every single operational launch and test flight,” and that Blue Origin is conflating mere contract payment dates with actual safety reviews. It dismissed Blue Origin as a sore loser: “These claims from a losing bidder are patently inaccurate.” And SpaceX CEO Elon Musk tweeted last week: “We always do flight readiness reviews! This argument makes no sense.”
Blue Origin argues in its 59-page complaint that, had the company known NASA was going to be flexible on the safety review requirements, it would’ve “engineered and proposed an entirely different architecture” for a lower price that would’ve given it a “substantial chance for award.” Specifically how NASA’s flexible safety review requirements would allow Blue Origin to change its proposal of just three review-worthy launches is unclear. The company attempted to explain how in a small paragraph in its complaint, but it was mostly redacted.
NASA made little to no mention of Blue Origin’s safety review argument in its main response to the GAO protest, and it’s unclear what the agency is saying in court, because much of it is under seal. But when it invited SpaceX to revise its proposals in April, NASA said it believed three safety reviews for each type of rocket launch “meets the intent of” the review requirements outlined in NASA’s competition rules. In other words, NASA figured its modified safety review arrangement is good enough, considering how novel and unexpected SpaceX’s approach of launching several Starships in such a rapid cadence is. And in another recently unsealed filing, SpaceX says its unconventional Starship approach is the result of NASA encouraging companies to have the “liberty to propose a different architecture.”
Now, NASA wants all the litigation to stop as soon as possible so the gears of its lunar lander program can start turning. The agency agreed last month to pause SpaceX’s contract while the lawsuit carries on only if Blue Origin agreed to a quicker litigation schedule that wraps up November 1st. Blue Origin, NASA, and SpaceX are currently duking it out before the court, most recently arguing over Blue Origin’s request to add more documents and internal NASA emails into the court’s record for review. The company also wants the judge to approve the release of a less-redacted version of its complaint, but NASA and SpaceX are pushing back.
If the court ultimately agrees with Blue Origin and finds NASA messed up, the agency would likely have to cancel SpaceX’s contract, as Blue Origin requests, and reopen the competition to allow the companies to submit new proposals — a significant setback for the agency’s Moon program. If Blue Origin loses, the monthslong hold on SpaceX’s contract would disappear, allowing work with NASA on Starship to begin, and Blue Origin would be invited to pitch its lander for a future Moon lander competition. But the delay itself already poses risks for NASA. In one of its filings to the GAO, NASA attorneys laid out their fears:
“What begins as a mere procurement delay all too easily turns into a lack of political support, a budget siphoned off for other efforts, and ultimately, a shelved mission.”
Read the lightly redacted version of NASA’s “Agency Report” to the GAO, filed in May in response to Blue Origin’s protest.
]]>The body of NASA tasked with managing human spaceflight is being split into two distinct directorates, the agency’s chief announced on Tuesday, embarking on a major reorganization that past officials have tried and failed to execute for years. The move comes as private companies like SpaceX demonstrate leaner methods of putting people in space and as NASA pushes ahead with ambitious plans to build settlements on the surface of the Moon in the next decade.
The breakup of NASA’s human exploration wing, called Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, will spawn two new bodies: first, the Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate, which will manage NASA’s most ambitious development programs like the Artemis program that are still in formative and testing phases. The second will be the Space Operations Mission Directorate, which will handle more routine, operational programs like the International Space Station and the Commercial Crew Program. Agency officials say categorizing programs based on levels of development rather than areas of expertise will help refine NASA’s focus.
“Two heads are better than one.”
The organizational shakeup was a “strong” recommendation from President Biden’s transition team, Nelson told reporters during a press conference on the changes. One major advantage of the change involves NASA’s budgeting process, which is often fraught with complexity and frequently faces pushback from members of Congress who complain NASA doesn’t provide enough clarity on its exploration plans. With the broad human exploration program now split in two, complex and sometimes ambiguous programs won’t be as intermixed with NASA’s more routine programs. And the two bodies will have separate leaders rather than a single official whose workload has seen steep growth in recent years.
“Two heads are better than one,” Kathy Lueders, the current head of NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, said during a town hall in Washington, DC, with the agency’s workforce on Tuesday. Lueders, who previously led NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, will move from her post as human spaceflight chief to helm the Space Operations Mission Directorate. Jim Free, a former deputy associate administrator who held senior roles in NASA’s Orion capsule program, will lead the Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate.
But not everyone in the space industry will be happy with the change. Lueders, seen by many as a champion for commercial space because of her experience leading the Commercial Crew Program during its formative years, won’t be as involved in the agency’s biggest development programs like Artemis anymore. Critics of the reorganization are also likely to see it as more red tape and a new burden of coordination between the two offices that will have to stay in touch on related space programs.
