Risk Tolerance After Accidents: NASA vs. Commercial Flights

My fellow pro-growth/progress/abundance Up Wingers,

China’s spacefaring ambitions pose tough competition for America. With a focused, centralized program, Beijing seems likely to land taikonauts on the moon before another American flag is planted. Meanwhile, NASA faces budget cuts, leadership gaps, and technical setbacks. In his new book, journalist Christian Davenport chronicles the fierce rivalry between American firms, mainly SpaceX and Blue Origin. It’s a contest that, despite the challenges, promises to propel humanity to the moon, Mars, and maybe beyond.

Davenport is an author and a reporter for the Washington Post, where he covers NASA and the space industry. His new book, Rocket Dreams: Musk, Bezos, and the Inside Story of the New, Trillion-Dollar Space Race, is out now.

In This Episode

* Check-in on NASA (1:28)

* Losing the Space Race (5:49)

* A fatal flaw (9:31)

* State of play (13:33)

* The long-term vision (18:37)

* The pace of progress (22:50)

* Friendly competition (24:53)

Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation.

Check-in on NASA (1:28)

The Chinese tend to do what they say they’re going to do on the timeline that they say they’re going to do it. That said, they haven’t gone to the moon . . . It’s really hard.

Pethokoukis: As someone — and I’m speaking about myself — who wants to get America back to the moon as soon as possible, get cooking on getting humans to Mars for the first time, what should I make of what’s happening at NASA right now?

They don’t have a lander. I’m not sure the rocket itself is ready to go all the way, we’ll find out some more fairly soon with Artemis II. We have flux with leadership, maybe it’s going to not be an independent-like agency anymore, it’s going to join the Department of Transportation.

It all seems a little chaotic. I’m a little worried. Should I be?

Davenport: Yes, I think you should be. And I think a lot of the American public isn’t paying attention and they’re going to see the Artemis II mission, which you mentioned, and that’s that mission to send a crew of astronauts around the moon. It won’t land on the moon, but it’ll go around, and I think if that goes well, NASA’s going to take a victory leap. But as you correctly point out, that is a far cry from getting astronauts back on the lunar surface.

The lander isn’t ready. SpaceX, as acting NASA administrator Sean Duffy just said, is far behind, reversing himself from like a month earlier when he said no, they appear to be on track, but everybody knew that they were well behind because they’ve had 11 test flights, and they still haven’t made it to orbit with their Starship rocket.

The rocket itself that’s going to launch them into the vicinity of the moon, the SLS, launches about once every two years. It’s incredibly expensive, it’s not reusable, and there are problems within the agency itself. There are deep cuts to it. A lot of expertise is taking early retirements. It doesn’t have a full-time leader. It hasn’t had a full-time leader since Trump won the election. At the same time, they’re sort of beating the drum saying we’re going to beat the Chinese back to the lunar surface, but I think a lot of people are increasingly looking at that with some serious concern and doubt.

For what it’s worth, when I looked at the betting markets, it gave the Chinese a two-to-one edge. It said that it was about a 65 percent chance they were going to get there first. Does that sound about right to you?

I’m not much of a betting man, but I do think there’s a very good chance. The Chinese tend to do what they say they’re going to do on the timeline that they say they’re going to do it. That said, they haven’t gone to the moon, they haven’t done this. It’s really hard. They’re much more secretive, if they have setbacks and delays, we don’t necessarily know about them. But they’ve shown over the last 10, 20 years how capable they are. They have a space station in low earth orbit. They’ve operated a rover on Mars. They’ve gone to the far side of the moon twice, which nobody has done, and brought back a sample return. They’ve shown the ability to keep people alive in space for extended periods of times on the space station.

The moon seems within their capabilities and they’re saying they’re going to do it by 2030, and they don’t have the nettlesome problem of democracy where you’ve got one party come in and changing the budget, changing the direction for NASA, changing leadership. They’ve just set the moon — and, by the way, the south pole of the moon, which is where we want to go as well — as the destination and have been beating a path toward that for several years now.

