Blue Origin: How to Legitimize Space Tourism

Space tourism has reignited debate with Blue Origin’s NS-31 mission on April 14^th, which carried an all-female crew to the edge of space. The 11-minute flight allowed well-known media personalities like Lauren Sánchez, pop star Katy Perry, former NASA engineer Aisha Bowe, civil rights activist Amanda Nguyễn, broadcaster Gayle King, and film producer Kerianne Flynn to join the exclusive list of individuals who have travelled to space. Blue Origin promoted the mission as a feminist milestone for its all-female crew, in an environment where the legitimacy of space tourism is mainly questioned by public opinion for its environmental impact and exclusive position. This article explores how Blue Origin tries to legitimize its activities through performative feminism, switching negative narratives around space tourism and reframing the industry as an acceptable and socially progressive practice.

Blue Origin

Founded by businessman Jeff Bezos in 2000, the company behind the flight is one of the main private corporations, alongside SpaceX and Virgin Galactic, competing in the billionaire space race. Blue Origin has become synonymous with elite escapades into suborbital space, but the company’s initial aim, still active today, is the development of space infrastructures such as moon landing platforms and mostly reusable rockets. As part of Blue Origin’s New Shepard program, the NS-31 mission completed the company’s 11^th successful human flight, bringing the number of people who have reached space through this program to 58.

Criticism of Space Tourism

Public opinion on space tourism is divided, but still mostly not on Blue Origin’s side. This practice, becoming more and more in demand for wealthy people, is still scrutinized for its ethical, social, and environmental implications.

The claim that space tourism contributes to the democratisation of space flights to a larger public has been challenged by critics. Blue Origin aims to “radically reduc[e] the cost of spaceflight” through reusability, which they hope would render space travel more accessible as less expensive. For now, this accessibility is still very much limited to a handful of ultra-rich able to purchase a seat in the rocket. While the company does not reveal the cost per ticket for a flight, besides a 150,000 dollars fee to start the booking process, competitor Virgin Galactic has estimated each of their seats to cost between 250,000 and 450,000 dollars. These numbers reveal how space tourism remains an exclusive luxury, accessible only to a few, starkly contrasting with the vision of democratized space travel that the company promotes to a larger public. This disparity sparked negative criticism, with some arguing that rather than fulfilling a significant purpose for space exploration and humanity, the industry appropriates valuable resources for 11 extravagant minutes given to a privileged few.

While the high cost of the industry weakens its public image, space tourism faces deeper criticism concerning its fundamental purpose. The scientific community remains largely opposed to the practice as it does not bring any scientific advancement nor contributes to society. Blue Origin publicizes how such flights are transforming and allow “to [witness] life-changing views of Earth”. While the latter highlights a sense of individuality in space tourism, special advisor for political affairs at the ESA Dr Kai-Uwe Schrogl maintains that spaceflights should serve a scientific purpose for a collective advancement. As he explained to the BBC News: “We [space scientists] see space flight as being for science, knowledge and the interests of humanity”, while “A celebrity isn’t an envoy of humankind — they go into space for their own reasons”. His distinction sheds light on how the scientific community legitimizes spaceflights if scientifically driven, and on the contrary negatively perceive space tourism as a self-serving entertainment-focused industry.

The biggest critic of space tourism remains its negative environmental impact, a damaging narrative that Blue Origin tries to counter. The company claims to be concerned by environmental issues as the meaning of their name suggests: “Blue Origin means ‘Earth’. We envision a future where millions of people will live and work in space with a single-minded purpose: to restore and sustain Earth, our blue origin.” The company’s logo furthers their commitment to present themselves as interested in protecting the planet:

Une image contenant texte, Police, Bleu électrique, Graphique

Le contenu généré par l’IA peut être incorrect.

Blue Origin also directly addresses the ecological consequences of its capsules. They claim to aim to “reduce waste,” as “Nearly 99% of New Shepard’s dry mass is reused,” and that “During flight, the only byproduct of New Shepard’s engine combustion is water vapour with no carbon emissions.” Experts raise concerns about the latter claim, since water vapour remains a greenhouse gas responsible for the ozone layer’s deterioration. Blue Origin’s New Shepard capsules are still seen as the less environmentally harming in the industry, but they still contribute to it by their extensive use of electricity and in their supply chain. The 11-minute flight produced per passenger at least 75 tons of CO₂, as the 2022 World Inequality Report indicates, representing more emissions than a billion people emitting under one tonne annually would ever produce in their lifetime. These numbers contrast heavily with Blue Origin’s claims, bringing public opinion to question not only the company’s commitment to ecological causes, but more largely the space tourism industry whose carbon footprint outweighs its alleged individualistic benefits.

Performative feminism: a tool to blur public opinion?

While environmental concerns dominate the debate, Blue Origin’s feminist claims of their flight offer the opportunity to approach the mission as an important step for humanity. Indeed, the Blue Origin flight is composed of the first all-female crew since Valentina Terechkova’s alone mission in 1963. As women represent only 15% of the individuals that have been to space, Lauren Sánchez’s choice to include six women to accompany her on the flight can indeed seem profitable for gender equality. However, space tourism itself and the rhetoric around the flight suggest otherwise: the approach to feminism given by Blue Origin remains closer to a performance than a real action for women equality.

The latter is visible in the mission’s claim to represent a source of inspiration for younger girls wanting to work in STEM, despite not committing to support such goals. The crew did not include any aerospace professionals besides Aisha Bowe, and the flight did not require any special skill from the crew, as the capsule is automated. The six women were not selected for their achievements in stem, but as Lauren Sánchez states, for being “storytellers”, in other words, they were selected for their media impact. The latter is profitable to promote Blue Origin’s tourism flights, but does nothing for programs supporting women in the industry. Blue Origin is in fact related to the contrary as its founder Jeff Bezos financially supported the campaign of the current President Donald Trump that is known for dismantling diversity programs designed to protect opportunities for women in STEM.

Another element dissipating this flight’s association with promoting gender equality is the importance given to cosmetic looks in the rhetoric around the flight. The crew’s spacesuits were personally designed by the luxury fashion house Monse and Lauren Sánchez. The latter illustrated the importance given to appearances during this flight in her interview for Elle magazine by arguing: “Who would not get glam before the flight?”, to which crew member Katy Perry reiterated: “Space is going to finally be glam”. These types of discourses may seem to contribute to female identity assertion, but they on the contrary further a persisting stereotype imposed on womanhood around looks. Valentina Terechkova had already been associated with being “primping for orbit” in front of her hairdresser, and astronaut Rhea Seddon promoted NASA tested cosmetic on her 1985 flight. These elements reinforce the idea that even when women go to space, they are still reduced to their appearances. This hegemonic narrative is preeminent in the flight’s discussions, as evidenced by the question given to former NASA engineer Aisha Bowe after the landing: “How do you look perfect after just going to space?!”, a remark reinforcing the idea that the flight was focused on superficial achievements. Thereby emphasizing how gender equity becomes synonymous with luxury and spectacle rather than focused on the substance.

This feminist representation by Blue Origin reveals how the principle was used as a marketing strategy. Owing to the use of performative feminism, the space tourism company counters criticism by offering a popular cause that frames the all-female flight as a groundbreaking moment for gender equality, making it relevant for our society despite its carbon footprint. By focusing on the feminist branding of the flight and not on its negative impact, this activity becomes normalized, allowing a select public to participate without fear of heavy criticism. As Amanda Hess explains in her New York Times article, by having a feminist pretension, Blue Origin “made its activities feel socially relevant by association”. The existing controversy around this all-female flight shows how the question of performative feminism, in this case, was not overlooked by the public, but the number of defenders and participants of space tourism reveal how this exclusive polluting industry can still be legitimized and appear as a social advancement.

Carolina Silva Pereira