“as easy of a decision as falling off a log”
“We’re actually not adding a whole new layer of people,” NASA deputy administrator Pam Melroy told reporters after the town hall, addressing critiques of the move. “There are very few additional positions that will be required… the challenges that we have in coordinating across organizations is exactly the same as it is today.”
“Both of these people are extremely qualified,” Nelson told reporters. “It was obvious, it was common sense, that Kathy’s success should continue in the space operations mission directorate.” Employing a southern colloquialism, he added his decision to pick Lueders and Free for the roles “was as easy of a decision as falling off a log.”
Studies conducted by NASA’s senior leadership under the Trump administration, when Nelson’s predecessor Jim Bridenstine was leading NASA, recommended a similar idea: NASA should spin-off elements related to its ambitious Artemis program into a separate directorate with its own leadership, giving it the focus and resources it’d need to execute an ambitious timeline of putting astronauts on the Moon by 2024. That advice was shelved at the time, current and former officials say, partially because it subtracted resources from other directorates, which frustrated members of Congress.
But now, growing activity in the commercial space arena and the increasing cadence of human space travel, as SpaceX’s recent all-civilian mission to orbit last week showed, warrant changes to how NASA has managed its biggest human spaceflight programs for nearly a decade, NASA’s senior leadership say.
“How are we going to manage this huge change in scope?”
“The last decade has seen extraordinary change and growth,” Melroy said at the town hall. “The impact that NASA has had on commercial space has created new capabilities that we didn’t even know we could rely on.” Citing future development plans with NASA’s long-delayed and over-budget Space Launch System, which is poised to launch for the first time later this year or early next year, Melroy added: “This is exactly the time for us to take a deep breath and say, ‘Wow, we have a chain of development programs, no longer just one monolithic program. How are we going to manage this huge change in scope?’”
NASA’s Artemis program includes a wide range of technologies that fall under the now-decentralized human exploration directorate. SpaceX is developing its Starship system to send NASA’s first astronauts to the surface of the Moon by 2024 (that will probably get delayed). A new space station called Gateway that will orbit the Moon is in the works by a team of international partners. Lockheed Martin is building NASA’s Orion crew capsule to help astronauts get to the Moon. NASA’s Space Launch System, a behemoth rocket largely managed by Boeing, has been under construction for more than a decade to launch the Orion capsule to Gateway, where SpaceX’s Starship will pick up astronauts and land on the lunar surface. Artemis is a multibillion-dollar fandango, and until today, all of it sat next to other routine programs like the ISS, a $100 billion orbital research post that has housed rotating crews of international astronauts for over 20 years.
“This approach allows one mission directorate to operate in space, while the other builds space systems,” Melroy said.
]]>Astra, the small launch company that recently went public, has signed a roughly $30 million deal for the rights to manufacture Firefly Aerospace’s Reaver rocket engines in-house, according to a document seen by The Verge and people familiar with the arrangement. The agreement is part of a growing trend of consolidation in an industry of small rockets, where companies are cutting new deals to stay competitive as private capital abounds, more players take the field, and demand for small launch services shifts.
Under the deal, which closed earlier this year, Firefly will send up to 50 of its Reaver rocket engines to Astra’s rocket factory in Alameda, California, where a development engine was already delivered in late spring for roughly half a million dollars, according to an internal Firefly document viewed by The Verge and a person briefed on the agreement. Astra engineers have been picking apart the engine for detailed inspection, said a person familiar with the terms, who, like others involved in the deal, declined to speak on the record because of a strict non-disclosure agreement.
Astra’s vice president of communications Kati Dahm declined to discuss the agreement when asked by The Verge for comment on specific details, but disputed as incorrect the number of engines that the deal covers, as well as the cost of roughly a half million dollars for the initial development engine that’s sitting in Astra’s factory. Dahm declined to provide any additional information to back up those disputes.
Fusing Firefly’s engines with Astra’s own rocket technology would help Astra reach its publicly stated “500kg to 500km” goal, or the capability to send 1,102 pounds of satellites into the most popular orbital altitude for mega-constellations. The company’s current rocket — simply called Rocket, nothing else — has been test-launched through various iterations, and after three main attempts, has yet to reach orbit. The latest rocket iterations use five of the company’s own Delphin engines, which are designed to lift up to 331 pounds to low-Earth orbit.