Is there anyone for merging NASA into the Department of Transportation? Is there a hidden reservoir? Is that an idea people have been talking about now that’s suddenly emerged to the surface?

It’s not something that I particularly heard. The FAA is going to regulate the launches, and they coordinate with the airspace and make sure that the air traffic goes around it, but I think NASA has a particular expertise. Rocket science is rocket science — it’s really difficult. This isn’t for the faint of heart.

I think a lot of people look at human space flight and it’s romanticized. It’s romanticized in books and movies and in popular culture, but the fact of the matter is it’s really, really hard, it’s really dangerous, every time a human being gets on one of those rockets, there’s a chance of an explosion, of something really, really bad happening, because a million things have to go right in order for them to have a successful flight. The FAA does a wonderful job managing — or, depending on your point of view, some people don’t think they do such a great job, but I think space is a whole different realm, for sure.

Losing the Space Race (5:49)

. . . the American flags that the Apollo astronauts planted, they’re basically no longer there anymore. . . There are, however, two Chinese flags on the moon

Have you thought about what it will look like the day after, in this country, if China gets to the moon first and we have not returned there yet?

Actually, that’s a scenario I kind of paint out. I’ve got this new book called Rocket Dreams and we talk about the geopolitical tensions in there. Not to give too much of a spoiler, but NASA has said that the first person to return to the moon, for the US, is going to be a woman. And there’s a lot of people thinking, who could that be? It could be Jessica Meir, who is a mother and posted a picture of herself pregnant and saying, “This is what an astronaut looks like.” But it could very well be someone like Wang Yaping, who’s also a mother, and she came back from one of her stays on the International Space Station and had a message for her daughter that said, “I come back bringing all the stars for you.” So I think that I could see China doing it and sending a woman, and that moment where that would be a huge coup for them, and that would obviously be symbolic.

But when you’re talking about space as a tool of soft power and diplomacy, I think it would attract a lot of other nations to their side who are sort of waiting on the sidelines or who frankly aren’t on the sidelines, who have signed on to go to the United States, but are going to say, “Well, they’re there and you’re not, so that’s who we’re going to go with.”

I think about the wonderful alt-history show For All Mankind, which begins with the Soviets beating the US to the moon, and instead of Neil Armstrong giving the “one small step for man,” basically the Russian cosmonaut gives, “Its one small step for Marxism-Leninism,” and it was a bummer. And I really imagine that day, if China beats us, it is going to be not just, “Oh, I guess now we have to share the moon with someone else,” but it’s going to cause some national soul searching.

And there are clues to this, and actually I detail these two anecdotes in the book, that all of the flags, the American flags that the Apollo astronauts planted, they’re basically no longer there anymore. We know from Buzz Aldrin‘s memoir that the flag that he and Neil Armstrong planted in the lunar soil in 1969, Buzz said that he saw it get knocked over by the thrust in the exhaust of the module lifting off from the lunar surface. Even if that hadn’t happened, just the radiation environment would’ve bleached the flag white, as scientists believe it has to all the other flags that are on there. So there are essentially really no trace of the Apollo flags.

There are, however, two Chinese flags on the moon, and the first one, which was planted a couple of years ago, or unveiled a couple of years ago, was made not of cloth, but their scientists and engineers spent a year building a composite material flag designed specifically to withstand the harsh environment of the moon. When they went back last summer for their farside sample return mission, they built a flag, — and this is pretty amazing — out of basalt, like volcanic rock, which you find on Earth. And they use basalt from earth, but of course basalt is common on the moon. They were able to take the rock, turn it into lava, extract threads from the lava and weave this flag, which is now near the south pole of the moon. The significance of that is they are showing that they can use the resources of the moon, the basalt, to build flags. It’s called ISR: in situ resource utilization. So to me, nothing symbolizes their intentions more than that.

A fatal flaw (9:31)

. . . I tend to think if it’s a NASA launch . . . and there’s an explosion . . . I still think there are going to be investigations, congressional reports, I do think things would slow down dramatically.

