Captain Kirk: Bezos' Blue Origin to Send William Shatner into Space(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Captain Kirk: Bezos' Blue Origin to Send William Shatner into Space
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58792761
49 コメント
Given Shatner's prior comments on the subject, it's obvious that Bezos is paying Shatner a lot of money to be able to advertise that Captain Kirk flew on a Blue Origin rocket. Definitely the sort of thing that a competitor that knows that it is behind and is willing to do/pay anything to get ahead would do.
Shatner does seem to always want to make a buck, but at 90, with all those years of conventions, meet and greets, and sweet TJ Hooker royalty checks, doesn't he have enough money?
He has three kids, presumably a good few grandkids by now. Not sure how morbid his outlook is but if I were 90 I might look at this as an opportunity to make an even bigger pile of cash I can pass down to my descendants... I'm going out soon anyway, so why not?
Exactly. Live and you pad your pockets. Die and you pad your heirs pockets. You were already 90 in medium-poor health anyway and not many people get a chance to go to space in any capacity. Having "fabulously wealthy entertainer and space tourist" on your gravestone is better than just "fabulously wealthy entertainer". All the upsides are still there but the risk side of the equation is much lower at 90 than at 80.
Shatner probably made more from his Priceline.com endorsement than the entire rest of his career combined.
You are, of course, correct. In fact, the article even states that explicitly. My comment was a [too?] subtle snarky reference to a famous 1963 episode of the Twilight Zone starring Shatner, in which there was "a man on the wing!". "Nightmare at 20,000 ft" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXHKDb0CNjA
> "Shatner has a fear of flying"
I immediately thought of the Twilight Zone [1]
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0734600/
I immediately thought of the Twilight Zone [1]
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0734600/
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.
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-o...
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"
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/30/science/jeff-bezos-blue-o...
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"
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I find it extremely unlikely that the risk of loss of crew was not discussed with McAuliffe in both general terms and numerically estimated. She held an advanced degree and was almost surely capable of realizing the possibility of loss of life and making an evaluation of the risk-reward (based on the numbers, though not a ground-up root risk estimation) for her personal situation.
The possible benefit of a “teacher in space” is giving the nation (and specifically its schoolchildren) a role model that’s not an entertainer, a sports figure, or a military hero. I’m glad we have those, but having someone more academic has non-zero benefit.
The possible benefit of a “teacher in space” is giving the nation (and specifically its schoolchildren) a role model that’s not an entertainer, a sports figure, or a military hero. I’m glad we have those, but having someone more academic has non-zero benefit.
> I find it extremely unlikely that the risk... was not discussed with McAuliffe....
It is far worse than you imagined, then. The extended except below is from On the Very Idea of Risk Management: Lessons from the Space Shuttle Challenger By Robert Elliott Allinson, published 12 September 2012 [1]
>------------------------------
Was Mrs. Christa McAuliffe made aware of the risk that she was taking? Grace Corrigan wrote:
With respect to the Challenger launch, ‘ … Christa felt no anxiety about the flight. ‘I don’t see it as a dangerous thing to do.’ She said, pausing for a moment. ‘Well, I suppose it is, with all those rockets and fuel tanks. But if I saw it as a big risk, I’d feel differently.’
Grace George Corrigan, A Journal for Christa, Christa McAuliffe, Teacher in Space, Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1993, pp. 115, 118.
It was not only the case that Christa felt no pre-flight fears. She was never even informed that there was any real problem about which she should have been informed. Corrigan relates Christa McAuliffe’s account of what the President and the pilot from a previous launch told her in the White House:
‘They were told about the dangers of the space program. She said that one could be intimidated thinking of all that he had said until you realize that NASA employed the most sophisticated safety features, and they would never take any chances with their equipment, much less an astronaut’s life.’
When interviewed by Space News Roundup, she said that, ‘When the Challenger had the problem back in the summer with the heat sensors on the engine … and … one of Boston’s papers called me and asked me what I thought was wrong, … I said, ‘I have no idea. What has NASA said?’
Op. cit., p. 185.