In the early throes of starting a rocket company — but moving faster than usual
Astra is one of a handful of new launch startups that has been drudging through the trials of starting a launch business. Roughly five years after its founding in 2016, the company reached space — but not orbit — during its second launch last year, a feat that came quicker than most rocket startups typically achieve. Its third and most recent attempt in August from its pad in Kodiak, Alaska failed after one of its five core engines shut down nearly a second after liftoff, Astra co-founder and CEO Chris Kemp told reporters at the time.
Firefly, too, has struggled to reach orbit using its centerpiece Alpha rocket, which is powered by four Reaver engines. This month, the company’s first orbital launch attempt failed when one of Alpha’s engines shutdown after a fuel valve spontaneously closed, cutting off the rocket’s ability to steer itself vertically. It started tumbling and turning sideways mid-flight before Space Force officials, who help manage launch safety, stepped in and detonated it. Alpha, as designed, can carry much more to orbit than Astra’s current rocket — some 2,204 pounds of satellites to low-Earth orbit.
Astra is limited to two Reaver engines per rocket
The IP agreement includes a clause that aims to ensure Astra’s rocket doesn’t directly compete with Firefly’s Alpha. Astra, people involved in the deal said, is limited to using no more than two Reaver engines per rocket — just good enough to achieve the “500kg to 500km” goal. Kemp, Astra’s CEO, declined to comment on the specifics of the deal but emphasized Astra isn’t outright buying engines from Firefly. Doing so would be a major reversal for Astra’s brand of vertical integration, or the arrangement in which a company largely owns most of its supply chain to keep costs low and minimize production risks. Rather, according to the people briefed on the deal, Astra is buying the engine’s IP to manufacture them in-house and avoid being dependent on a supplier for its engines, which engineers regard as a rocket’s most important piece of hardware.
“I can’t comment on any supplier agreements that we have, but I can tell you that we have said that all IP required to produce all of our technology will be owned by Astra, licensed by Astra, or developed by Astra,” Kemp told The Verge.
A spokesperson for Firefly declined to comment.
Firefly’s move to sell engine IP to Astra, a rival, is part of a broader strategy to diversify its rocket business, and an increasingly common tactic in the industry. In August, Firefly announced a “new line of business dedicated to supplying rocket engines and other spaceflight components to the emerging New Space industry.” Without naming Astra, Firefly CEO Tom Markusic told SpaceNews last month that Firefly has a contract to deliver about 50 rocket engines to a company developing its own launch vehicle. The Firefly document reviewed by The Verge says the same, and adds that sharing IP is part of the deal. Multiple sources involved in and familiar with the agreement told The Verge that Astra is the undisclosed customer.
“We would not want to be in a position where if they don’t supply us an engine, we can’t launch a rocket”
Swapping out Astra’s Delphin engines for Firefly’s Reaver engines isn’t as easy as it might sound. The existence of the deal between the two companies suggests Astra is planning a redesigned launch vehicle, which analysts say would have been necessary anyway to achieve its goal of sending 500kg to low-Earth orbit. But it’s unclear what rocket Astra is planning around the Reaver engines or when it would be ready to launch.
Firefly offered to sell Astra its Reaver engines directly earlier this year, people familiar with the talks said, but Astra, focused on bringing in new technology whose production lines it can control itself, didn’t want that kind of arrangement. “We would not want to be in a position where if they don’t supply us an engine, we can’t launch a rocket,” a person familiar with Astra’s strategy said. That might be the right move, as an example from the other end of the launch industry shows — United Launch Alliance (ULA), the Boeing-Lockheed Martin joint venture, is buying engines from Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin to power the company’s next generation rocket, Vulcan. But Blue Origin’s engine development delays have held up ULA’s timeline for Vulcan’s inaugural launch.
Collaborating while competing is typical in the space industry
Overall, the agreement between Astra and Firefly “seems like a natural outcome of the increasing maturity of new entrants to the marketplace,” says Carissa Christensen, an industry analyst and founder of BryceTech. The small launch industry is flooded with new entrants — roughly 100 different small launch companies exist nowadays, with only a handful making meaningful progress toward space. Rocket Lab, a California-based firm that launches rockets from New Zealand, is the only small launch firm that’s conducting routine operations, using its Electron rocket to loft satellites into space for the Space Force and private companies. Rocket Lab went public this year through a SPAC merger, or a special-purpose acquisition company that’s listed publicly only to merge with a private company and take it public. That unlocked new capital for the company’s future rocket development plans and put its valuation around $4 billion.
“Historically, it’s typical that space companies collaborate and work together as well as compete,” Christensen said, partially because launch companies require large sums of investment and don’t generate constant streams of revenue or profit. And “because of the relatively limited demand,” there aren’t tens of thousands of launches a year that would keep operations busy and revenue coming in. Instead, there are roughly a hundred launches per year.