In the book, you really suggest a new sort of golden age of space. We have multiple countries launching. We seem to have reusable rockets here in the United States. A lot of plans to go to the moon. How sustainable is this economically? And I also wonder what happens if we have another fatal accident in this country? Is there so much to be gained — whether it’s economically, or national security, or national pride in space — that this return to space by humanity will just go forward almost no matter what?

I think so. I think you’ve seen a dramatic reduction in the cost of launch. SpaceX and the Falcon 9, the reusable rocket, has dropped launches down. It used to be if you got 10, 12 orbital rocket launches in a year, that was a good year. SpaceX is launching about every 48 hours now. It’s unprecedented what they’ve done. You’re seeing a lot of new players — Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, others — driving down the cost of launch.

That said, the main anchor tenant customer, the force driving all of this is still the government, it’s still NASA, it’s still the Pentagon. There is not a self-sustaining space economy that exists in addition or above and beyond the government. You’re starting to see bits of that, but really it’s the government that’s driving it.

When you talk about the movie For All Mankind, you sort of wonder if at one point, what happened in that movie is there was a huge investment into NASA by the government, and you’re seeing that to some extent today, not so much with NASA, but actually on the national security side and the creation of the Space Force and the increases, just recently, in the Space Force’s budget. I mean, my gosh, if you have $25 billion for this year alone for Golden Dome, the Missile Defense Shield, that’s the equivalent of NASA’s entire budget. That’s the sort of funding that helps build those capabilities going forward.

And if we should, God forbid, have a fatal accident, you think we’ll just say that’s the cost of human exploration and forward we go?

I think a lot about this, and the answer is, I don’t know. When we had Challenger and we had Columbia, the world stopped, and the Space Shuttle was grounded for months if not a year at a time, and the world just came to an end. And you wonder now if it’s becoming more routine and what happens? Do we just sort of carry on in that way?

It’s not a perfect analogy, but when you talk about commercial astronauts, these rich people are paying a lot of money to go, and if there’s an accident there, what would happen? I think about that, and you think about Mount Everest. The people climbing Mount Everest today, those mountain tourists are literally stepping over dead bodies as they’re going up to the summit, and nobody’s shutting down Mount Everest, they’re just saying, well, if you want to climb Mount Everest, that’s the risk you take. I do wonder if we’re going to get that to that point in space flight, but I tend to think if it’s a NASA launch, and it’s NASA astronauts, and there’s an explosion, and there’s a very bad day, I still think there are going to be investigations, congressional reports, I do think things would slow down dramatically.

The thing is, if it’s SpaceX, they have had accidents. They’ve had multiple accidents — not with people, thank goodness — and they have been grounded.

It is part of the model.

It’s part of the model, and they have shown how they can find out what went wrong, fix it, and return to flight, and they know their rocket so well because they fly it so frequently. They know it that well, and NASA, despite what you think about Elon, NASA really, really trusts SpaceX and they get along really well.

State of play (13:33)

[Blue Origin is] way behind for myriad reasons. They sat out while SpaceX is launching the Falcon 9 every couple of days . . . Blue Origin, meanwhile, has flown its New Glenn rocket one time.

I was under the impression that Blue Origin was way behind SpaceX. Are they catching up?

This is one of the themes of the book. They are way behind for myriad reasons. They sat out while SpaceX is launching the Falcon 9 every couple of days, they’re pushing ahead with Starship, their next generation rocket would be fully reusable, twice the thrust and power of the Saturn V rocket that flew the Apollo astronauts to the Moon. Blue Origin, meanwhile, has flown its New Glenn rocket one time. They might be launching again soon within the coming weeks or months, hopefully by the end of the year, but that’s two. They are so far behind, but you do hear Jeff Bezos being much more tuned into the company. He has a new CEO — a newish CEO — plucked from the ranks of Amazon, Dave Limp, and you do sort of see them charging, and now that the acting NASA administrator has sort of opened up the competition to go to the moon, I don’t know that Blue Origin beats SpaceX to do it, but it gives them some incentive to move fast, which I think they really need.