It is obvious that Christa McAuliffe was not informed of any O-ring faults and the consequent life and death risk she was engaged and committed to taking by her participation. Is this a case where the statement from the Committee on Shuttle Criticality, Review and Analysis, that ‘The risks of space flight must be accepted by those who are asked to participate in each flight’ is even relevant when no one has been informed about the specific risks to which this particular flight will be prone? The fallacy of conflating the general, unknown risks of space flight with the specifically known risks of this flight makes “risk management” here into an unethical practice. There is, strictly speaking, no risk management that is being practiced. There is simply a wanton risk taking with human life.
The Nobel laureate physicist, Richard Feynman was shocked to learn that NASA management had claimed that the risk factor of a launch crash was 1 in 100,000 which they had arrived at through a subjective engineering judgment without relying upon any actual past performance data. If one calculated risk based upon actual past performance data, the risk was, according to Professor Feynman, 1 in 100.
Ibid., p. 183.
While management, in defending its decision to launch, pointed to the risk involved as being 1 in 100,000, there was no examination of how these figures were generated. If one took the actual performance data of rocket engines in the past, as the Nobel laureate physicist Roger Feynman did, the risk was far greater. When one does this, one can more clearly consider the case of the possibility of incidence versus the actuality of consequence. Does one wish to risk the lives of the astronauts and the civilians when the chance of their death is 1 in 100? From the above example, one can generate the conclusion that whenever possible, when calculating risk, one should not calculate risk in any other way than from the conclusions generated from actual, real-life, past performance data. The lesson to be learned is that in risk assessment, past performance data, when available, must always be consulted. One should avoid guess work. Unless the risk estimates are based on past performance data as a data base, according to Professor Feynman, ‘it’s all tomfoolery’.
Ibid., p. 183.
------------------------------<
McAuliffe was misled with a false statistic off by 3 orders of magnitude, and was therefore coerced and denied the ability to give informed consent. And this highlights the problem, because it is not as effortless to do the same with a trained astronaut, physicist or military commander with decades of service. One should expect a bias towards that which one wishes were true. Who wouldn't want to visit space if it were completely safe? But it is absurd to ask this question, because it will never be even remotely safe, thus space travel requires only professionals, and must exclude lay persons (who are incapable of informed consent by definition) for it to be ethical.
[1] https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/38971
It is far worse than you imagined, then. The extended except below is from On the Very Idea of Risk Management: Lessons from the Space Shuttle Challenger By Robert Elliott Allinson, published 12 September 2012 [1]
>------------------------------
Was Mrs. Christa McAuliffe made aware of the risk that she was taking? Grace Corrigan wrote:
With respect to the Challenger launch, ‘ … Christa felt no anxiety about the flight. ‘I don’t see it as a dangerous thing to do.’ She said, pausing for a moment. ‘Well, I suppose it is, with all those rockets and fuel tanks. But if I saw it as a big risk, I’d feel differently.’
Grace George Corrigan, A Journal for Christa, Christa McAuliffe, Teacher in Space, Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1993, pp. 115, 118.
It was not only the case that Christa felt no pre-flight fears. She was never even informed that there was any real problem about which she should have been informed. Corrigan relates Christa McAuliffe’s account of what the President and the pilot from a previous launch told her in the White House:
‘They were told about the dangers of the space program. She said that one could be intimidated thinking of all that he had said until you realize that NASA employed the most sophisticated safety features, and they would never take any chances with their equipment, much less an astronaut’s life.’
When interviewed by Space News Roundup, she said that, ‘When the Challenger had the problem back in the summer with the heat sensors on the engine … and … one of Boston’s papers called me and asked me what I thought was wrong, … I said, ‘I have no idea. What has NASA said?’
Op. cit., p. 185.
It is obvious that Christa McAuliffe was not informed of any O-ring faults and the consequent life and death risk she was engaged and committed to taking by her participation. Is this a case where the statement from the Committee on Shuttle Criticality, Review and Analysis, that ‘The risks of space flight must be accepted by those who are asked to participate in each flight’ is even relevant when no one has been informed about the specific risks to which this particular flight will be prone? The fallacy of conflating the general, unknown risks of space flight with the specifically known risks of this flight makes “risk management” here into an unethical practice. There is, strictly speaking, no risk management that is being practiced. There is simply a wanton risk taking with human life.