Like Firefly, Rocket Lab has also expanded into the components business in recent months, but on a different scale. The company announced it is selling reaction wheels — tiny components that help satellites maintain position in orbit — and plans to make up to 2,000 each year. Selling IP for engines like Astra and Firefly’s arrangement, Rocket Lab’s CEO Peter Beck tells The Verge, “doesn’t move the needle” in the small launch industry. “Providing thousands of reaction wheels across a large number of platforms and large constellations — that actually moves the needle for the whole industry,” he claims.
For small launch firms, “either they’ll go out of business or I definitely think there will be mergers and acquisitions,” Christensen said. Some of those mergers and acquisitions, she added, will be the result of a convenient deal two companies reached, or a desperate tactic for a company to stay alive. “It’s a high risk business.”
Astra, founded in 2016, was the first launch company to go public earlier this year, accessing new capital by taking the route of a SPAC merger. Astra’s valuation was pegged at $2.1 billion. After its announcement to go public, the company acquired Apollo Fusion in July for $145 million, scooping up electric spacecraft propulsion technology designed to power satellite busses that Astra is planning to develop.
“Few will make it on their own”
Firefly, founded by Markusic in 2014 as Firefly Space Systems, went out of business in 2016 after a European investor pulled out, which Markusic said at the time was due to the Brexit referendum. The company was resurrected as Firefly Aerospace in 2017 when Noosphere Ventures, an investment firm founded by Ukrainian entrepreneur Max Polyakov, bought the bankrupt company’s assets. After a funding round in May, the company’s overall valuation is just over $1 billion.
“We took Firefly from bankruptcy to a valuation of more than $1 billion in less than 5 years. We can increase that by a factor of 10 in the next 5 years,” Polyakov said in an email to The Verge.
“Putting crazies and romantics aside, some of these companies have solid tech; others may have better access to capital. The inevitable result of a market situation like this is consolidation or mergers,” he said of the overall industry landscape. “Few will make it on their own.”
]]>SpaceX’s Crew Dragon capsule carrying four private citizens plunged through Earth’s atmosphere Saturday night and splashed down off the east coast of Florida, closing out the company’s first all-civilian mission in space. The Inspiration4 crew — the mission’s billionaire funder Jared Isaacman, geoscientist Sian Proctor, physician assistant Haley Arceneaux, and data engineer Chris Sembroski — became the first crew to hang out in Earth orbit without any professionally trained astronauts.
“it was a heck of a ride”
The crew’s splashdown zone in the Atlantic Ocean was roughly 30 miles east of NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, where they launched to space atop SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket on Wednesday. Beginning at about 7:02PM ET, Crew Dragon deployed two sets of parachutes — an initial set of two, and a final set of four — to ease its descent toward the ocean. Splashdown happened at around 7:06PM ET. SpaceX recovery teams raced toward the capsule in boats to retrieve the crew.
“Thanks so much SpaceX, it was a heck of a ride for us, and we’re just getting started” Isaacman told SpaceX’s mission control just after splashing down.
From an on-time launch at 8:02PM ET Wednesday to an on-time splashdown Saturday, the Inspiration4 mission lasted 71 hours total. The objectives of the orbital trek were two-fold: to raise $200 million for St. Jude Children’s Hospital, a non-profit that researchers cancer and gives free care to kids with cancer and other life-threatening diseases, and conduct a scientific study on how the passengers’ bodies react to microgravity. Since launching on Wednesday, St. Jude raised roughly $20 million, putting the total fundraiser at about $153 million of its $200 million goal, St. Jude said.
With the amateur crew strapped inside, SpaceX’s Crew Dragon began its fully autonomous reentry process at around 6:11PM ET, when it ditched its trunk and fired a set of thrusters to lower itself out of orbit and toward Earth’s atmosphere. A live video feed from inside the capsule showed Sembroski taking advantage of some in-flight entertainment — a movie was playing on an iPad strapped to his knee.
The crew’s journey back to Earth appeared uneventful. They went through an expected, roughly seven-minute communications blackout with SpaceX’s mission control in California due to the sheath of plasma that forms around the capsule during its turbulent atmospheric reentry. During reentry, the exterior of the spacecraft reached temperatures of up to 3,500 degrees Fahrenheit, but the crew was kept cool by their flight suits and reinforced air conditioning inside the capsule. Crew Dragon streaked across the skies above northeast South America and zoomed toward the Cape Canaveral coast.
An initial set of two parachutes deployed as planned, slowing the capsule from 350 miles per hour to 100MPH. Those parachutes were ditched less than a minute later at an altitude of nearly 1,800ft and replaced by another deployment of four main parachutes, which worked to slow the spacecraft down to about 15MPH at splashdown.