I know it’s only a guess and it’s only speculation, but when we return to the moon, which company will have built that lander?

At this point, you have to put your money on SpaceX just because they’re further along in their development. They’ve flown humans before. They know how to keep people alive in space. In their Dragon capsule, they have the rendezvous and proximity operations, they know how to dock. That’s it.

Blue Origin has their uncrewed lander, the Mark 1 version that they hope to land on the moon next year, so it’s entirely possible that Blue Origin actually lands a spacecraft on the lunar surface before SpaceX, and that would be a big deal. I don’t know that they’re able to return humans there, however, before SpaceX.

Do you think there’s any regrets by Jeff Bezos about how Blue Origin has gone about its business here? Because obviously it really seems like it’s a very different approach, and maybe the Blue Origin approach, if we look back 10 years, will seem to have been the better approach, but given where we are now and what you just described, would you guess that he’s deeply disappointed with the kind of progress they made via SpaceX?

Yeah, and he’s been frustrated. Actually, the opening scene of the book is Jeff being upset that SpaceX is so far ahead and having pursued a partnership with NASA to fly cargo and supply to the International Space Station and then to fly astronauts to the International Space Station, and Blue Origin essentially sat out those competitions. And he turns to his team — this was early on in 2016 — and said, “From here on out, we go after everything that SpaceX goes after, we’re going to compete with them. We’re going to try to keep up.” And that’s where they went, and sort of went all in early in the first Trump administration when it was clear that they wanted to go back to the moon, to position Blue Origin to say, “We can help you go back to the moon.”

But yes, I think there’s enormous frustration there. And I know, if not regret on Jeff’s part, but certainly among some of his senior leadership, because I’ve talked to them about it.

What is the war for talent between those two companies? Because if you’re a hotshot engineer out of MIT, I’d guess you’d probably want to go to SpaceX. What is that talent war like, if you have any idea?

It’s fascinating. Just think a generation ago, you’re a hot MIT engineer coming out of grad school, chances are you’re going to go to NASA or one of the primes, right? Lockheed, or Boeing, or Air Jet, something like that. Now you’ve got SpaceX and Blue Origin, but you’ve got all kinds of other options too: Stoke Space, Rocket Lab, you’ve got Axiom, you’ve got companies building commercial space stations, commercial companies building space suits, commercial companies building rovers for the moon, a company called Astro Lab.

I think what you hear is people want to go to SpaceX because they’re doing things: they’re flying rockets, they’re flying people, you’re actually accomplishing something. That said, the culture’s rough, and you’re working all the time, and the burnout rate is high. Blue Origin more has a tradition of people getting frustrated that yeah, the work-life balance is better — although I hear that’s changing, actually, that it’s driving much, much harder — but it’s like, when are we launching? What are we doing here?

And so the fascinating thing is actually, I call it SpaceX and Blue Origin University, where so many of the engineers go out and either do their own things or go to work for other companies doing things because they’ve had that experience in the commercial sector.

The long-term vision (18:37)

That’s the interesting thing, that while they compete . . . at a base level, Elon and Jeff and SpaceX and Blue Origin want to accomplish the same things and have a lot in common . . .

At a talk recently, Bezos was talking about space stations in orbit and there being like a million people in space in 20 years doing economically valuable things of some sort. How seriously should I take that kind of prediction?

Well, I think a million people in 20 years is not feasible, but I think that’s ultimately what is his goal. His goal is, as he says, he founded Amazon, the infrastructure was there: the phone companies had laid down the cables for the internet, the post office was there to deliver the books, there was an invention called the credit card, he could take people’s money. That infrastructure for space isn’t there, and he wants to sort of help with Elon and SpaceX. That’s their goal.