The Nobel laureate physicist, Richard Feynman was shocked to learn that NASA management had claimed that the risk factor of a launch crash was 1 in 100,000 which they had arrived at through a subjective engineering judgment without relying upon any actual past performance data. If one calculated risk based upon actual past performance data, the risk was, according to Professor Feynman, 1 in 100.
Ibid., p. 183.
While management, in defending its decision to launch, pointed to the risk involved as being 1 in 100,000, there was no examination of how these figures were generated. If one took the actual performance data of rocket engines in the past, as the Nobel laureate physicist Roger Feynman did, the risk was far greater. When one does this, one can more clearly consider the case of the possibility of incidence versus the actuality of consequence. Does one wish to risk the lives of the astronauts and the civilians when the chance of their death is 1 in 100? From the above example, one can generate the conclusion that whenever possible, when calculating risk, one should not calculate risk in any other way than from the conclusions generated from actual, real-life, past performance data. The lesson to be learned is that in risk assessment, past performance data, when available, must always be consulted. One should avoid guess work. Unless the risk estimates are based on past performance data as a data base, according to Professor Feynman, ‘it’s all tomfoolery’.
Ibid., p. 183.
------------------------------<
McAuliffe was misled with a false statistic off by 3 orders of magnitude, and was therefore coerced and denied the ability to give informed consent. And this highlights the problem, because it is not as effortless to do the same with a trained astronaut, physicist or military commander with decades of service. One should expect a bias towards that which one wishes were true. Who wouldn't want to visit space if it were completely safe? But it is absurd to ask this question, because it will never be even remotely safe, thus space travel requires only professionals, and must exclude lay persons (who are incapable of informed consent by definition) for it to be ethical.
[1] https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/38971
I doubt the other 6 astronauts were specifically made aware of the O-ring issue, either. That’s not an indictment of carrying civilian payload specialists, but rather an indictment against withholding it from the military crew as well or is a reflection on reasonable compartmentalizing of information and making expert (albeit flawed in this case) recommendations.
The paper merely demonstrates that McAuliffe's concent was not informed, but rather misinformed.
> I doubt the other 6 astronauts... were made aware...
Yet included the chosen profession of astronauts is taking the risks involved with space travel, the same as the chosen profession of soldiers includes the risk of injury or death in going to war, and the chosen profession of LEO includes the risk of being injured or killed in the line of duty, and the chosen profession of fire fighters includes the risk of suffocation and immolation. Risks like that are not included in the teaching profession. Visiting Rome does not make one a Rome specialist; McAuliffe was only nominally a mission specialist and astronaut.
One of the major purposes of sending a teacher to space in the first place was to demonstrate just how safe space travel is, and in this single initiative, at least, no doubt should remain.
> I doubt the other 6 astronauts... were made aware...
Yet included the chosen profession of astronauts is taking the risks involved with space travel, the same as the chosen profession of soldiers includes the risk of injury or death in going to war, and the chosen profession of LEO includes the risk of being injured or killed in the line of duty, and the chosen profession of fire fighters includes the risk of suffocation and immolation. Risks like that are not included in the teaching profession. Visiting Rome does not make one a Rome specialist; McAuliffe was only nominally a mission specialist and astronaut.
One of the major purposes of sending a teacher to space in the first place was to demonstrate just how safe space travel is, and in this single initiative, at least, no doubt should remain.
[deleted]
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.
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
My take is a little bit different from what I've read so far. SpaceX just completed a truly history all-civilian, all-non-astronaut, three day orbital flight at an altitude above the ISS. SpaceX also secured Artemis mission contracts. They go to space all the time and continue to optimize their reusable orbital-class systems.
the Blue Origin and Virgin offerings are not even in the same class. And Blue Origin/Bezos is struggling to remain relevant. I see the Shatner thing purely as a publicity stunt. I also see it as having no real value whatsoever. Just my opinion.
On top of that, they raised over $200MM for St. Jude's Children's Hospital.
The SpaceX Netflix documentary on the Inspiration4 mission is worth watching.
Here's the flight's website:
https://inspiration4.com/
the Blue Origin and Virgin offerings are not even in the same class. And Blue Origin/Bezos is struggling to remain relevant. I see the Shatner thing purely as a publicity stunt. I also see it as having no real value whatsoever. Just my opinion.