The capsule was hoisted out of the water and onto SpaceX’s “Go Searcher” boat roughly a half hour after splashing down. After that, recovery teams opened Crew Dragon’s hatch door and guided the crew out on a platform one by one, Arceneaux leading the pack. Proctor was next, practically grooving her way onto the platform. Sembroski and Isaacman followed. Isaacman’s egress was more of a toddle, his legs shaking a bit as he adjusted to Earth’s gravity. They’ll all get checked out by medical personnel and flown in a helicopter back to land.
The crew was in high spirits after stepping out of Crew Dragon, Inspiration4 mission director Scott Poteet told reporters during a post-splashdown press conference. “They’re taking selfies, they’re having a good time, they’re eating, they’re drinking, standing up and walking around.”
For the crew’s three-day trip in orbit, roughly 363 miles high, they video chatted with St. Jude patients, rang the bell on the New York Stock Exchange, and kept in touch with friends and family. Isaacman placed a $4,000 bet to Las Vegas that the Eagles would win the Super Bowl, and at another point, remotely chatted with Tom Cruise. They put on a brief talent show on Friday in a livestream update — Sembroski jammed on a ukulele, Proctor showed off a drawing she made using a pack of metallic pens, and Arceneaux did somersaults in microgravity. “Hayley is a champ at spinning,” Proctor said as Arceneaux curled up in a ball and started tumbling in place.
The crew gathered data for a scientific study examining how microgravity affects the human body. During Friday’s video, Arceneaux showed off a device the crew was using to measure cranial pressure.
The Crew Dragon capsule, named Resilience, was the same spacecraft that nearly a year ago sent a four-person crew of government astronauts to the International Space Station and back. Few changes were made to the capsule besides a glass dome that was installed where the capsule’s docking door normally is, giving the passengers a 360-degree view of space while in orbit. The upper half of about three passengers could easily fit inside the dome.
“very clean mission from start to finish”
Everything went nearly without a hitch, besides an issue with the capsule’s waste management system, or toilet. That was related to ”an issue with a fan that’s part of the system,” but it was quickly resolved, Inspiration4 mission director Todd Ericson said during a press conference. He did not offer additional details of the incident. Another issue during the mission involved a temperature sensor associated with one of Crew Dragon’s thrusters, but a backup sensor kicked in and worked fine, SpaceX’s director of crew mission management Benji Reed said. Overall, it was a “very clean mission from start to finish.”
Along with the mission’s official goals, Inspiration4 also showed that trips to orbit aren’t just for government astronauts anymore. Other missions will follow, including the first private mission to the ISS next year. The company that brokered that trip, Axiom Space, has already signed up for three additional trips to the ISS on SpaceX’s Crew Dragon.
“Welcome to the second space age,” Ericson said.
]]>It was a brief orbital talent show.
“Hayley is a champ at spinning,” Sian Proctor, one of the four private citizens currently orbiting Earth inside SpaceX’s Crew Dragon capsule, said of her crew mate Hayley Arceneaux, who was somersaulting in the weightlessness of space on camera. “She’s been spinning ever since we got on orbit.”
Christopher Sembroski, another crew mate, whipped out a ukulele and threatened to play it live on camera to over 55,000 viewers on SpaceX’s live YouTube stream — “You can turn your volume down if you wish, but I’ll give it a shot.” He did a little riff while Arceneaux was holding the mic, and it wasn’t half bad. “It’s still before coffee, so it’ll get better before the day goes on.”
Proctor showed off a drawing she made using a pack of metallic pens that depicted the Crew Dragon capsule blasting off Earth and leaving a trail of exhaust that looks like a dragon. “I have really enjoyed learning how to use markers in space,” she said.
The four-person Inspiration4 crew, which includes billionaire entrepreneur and the mission’s funder Jared Isaacman, has been zipping around the planet 15 times a day since Wednesday night, when they blasted to space on top of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket from Florida. Friday afternoon, they gave their first update on what they’ve been up to in a live YouTube video nearly two days after lifting off — the lack of public communication itself an indicator that space is no longer just for government astronauts, who are typically far more transparent.
Proctor, Arceneaux, Sembroski and Isaacman represent the first fully private contingent of humans to enter orbit without the aegis of professionally trained astronauts. They also represent the inaugural private crew flown by SpaceX, which has flown just three crews of government astronauts before.
“We’re really proud to share this experience with everyone, we know how fortunate we are to be up here,” Isaacman said on camera. “We’re giving all of our time to science research and some ukulele-playing, and trying to raise some good awareness for an important cause back on Earth.”
