The Debate: Is investing in space tourism irresponsible?
Blue Origin’s star-studded space flight caused more backlash than awe, but is all space tourism frivolous? Two writers hash it out in this week’s Debate
Yes: A single space flight emits more carbon than 1bn individual will in their lifetime
Tourism is not the harmless middle-class pastime we’ve all been brainwashed into believing, thanks to a never-ending diet of slick, over-produced adverts.
No. Tourism is an insidious scavenger. While you tramp through some chapel searching for enlightenment and culture, your sweat and breath are busy devouring the frescos. And it gets worse. Much worse.
If you’re on the so-called cutting edge of travel — a trailblazer searching for new frontiers — the first to boldly go to that unspoilt beach in wherever — guess what? There is a cost. After a few trips, too many tourists. So, time to trash the next unspoilt utopia on the list. Some Instagrammable Shangri-la on the verge of collapse. But who cares — so long as you’re keeping up with the Kardashians. Or Katy Perry. Space tourism is worse than all that combined.
The trouble is that we are not talking about some quaint Greek taverna bulldozed to make way for a megahotel. We are talking about space, Earth’s celestial crash helmet that sits over our heads and keeps us safe.
A 2022 World Inequality Report said that a single space flight of a few minutes emits more carbon emissions than 1bn individuals will emit in their lifetime. The study also noted that an 11-minute space trip emits no less than 75 tonnes of carbon per passenger “once indirect emissions are taken into account” and that the number is more likely to be in the 250–1,000 tonnes range.
We all know that pretty soon, space will be like that litter-strewn beach that no one visits. Yet, for those with their feet planted on the ground, no convenient new destination is waiting to be discovered. There is no planet B.
Andy Blackmore is picture editor at City AM and writes at Fishing in the Rivers of Life
No: Space tourism can reduce costs for scientific missions
While there are good arguments to be made on both sides, I believe space tourism is a net positive, and will contribute to a stronger space economy for many reasons.
Similarly to early aviation, space tourism contributes to advancements in propulsion systems, reusable launch vehicles and flight safety. By reducing costs for scientific missions with access to orbit, and generating more cash flow for exploration, space tourism also supports societal advances.
As part of commercial space, investment in tourism helps build infrastructure, and supports new industries from spaceports to vehicles to life support systems to training programs. This in return contributes to the growth of a global space economy, in orbit, cislunar space, on the moon and beyond.
Additionally, expanding access to space for leisure can demystify it. This further encourages public engagement in science and exploration. Experiencing the “Overview Effect” can inspire and educate more people to advocate for a deeper commitment to Earth’s protection and global cooperation.
Moreover, overlooking the environmental impact of other luxury industries (private jets, yachts, cruises) is downright hypocritical, since these are far more prevalent and offer no technological spin-offs. Singling out space tourism among other luxury travel activities is inconsistent and short-sighted.
This debate ultimately rests on values and vision: can bold investments in frontier technologies, including space tourism, play a role in long-term sustainability, innovation, societal potential and benefits for Earth? I believe they can and they will in the years to come.
Chris Bosquillon is a consultant at SAY Space
THE VERDICT: Can’t we be happy with superyachts?
The launch, and quick return, of Blue Origin’s star-studded, all-female space trip last week has, it is fair to say, cause quite a backlash, with few feeling inspired by the attempt to turn billionaire playtime into a moment of female empowerment. However, is the space tourism industry as a whole really so frivolous, or could it be a vehicle for greater good?
Mr Bosquillon makes a valid case for the latter, citing the potential for space tourism to generate cash to power wider breakthroughs in the space industry, while also allowing for experimentation and innovation, the well known gifts of the free market.
As Mr Blackmore passionately argues, however, do we have time for this? The environmental cost of space flights is, as cited, astronomical and the immediate payoff appears to be materialising more in selfies than societal advances. It may well be hypocritical to preach about that from a superyacht, but there is always a line. Perhaps the boundaries of Earth’s atmosphere could be just that?