On top of that, they raised over $200MM for St. Jude's Children's Hospital.
The SpaceX Netflix documentary on the Inspiration4 mission is worth watching.
Here's the flight's website:
https://inspiration4.com/
That's a spot on summary.
"Bezos's Blue Origin hit headlines in recent days after 21 current and former employees claimed it had ignored safety concerns to gain an advantage in the space race, and complained of a culture of sexism."
That seems more like news instead of PR.
That seems more like news instead of PR.
Bezos if you kill Shatner so many people are going to be furious
Bezos is a huge Trek fan, so he'd be equally mortified is my guess.
I'm not sure he's quite understood the economics of the 24th century.
I’m sure Bezos would feel bad for anyone’s death in this case.
Guess it's too late for Bowie to have the "Major Tom" ending.
Seems like it'll be "Rocket Man" instead.
https://youtu.be/lul-Y8vSr0I
https://youtu.be/lul-Y8vSr0I
To boldly go where, now, a lot of men and women have gone before.
"Very high altitude"
Alternative Title: Desperate Billionaire plans to launch beloved actor slightly past the definition of space in oddly shaped rocket in attempt to stay relevant
Very exciting! Has Blue Origin announced any plans to bring the Shatner back?
This is wishful and sentimental thinking, but it would be great if one (sad) day SpaceX would send Shatner into 5-year solar orbit, in a USS Enterprise shaped mausoleum, laid out in natural repose on the sleeping pad of his Captain's Quarters.
I know it would console me.
A first and most fitting Orbituary.
Once every five years we could all tune in to a fragile signal...
"Captain's Log. Stardate 4768.3. The Enterprise is passing over a planet whose surface, our sensors tell us, is covered in life forms. A world predicted to be destroyed and dead due to its inhabitants short sightedness. But apparently the planet's citizens have begun working through their problems. From it comes the combined voice of its inhabitants, speaking of loss and joy, through the energy of pure thought. Their voices tell us of hope that they will achieve increasing harmony together, for thousands of centuries to come. Ships computer, make a note to pass back here again. Captain's Log out."
This is wishful and sentimental thinking, but it would be great if one (sad) day SpaceX would send Shatner into 5-year solar orbit, in a USS Enterprise shaped mausoleum, laid out in natural repose on the sleeping pad of his Captain's Quarters.
I know it would console me.
A first and most fitting Orbituary.
Once every five years we could all tune in to a fragile signal...
"Captain's Log. Stardate 4768.3. The Enterprise is passing over a planet whose surface, our sensors tell us, is covered in life forms. A world predicted to be destroyed and dead due to its inhabitants short sightedness. But apparently the planet's citizens have begun working through their problems. From it comes the combined voice of its inhabitants, speaking of loss and joy, through the energy of pure thought. Their voices tell us of hope that they will achieve increasing harmony together, for thousands of centuries to come. Ships computer, make a note to pass back here again. Captain's Log out."
Not to be outdone, Elon announces plans to launch Shatner across the hood of a Tesla Model X.
Wait, wrong show...
Wait, wrong show...
Well Shatner did promote other products like the Commodore VIC-20: https://youtu.be/UK9VU1aJvTI
Careful how you treat this, lots of people around here got their first computer interaction with the VIC-20, completed their first programs tutorial with an ascii jumping jack and played gorf! ;)
Now Shatner has been in space with Blue Origin. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58885555
He played Captain Kirk in the original series of Star Trek.
He played Captain Kirk in the original series of Star Trek.
"I've giv'n her all she's got captain, an' I canna give her no more."
But will he get to say, "Engage"?
That is Captain Jean-Luc Picard's phrase [0]. Kirk usual say "Take us out, Mr Sulu."
0: https://screenrant.com/star-trek-captains-engage-picard-pike...
0: https://screenrant.com/star-trek-captains-engage-picard-pike...
Is Elon countering with the guy who made the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs?
I just feel the need to point out: Maybe Shatner feels safer on Blue Origin because the Virgin Galactic craft have wings, whereas Blue Origin craft don't?
Edit: There can't be "a man! on! the wing!" if there's no wing. ;-)
[I'll show myself out...]