See what a high band reads like.

P1Commercial space tourism has captured public imagination and attracted significant private investment in recent years. On balance, however, I consider it a predominantly negative development at this stage of human history, given its environmental costs, its extreme exclusivity, and the opportunity cost it represents.

P2The environmental case against space tourism is substantial. Each sub-orbital or orbital flight consumes enormous quantities of propellant and releases a cocktail of soot, water vapour, and other compounds directly into the upper atmosphere, where they can persist for years and contribute to stratospheric ozone depletion. At a moment when governments are under intense pressure to reduce aviation and industrial emissions, the prospect of an affluent minority generating disproportionate atmospheric impact purely for leisure is difficult to justify.

P3The equity dimension reinforces this concern. Current ticket prices for sub-orbital flights run to hundreds of thousands of dollars, placing the experience entirely beyond the reach of the overwhelming majority of the world's population. Unlike many transformative technologies that begin at premium prices before becoming widely accessible, the physics and economics of space access make mass participation implausible for the foreseeable future. Space tourism therefore entrenches rather than transcends existing wealth disparities.