That’s the interesting thing, that while they compete, while they poke each other on Twitter and kind of have this rivalry, at a base level, Elon and Jeff and SpaceX and Blue Origin want to accomplish the same things and have a lot in common, and that’s lower the cost of access to space and make it more accessible so that you can build this economy on top of it and have more people living in space. That’s Elon’s dream, and the reason he founded SpaceX is to build a city on Mars, right? Something’s going to happen to Earth at some point we should have a backup plan.

Jeff’s goal from the beginning was to say, you don’t really want to inhabit another planet or celestial body. You’re better off in these giant space stations envisioned by a Princeton physics professor named Gerard O’Neill, who Jeff Bezos read his book The High Frontier and became an acolyte of Gerard O’Neill from when he was a kid, and that’s sort of his vision, that you don’t have to go to a planet, you can just be on a Star Trekkian sort of spacecraft in orbit around the earth, and then earth is preserved as this national park. If you want to return to Earth, you can, but you get all the resources from space. In 500 years is that feasible? Yeah, probably, but that’s not going to be in our lives, or our kids’ lives, or our grandkids’ lives.

For that vision — anything like that vision — to happen, it seems to me that the economics needs to be there, and the economics just can’t be national security and national prestige. We need to be doing things in space, in orbit, on the moon that have economic value on their own. Do we know what that would look like, or is it like you’ve got to build the infrastructure first and then let the entrepreneurs do their thing and see what happens?

I would say the answer is “yes,” meaning it’s both. And Jeff even says it, that some of the things that will be built, we do not know. When you had the creation of the internet, no one was envisioning Snapchat or TikTok. Those applications come later. But we do know that there are resources in space. We know there’s a plentiful helium three, for example, on the surface of the moon, which it could be vital for, say, quantum computing, and there’s not a lot of it on earth, and that could be incredibly valuable. We know that asteroids have precious metals in large quantities. So if you can reduce the cost of accessing them and getting there, then I think you could open up some of those economies. If you just talk about solar rays in space, you don’t have day and night, you don’t have cloud cover, you don’t have an atmosphere, you’re just pure sunlight. If you could harness that energy and bring it back to earth, that could be valuable.

The problem is the cost of entry is so high and it’s so difficult to get there, but if you have a vehicle like Starship that does what Elon envisions and it launches multiple times a day like an airline, all you’re really doing is paying for the fuel to launch it, and it goes up and comes right back down, it can carry enormous amounts of mass, you can begin to get a glimmer of how this potentially could work years from now.

The pace of progress (22:50)

People talk about US-China, but clearly Russia has been a long-time player. India, now, has made extraordinary advancements. Of course, Europe, Japan, and all those countries are going to want to have a foothold in space . . .

How would you characterize the progress now than when you wrote your first book?

So much has happened that the first book, The Space Barons was published in 2018, and I thought, yeah, there’ll be enough material here for another one in maybe 10 years or so, and here we are, what, seven years later, and the book is already out because commercial companies are now flying people. You’ve got a growth of the space ecosystem beyond just the Space Barons, beyond just the billionaires.

You’ve got multiple players in the rocket launch market, and really, I think a lot of what’s driving it isn’t just the rivalries between the commercial companies in the United States, but the geopolitical space race between the United States and China, too that’s really driving a lot of this, and the technological change that we’ve seen has moved very fast. Again, how fast SpaceX is launching, Blue Origin coming online, new launch vehicles, potentially new commercial space stations, and a broadening of the space ecosystem, it’s moving fast. Does that mean it’s perfect? No, companies start, they fail, they have setbacks, they go out of business, but hey, that’s capitalism.

Ten years from now, how many space stations are going to be in orbit around the earth?

I think we’ll have at least one or two commercial space stations for the United States, I think China. Is it possible you’ve got the US space stations, does that satisfy the demand? People talk about US-China, but clearly Russia has been a long-time player. India, now, has made extraordinary advancements. Of course, Europe, Japan, and all those countries are going to want to have a foothold in space for their scientists, for their engineers, for their pharmaceutical companies that want to do research in a zero-G environment. I think it’s possible that there are, within 10 years, three, maybe even four space stations. Yeah, I think that’s possible.