Unlike Crew Dragon flights for government astronauts, who trek to the International Space Station, the Inspiration4’s spacecraft came equipped with a glass dome installed where Crew Dragon’s docking door would normally be. Proctor held the camera up to the dome, which appeared big enough to easily fit the upper torsos of three people. Facing Earth, it was dark outside, and the live camera feed was choppy and pixelated, but the crew could see the array of night lights dotting Earth’s surface. “Ooh, that looks like the aurora!” Proctor said. “Oh wow.”
Aside from the milestones, the Inspiration4 mission is primarily a massive fundraising event for St. Jude Children’s Hospital, a non-profit that conducts cancer research and gives free care to kids with cancer. The goal is $200 million; Isaacman donated the first $100 million and paid for the crew’s seats for an undisclosed amount. The rest is being raised through various efforts: some of the items the crew took with them to space — like hops for beer, NFTs, pieces of art, and stuffed animals — are supported by sponsorships from companies that have committed thousands in donations to St. Jude or will be auctioned off once back on Earth.
The crew also video chatted with St. Jude patients and rang the bell on the New York Stock Exchange (Isaacman’s payment-processing company, Shift4 Payments, is publicly traded). Isaacman placed a $4,000 bet to Las Vegas that the Eagles would win the Super Bowl. In the live video, Arceneaux showed off a device the crew is using to measure cranial pressure as part of a scientific study to monitor how their bodies behave in microgravity.
The Inspiration4 mission is expected to last about three days. They’ll reenter Earth’s atmosphere and splashdown in one of several locations off the coast of Florida on Saturday at around 7:06PM ET, SpaceX said.
]]>SpaceX launched four private citizens to space on Wednesday, kicking off the first-ever crewed mission to orbit without any professional astronauts on board. Dubbed Inspiration4, the mission marks the latest private foray into space as companies like Elon Musk’s SpaceX compete to normalize space travel for paying tourists, not just government astronauts.
SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket lifted off on time at 8:02PM ET from the company’s 39A launchpad at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, soaring from Florida’s east coast under clear night skies. Inside the capsule is billionaire entrepreneur Jared Isaacman, a trained pilot and founder of payment-processing firm Shift4 Payments, and three others he picked and paid for to ride with him: Hayley Arceneaux, a 29-year-old physician assistant and cancer survivor; Christopher Sembroski, a data engineer at Lockheed Martin; and Sian Proctor, a geoscientist and former NASA astronaut candidate.
“The Dragon capsule and crew are in a nominal orbit”
The crew was buckled inside SpaceX’s Crew Dragon Resilience capsule at the top of the rocket, reusing the spacecraft that sent four government astronauts to the International Space Station nearly a year ago. But for Inspiration4, the capsule won’t dock to the space station. It’s poised to spend roughly three days orbiting Earth at a higher altitude, some 360 miles above ground — the farthest human spaceflight since the last NASA space shuttle mission to repair the Hubble telescope in 2009.
Roughly nine minutes after liftoff, Falcon 9’s first stage booster returned to Earth for a landing on a barge in the Atlantic Ocean. Minutes later, the Crew Dragon capsule separated from the rocket’s second stage as it was leaving Earth’s atmosphere, sending the Inspiration4 crew further toward orbit. The capsule will spend the next hour and a half gradually raising its orbit via intermittent thruster firings.
“The Dragon capsule and crew are in a nominal orbit,” SpaceX engineer and livestream anchor Andy Tran said. A live camera from inside the capsule showed the crew waving and giving double thumbs up.
The mission serves as a multimillion dollar fundraiser for St. Jude Children’s Hospital, a non-profit research center that also provides free care for kids with cancer. Isaacman donated $100 million to the hospital and, with the Inspiration4 mission, aims to raise another $100 million. That part of the fundraiser has raised about $30.8 million so far. Isaacman, bankrolling most of the mission, won’t say how much he paid for each Crew Dragon seat, but they typically cost roughly $55 million a pop, according to a government watchdog report.
Inspiration4’s Crew Dragon capsule was tailored for a more touristy experience than what NASA astronauts have on their trips to the ISS. Months before the mission, SpaceX installed a massive glass dome, where the capsule’s station docking door normally is, to give Inspiration4 passengers a 360-degree view of space while in orbit. Though the glass dome hasn’t been tested in space, SpaceX’s director of crew mission management, Benji Reed, said it was put through a rigorous testing and qualification process before validating it as safe for flight.
