On April 14, Blue Origin, an aerospace company owned by Jeff Bezos, sent its New Shepard Rocket into space for roughly 11 minutes. This trip marked the rocket’s 31st mission to space and the first all-female crew since Soviet astronaut Valentina Tereshkova’s solo flight in 1963. While the flight was marketed as an empowering feat for women in STEM, since the flight’s successful mission, Blue Origin and the crew have received a stream of criticism.
Some of the crew included former NASA rocket scientist Aisha Bowe, bioastronautics research scientist Amanda Nguyen, and public figures such as singer Katy Perry, journalist Gayle King, and philanthropist Lauren Sánchez (also Bezos’ fiancée); the latter three receive most of coverage of the flight leading up to its departure as well as the criticism after its landing.
Controversy had already begun to swirl leading up to take-off, specifically regarding the press involving singer Katy Perry. In an interview before the flight, she commented, “I’ve always been interested in astrophysics and interested in astronomy and astrology and the stars,” and “I’m excited to learn more about STEM.”
During and after the flight only worsened the pre-existing uneasiness and suspicion over the mission. While in space, Perry promoted her upcoming album and awkwardly stared into the onboard camera while playing with a daisy. After landing, Perry’s comments about feeling “super connected to love” and that the experience showed her “how you never know how much love is inside of you” made her the punchline of a series of jokes and memes.
In the days since, I, like perhaps many others, have consumed an endless stream of media jabbing at the flight and its crew. Comments such as “I’ve never been less inspired” and “bored rich people wasting money and resources to experience something for five minutes” have racked up tens of thousands of likes under TikTok videos.
In light of the negative press, some of the crew, such as Gayle King, have spoken out: “There was nothing frivolous about what we [did]… I’ve had so many women and young girls reach out to me, and men too, by the way.” Even before the mission, King was shutting down criticism: “Anybody that’s criticizing it doesn’t really understand what is happening here.” Despite their best intentions and attempts to defend the flight, there is an undeniable disconnect with the public, but why?
There are several reasons why the public has condemned the New Shepard mission, including its lack of perceived scientific and practical purpose. Blue Origin’s company mission is not scientific exploration or research, but rather space tourism. This has always attracted criticism since space tourism is a luxury unaffordable for most people, seats costing upward of $28 million with a $150,000 deposit. Leading up to the New Shepard flight, Blue Origin marketed the “feel-good” mission as feminist-inspired. However, Blue Origin failed to reinforce this marketing, their alleged commitment to women in STEM seeming unserious. Perhaps if the mission had been accompanied by the announcement of a new program or research initiative designed to support women in aerospace, the flight would have more profoundly resonated with the public. Instead, the mission felt shallow rather than inspiring and meaningful.
Secondly, leading up to take-off, the coverage of the flight centered primarily on its star-studded crew, making it feel performative rather than empowering. Most of the crew primarily work in the entertainment industry, with these women receiving more publicity leading up to and following the flight compared to the two women onboard with aerospace experience. Many have argued that selecting celebrities to be a part of this historic flight undermined the potential social impact of the mission. Rather than inspire the public to support women in aerospace, it felt to many like a phony grab for media attention. This is best exemplified by Katy Perry’s promotion of her music career during the flight, revealing the set list for her upcoming tour. The figure-flattering space suits worn by the crew were also criticized, demonstrating a prioritization of aesthetics rather than utility.
Additionally, the resources (financial and raw) spent on the expedition, as well as its environmental implications, have left the public feeling frustrated and confused. We live in a time where the news is saturated with warnings for the future of our planet: melting ice caps, rising air and ocean temperatures, and habitat destruction, to name a few. We are encouraged to use paper straws and reusable bags, take short showers, buy solar panels, so why should celebrities be applauded for embarking on an 11-minute, essentially unproductive trip into space? Despite Blue Origin’s claims that they do not produce carbon emissions, all space flights release water vapor, a greenhouse gas that depletes the ozone layer. This undeniable side-effect of space travel, while perhaps more justifiable for research and/or practical purposes, is another possible explanation for why this flight missed the mark.
All in all, this mission has taught us an important lesson: meaningful change is impossible without first recognizing the underlying causes behind a problem. While an all-female space crew seems like a win for women at first glance, its failure to expose and address the barriers that keep women out of leadership and decision-making roles in aerospace limited its potential impact. While Blue Origin and the crew’s intent may not have been malicious, their inauthenticity and misrepresentation of the audience they were attempting to appeal to made this flight a failure. Hopefully, this experience can be used as a learning opportunity to advocate for more progress within aerospace and other STEM industries.