Friendly competition (24:53)

I honestly believe [Elon] . . . wants Blue to be better than they are.

Do you think Musk thinks a lot about Blue Origin, or do you think he thinks, “I’m so far ahead, we’re just competing against our own goals”?

I’ve talked to him about this. He wishes they were better. He wishes they were further along. He said to me years ago, “Jeff needs to focus on Blue Origin.” This is back when Jeff was still CEO of Amazon, saying he should focus more on Blue Origin. And he said that one of the reasons why he was goading him and needling him as he has over the years was an attempt to kind of shame him and to get him to focus on Blue, because as he said, for Blue to be successful, he really needs to be dialed in on it.

So earlier this year, when New Glenn, Blue Origin’s big rocket, made it to orbit, that was a moment where Elon came forward and was like, respect. That is hard to do, to build a rocket to go to orbit, have a successful flight, and there was sort of a public high five in the moment, and now I think he thinks, keep going. I honestly believe he wants Blue to be better than they are.

There’s a lot of Elon Musk skeptics out there. They view him either as the guy who makes too big a prediction about Tesla and self-driving cars, or he’s a troll on Twitter, but when it comes to space and wanting humanity to have a self-sustaining place somewhere else — on Mars — is he for real?

Yeah, I do believe that’s the goal. That’s why he founded SpaceX in the first place, to do that. But the bottom line is, that’s really expensive. When you talk about how do you do that, what are the economic ways to do it, I think the way he’s funding that is obviously through Starlink and the Starlink system. But I do believe he wants humanity to get to Mars.

The problem with this now is that there hasn’t been enough competition. Blue Origin hasn’t given SpaceX competition. We saw all the problems that Boeing has had with their program, and so much of the national space enterprise is now in his hands. And if you remember when he had that fight and the breakup with Donald Trump, Elon, in a moment of peak, threatened to take away the Dragon spacecraft, which is the only way NASA can fly its astronauts anywhere to space, to the International Space Station. I think that was reckless and dangerous and that he regretted it, but yes, the goal to get to Mars is real, and whatever you think about Elon — and he certainly courts a controversy — SpaceX is really, really good at what they do, and what they’ve done is really unprecedented from an American industrial perspective.

My earliest and clearest memory of America and space was the landing on Mars. I remember seeing the first pictures probably on CBS news, I think it was Dan Rather saying, “Here are the first pictures of the Martian landscape,” 1976, and if you would’ve asked me as a child then, I would’ve been like, “Yeah, so we’re going to be walking on Mars,” but I was definitely hooked and I’ve been interested in space, but are you a space guy? How’d you end up on this beat, which I think is a fantastic beat? You’ve written two books about it. How did this happen?

I did not grow up a space nerd, so I was born in 1973 —

Christian, I said “space guy.” I didn’t say “space nerd,” but yeah, that is exactly right.

My first memory of space is actually the Challenger shuttle exploding. That was my memory. As a journalist, I was covering the military. I’d been embedded in Iraq, and my first book was an Iraq War book about the national guard’s role in Iraq, and was covering the military. And then this guy, this was 10 years ago, 12 years ago, at this point, Elon holds a press conference at the National Press Club where SpaceX was suing the Pentagon for the right to compete for national security launch contracts, and he starts off the press conference not talking about the lawsuit, but talking about the attempts. This was early days of trying to land the Falcon 9 rocket and reuse it, and I didn’t know what he was talking about. And I was like, what? And then I did some research and I was like, “He’s trying to land and reuse the rockets? What?” Nobody was really covering it, so I started spending more time, and then it’s the old adage, right? Follow the money. And if the richest guys in the world — Bezos Blue Origin, at the time, Richard Branson, Paul Allen had a space company — if they’re investing large amounts of their own personal fortune into that, maybe we should be paying attention, and look at where we are now.

On sale everywhere The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were Promised

Faster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe