Feminism or Facade?

Aisha Bowe, Amanda Nguyen, Gayle King, Katy Perry, Kerianne Flynn, and Lauren Sánchez dressed in matching blue jumpsuits, getting ready to take off into space.

Blue Origin’s Empowered Space Ride Missed the Point

When Jeff Bezos first launched Blue Origin, he portrayed it as a visionary leap towards the stars; a way to “envision a future where millions of people will live and work in space with a single-minded purpose: to restore and sustain Earth.” But somewhere along the way, the mission quickly turned into a luxury escapade for the wealthy and famous—a $150,000 joyride that prioritized superficiality over science. 

On April 14th, 2025, the NS-31 flight, featuring an all-female crew including pop megastar Katy Perry, was camera-ready with matching jumpsuits and was marketed as a historic milestone. However, to many, Blue Origin’s latest launch felt less like a space milestone and more like the Met Gala with seatbelts. But for all the attention, what did it actually achieve? 

Spoiler Alert: not much. 

A Disney Ride With a Touch of Empowerment

Let’s be clear: seeing an all-female crew launch into space should feel like a powerful moment. But as The College Voice’s Claire Hlotyak writes in her piece “Everything Wrong with the Blue Origin Space Mission,” this trip was “a glorified Disney Ride.” But The Guardian took the critique to new heights; calling the flight a “perverse funeral” for both feminism and science. Moira Donegan argues the event didn’t just miss the mark; it actively mocked the ideals it claimed to celebrate. 

Rather than a powerful showcase of women’s achievements, it became a carefully curated showcase valuing Instagram optics over actual progress. Of the six women aboard, only two—engineer Aisha Bowe and activist Amanda Nguyen—could be credited with entering space on the basis of merit. The rest, including Katy Perry, Gayle King, and Lauren Sánchez, were seen more as passengers of privilege than pioneers. 

Donegan writes that Sánchez, who organized the flight, represents a deeply antifeminist model of success—one defined not by capability or intellect but by proximity to power. After all, it wasn’t her company or her invention that earned her a seat in the rocket; it was her personal relationship with Jeff Bezos. When “empowerment” is reduced to who you know, or who you’re intimate with, the message being sent to women everywhere becomes warped and misleading. 

This wasn’t a step forward for feminism. It was a branding moment, packaged in blue jumpsuits and carefully rehearsed media lines. Real representation means access, opportunity, and visibility for women from all walks of life; not a PR campaign funded by billionaires. What could have been a celebration of women in aerospace became, in the words of Donegan, “a backdrop for Instagram selfies of the rich and narcissistic.” 

Katy Perry’s Cosmic Career Risk

We all love a comeback moment, but for Katy Perry, this one may have missed the mark. The Economic Times reported that PR experts are warning her career might face “extinction” after the flight, describing the mission as “tone-deaf” and “out of sync with fans.” What was intended to be an inspiring triumph for women in space exploration, quickly unraveled into a superficial publicity stunt, with the weight of celebrity performance drowning its intended message of empowerment. 

Why? Because it’s hard to belt out empowerment anthems while riding a space capsule paid for by a billionaire during a time of global housing crisis, rising food insecurity, and environmental disaster. When the world feels like it’s burning, waving from space can look less like inspiration; and more like insulation.

The Most Hated Space Mission? 

Soon enough the Blue Origin all-female flight faced significant criticism from other celebrities, media commentators, and the public. Many saw through the event's facade as a “historical moment” and saw it as the superficial display it really was. 

Public figures such as model and actor Emily Ratajkowski and comedian Amy Schumer voiced their disapproval. Ratajkowki expressed her disgust openly on Instagram, stating, “That’s end time shit. Like, this is beyond parody.” and also questioned the environmental impact of the flight. In addition, Schumer joined the outpouring of criticism, highlighting the perceived superficiality of the mission amid the global crisis.

Climate Crisis? What Climate Crisis? 

Speaking of burning; let’s talk about emissions. Blue Origin has marketed its New Shepard rocket as environmentally friendly, with Jeff Bezos even claiming it emits only water vapor. But experts say that claim is “not possible.”

As reported by UNILAD Tech, atmospheric scientists argue that any combustion process at high altitude inevitably produces nitrogen oxide gases—harmful pollutants that damage the ozone layer, the very shield protecting Earth from the sun’s radiation. And that water vapor? While it may sound harmless, when released into the upper atmosphere, it behaves very differently. Up there, it’s a potent greenhouse gas with no weather systems—like rain or wind—to break it down or carry it away. It just lingers, warming the planet.

Although Blue Origin’s total flight time on April 14th lasted just over 10 minutes, the emissions it left behind could sit for years in the upper atmosphere, causing damage far disproportionately to the flight’s length. As environmental journalist Victoria Gill noted, it’s not just about how much is emitted; it’s about where those emissions go. 

So yes, although a single Blue Origin flight might not emit as much carbon dioxide as hundreds of commercial airline flights; but it does release targeted, high-altitude pollutants in a fragile part of the Earth’s atmosphere where they can do the most harm. All this begs the questions: how can we claim to be “restoring Earth” by launching rockets that actively harm its atmosphere? Blue Origin’s attempt to focus its mission around sustainability falls apart under scientific analysis. And at a time when global temperatures are rising and environmental collapse rises, this kind of elite space tourism feels less like innovation and more like a distraction from the real crisis on the ground. 

Who Gets to Launch? 

This mission wasn’t really about groundbreaking science or making history. It was about marketing; of the Blue Origin, of Bezos, and even of the women aboard. That’s the core of the problem. If the future of space is only accessible to the famous or fantastically wealthy, we’re not expanding humanity’s reach; we’re shrinking it.

We need to ask ourselves: Who gets to go to space? Who gets to be celebrated as trailblazers? And what message are we sending when we reward superficiality over science? 

Where Do We Go From Here?

In the end, Blue Origin’s latest flight didn’t launch a movement; it launched a facade. Wrapped in a girl boss attitude and billionaire branding, inspiration failed to be the message but a distraction. Instead of moving power towards feminism, science, and sustainability, it reinforced a much more traditional idea: progress is a luxury, available only to the rich and the connected. 

We’re told to look up and reach for the stars. But maybe we should start looking at what’s in front of us; at the planet that’s burning, the broken systems, and the people still waiting to have their chance to really change the world. Until exploration stops being a playground for the powerful, it’s not progress; its performance.

Written by: Yuhki Saleff