Connecting Data to Wealth Creation
Connecting Data to Wealth Creation
Blue Origin finally did it. After delays (four days worth, blamed on weather and solar storms), New Glenn launched, delivered its payload—NASA’s Escapade Mars orbiters—and, crucially, landed its booster on a barge. The video of Bezos watching from launch control, the employees chanting "Next stop, moon!"—it's all good PR. But let's not get carried away. One successful launch doesn't erase past setbacks.
New Glenn is a massive rocket, five times bigger than New Shepard. The successful landing is undoubtedly a technical achievement. It proves reusability, which is key to lowering launch costs (though the actual cost savings are always less dramatic than promised). But context matters. This was, effectively, New Glenn’s second attempt. The first, back in January, delivered a prototype satellite, but the booster failed to land. A 50% success rate isn't exactly confidence-inspiring. What's the acceptable failure rate when human lives are on the line?
The Escapade mission itself is interesting. Two orbiters, a relatively modest budget (under $80 million, managed by UC Berkeley), and a year-long Earth orbit before slingshotting to Mars in 2026, arriving in 2027. The goal: mapping Mars' upper atmosphere and magnetic fields. Good science, no doubt. But is it a game-changer? Blue Origin launches huge rocket carrying twin NASA spacecraft to Mars - NBC News
I've looked at hundreds of these project proposals, and the budgets always seem... optimistic. Given past NASA cost overruns, I'd put the odds of Escapade staying under $80 million closer to 60/40 against.
And this is the part of the report that I find genuinely puzzling: NASA's Acting Administrator Sean Duffy reopened the contract for the first crewed moon landing, citing concern over Starship's progress. Concern? Starship is undergoing constant testing, iterative improvements. Blue Origin is still demoing prototypes. What data is Duffy using to justify this decision? Or is it something else entirely?
Blue Origin holds a NASA contract for the third moon landing under Artemis. SpaceX got the first two. NASA aims to land astronauts on the moon by the end of the decade—to beat China. Twelve astronauts walked on the moon during Apollo. The pressure is on.
But let's be clear: Blue Origin is playing catch-up. SpaceX is further ahead in terms of launch cadence and demonstrated capability. NASA is on track to send astronauts around the moon early next year using the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket. (A rocket, I might add, that makes New Glenn look almost economical.) The real race isn't just getting to the moon; it's building a sustainable lunar presence. And that requires more than just a successful booster landing.
New Glenn is named after John Glenn, the first American to orbit the Earth. A fitting tribute, but names don't win races; data does. Blue Origin needs to prove it can deliver consistent, reliable performance. One successful launch is a start, but it's not a victory.
Blue Origin got the booster down. Good for them. But the real question is: Can they turn this single data point into a trend? The space race isn't about who gets there first; it's about who can stay the longest and build the most. And right now, the numbers suggest Blue Origin still has a long way to go.