The crew has a few activities planned during their stay in orbit — Sembroski is expected to play a ukulele made by Martin Guitar that’s stowed onboard as one of the several sponsorships riding along for the mission. Proctor brought along poetry and some personal art. And the whole crew is participating in a study on the effects microgravity has on the human body. SpaceX, Translational Research Institute for Space Health (TRISH) at Baylor College of Medicine and investigators at Weill Cornell Medicine will collect biological samples from the passengers before the mission and plan to gather biomedical data on the passengers during the mission.
Exactly where and when the capsule reenters Earth’s atmosphere after its three-day mission depends on the weather conditions around the coasts of Florida. The capsule can spend up to a week in orbit if need be, Isaacman has said.
Update 8:45 PM ET: Updated with photos and additional information from SpaceX’s livestream.
]]>SpaceX is set to launch the first fully private crew of passengers to orbit on Wednesday. The Inspiration4 crew, three ordinary people and a billionaire philanthropist who’s funding the mission, will board SpaceX’s Crew Dragon capsule on Wednesday afternoon and lift off at 8:02PM ET atop a Falcon 9 rocket, speeding toward an orbit 360 miles above the ground — farther from Earth than the International Space Station.
If all goes according to plan, the mission will mark a new milestone in the budding commercial space industry, where companies owned by billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have been racing to normalize space travel for people other than government astronauts. The mission also aims to raise $200 million for St. Jude Children’s Hospital to help fund cancer research.
Jared Isaacman, a trained pilot and the wealthy founder of a payment processing company, will helm the mission as its commander. He bought four seats on Crew Dragon and picked three fellow passengers: Hayley Arceneaux, a cancer survivor and St. Jude physician assistant, was tapped for the mission through St. Jude. Sian Proctor, a geoscientist and former NASA astronaut candidate, won a video contest hosted by Isaacman’s company, Shift4, for her seat. And Christopher Sembroski, a data engineer at Lockheed Martin, is filling the seat reserved for one of the thousands who donated to St. Jude; his ticket was passed on to him by a friend who won.
The Space Force’s weather squadron predicts a 90 percent chance of favorable weather at liftoff time,
SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket, with Crew Dragon on top, will lift off at 8:02PM ET from the company’s 39A launchpad at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center. The rocket’s first stage booster will detach from its second stage booster and Crew Dragon to make a return landing on a barge in the Atlantic ocean about 10 minutes since lifting off. Meanwhile, Crew Dragon will zoom toward its orbit, detaching from the Falcon 9’s second stage booster around 8:14PM ET to begin a series of thruster firings that’ll scoot the capsule higher and higher over the next hour or so.
SpaceX will have a livestream on YouTube that will begin around 4PM ET, roughly four hours before liftoff. Netflix, which has been producing a documentary series on the Inspiration4 mission with Time Magazine , will also have a livestream on its YouTube account. Unlike missions with NASA astronauts on board, there won’t be a live stream from inside the capsule when the crew enters orbit. Instead, SpaceX and the Inspiration4 mission’s Twitter account will be tweeting updates throughout the mission. The final episode of Netflix’s Inspiration4 series, set for release on September 30th, will center on the crew’s experience in space and show footage of their activities.
Update, September 15th, 2:10PM ET: Adds new information from a mission spokesperson on the launch’s livestream start time and mid-mission updates.
]]>Four people are set to launch to space Wednesday night aboard a SpaceX capsule, and none of them are professional astronauts. Jared Isaacman, a billionaire entrepreneur and philanthropist, booked the Crew Dragon capsule last year and picked three normal folks to ride with him. It will be the first completely private mission to orbit.
Dubbed Inspiration 4, the mission is a multimillion-dollar fundraiser for St. Jude Children’s Hospital and — like a lot of recent flights to space these days — an effort to convince those watching from the ground that space won’t be always be exclusive to government officials and the ultra-wealthy. Isaacman’s crew includes Hayley Arceneaux, a cancer survivor and St. Jude physician assistant; Sian Proctor, a geology professor and former NASA astronaut candidate; and Christopher Sembroski, a data engineer at Lockheed Martin.
The Inspiration 4 crew is slated to launch Wednesday at 8:02PM ET atop SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket, buckled inside the same Crew Dragon capsule that nearly a year ago sent a four-person crew of government astronauts to the International Space Station and back. This mission’s destination is about 80 miles higher than the ISS. In orbit, they’ll view Earth through two windows and a new glass dome that was added to the top of the capsule, where Crew Dragon’s ISS docking door was. The crew will reenter the atmosphere after three days, depending on the weather around Florida, and splash down in the Atlantic ocean. SpaceX recovery teams will likely meet up with the capsule, hoist it onto a ship, extract the crew, and bring them ashore.
Isaacman, a trained pilot and the founder of a payment processing company, is the commander of the flight. He has said he wanted to arrange a diverse crew of passengers who weren’t billionaires. He paid for all four seats on Crew Dragon, and dropped the first $100 million of a $200 million fundraiser for St. Jude, a nonprofit research facility and hospital that provides free care to children with cancer. Isaacman reserved two of the seats for St. Jude — one would go to the winner of a fundraising campaign and the other would go to Arceneaux, who works at St. Jude as a physician assistant in Memphis, Tennessee and will serve as the mission’s medical officer.
Arceneaux, 29, is a childhood cancer survivor who will become the first person with a prosthetic body part to launch to space. Metal rods were placed in the part of her left leg that had a cancerous tumor as a child. Sembroski, the Lockheed engineer, will occupy the seat reserved for the winning participant of the St. Jude fundraising campaign. A friend of Sembroski’s won, but couldn’t go on the trip and passed the ticket to him instead.
The fourth seat went to Sian Proctor, the winner of a contest hosted by Shift4, the payment company owned by Isaacman. Contestants had to create a website using Shift4 software and produce a short video of themselves explaining why they wanted to go to space. Proctor, 51, taught geology at a community college in Phoenix, Arizona and will become the fourth Black woman, and the first person from Guam, to go to space. In 2009, she got close to becoming a NASA astronaut as one of nine finalists in a monthslong, notoriously difficult selection process.
The crew has been training since March, about seven months before liftoff. That includes centrifuge training to get used to the enormous G-forces of lifting off atop a rocket, a microgravity experience aboard a Zero-G flight, and weeks of training at SpaceX’s headquarters in Hawthorne, California to familiarize the passengers with Crew Dragon.
Besides the passengers’ personal mementos, like family items and school memorabilia, the mission is full of sponsorships: 66 pounds of hops are on board Crew Dragon that, once returned to Earth, will be used to brew beer by Samuel Adams, “the official beer of Inspiration4,” the mission group said in a press release, adding the brewer made “a maximum $100,000 donation to St. Jude.” All the passengers will wear branded watches, Sembroski will play an onboard ukulele from Martin Guitar, and a bunch of other things on board will get auctioned off once they’re back on the ground as part of the ongoing St. Jude fundraiser.
If all goes as planned, Inspiration 4 will mark the first fully private mission for SpaceX, which developed its Crew Dragon spacecraft as part of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. That program funded development of two competing space capsules — Crew Dragon and Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner — to serve as NASA astronauts’ ride to the ISS.
“like watching your kids graduate from college”
For the Commercial Crew Program, NASA is a customer — not an owner — of the spacecraft, much like Isaacman is the main customer for Inspiration4. A core goal behind the program was to help stimulate a market for commercial spaceflight, awarding SpaceX roughly $3 billion and Boeing roughly $5 billion to help get started. Boeing’s Starliner has yet to launch humans. But Isaacman’s mission, which will mark the fourth crewed flight for SpaceX’s Crew Dragon, a key intent of NASA’s program, has come to fruition. As NASA’s human spaceflight chief Kathy Lueders recently said in the Are We There Yet? podcast, Inspiration 4 “is like watching your kids graduate from college.”
But whether private space tourism will really be accessible to a larger swath of passengers remains to be seen. A seat on SpaceX’s Crew Dragon costs roughly $55 million, and a seat on Starliner is somewhere around $90 million, according to government watchdog reports.
For a shorter experience, other companies like Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin are offering brief suborbital jaunts to the edge of space — but these are still extremely expensive. Right now, Virgin Galactic charges $450,000 for a seat on its SpaceShipTwo, which flies some 53 miles high for a few minutes of weightlessness and views of Earth’s curvature. Blue Origin hasn’t announced prices for a seat aboard its suborbital New Shepard rocket, which launches about 66 miles above ground for a similar experience.
“in order to get to the endpoint we want, you have to go through this initial step”
With Isaacman footing the multimillion-dollar bill for his three fellow passengers’ tickets to space, and both Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic flying highly publicized back-to-back missions, the space tourism industry is in a phase buoyed by billionaire backers and ultra-wealthy customers. Getting out of this phase, as industry figures have said, will require drastic drops in the cost of building and launching rockets.
“We’ve been hearing that for so long, that until it happens, it’s not unusual that people are a little skeptical about that,” says Alan Ladwig, who in the 1980s led NASA’s Space Flight Participant Program, an initiative to send civilian storytellers like teachers and journalists to space as a way to get the public excited about human spaceflight.
“But in order to get to the endpoint we want, you have to go through this initial step, with the early adopters and paying higher costs to go in order to eventually lower the cost,” he said.
]]>