[SilkRoadie]

I am somewhat uneducated on the topic but is space tourism a good idea? It is a flight to nowhere which surely has a hefty carbon cost. Doesn't it also add pollutants high up in the atmosphere?

As exciting as it is to experience space I could imagine the environment cost is far from ideal.

[onion2k]

A SpaceX launch outputs 336,552KG of CO2. I imagine Blue Origin's first passenger flight will be a bit less because it's not going as high.

The environmental cost of doing anything is far from ideal, but in the case of space tourism the impact is minimal. A 777-300 flight from New York to London outputs about 1,261KG of CO2 per passenger.[1] In British Airways configuration there are 299 seats on a plane like that, which is 377,039KG in total. There are 28 direct NY-LDN flights daily.

If the goal is to reduce the amount of high atmosphere CO2 then persuading 300 fewer people to fly across the Atlantic would have a larger impact.

It's also worth pointing out that Jeff Bezos owns two Gulfstream G650ER private jets, which will be putting a lot more CO2 in to the atmosphere than his day trip to space.

[1] From https://www.atmosfair.de/en/offset/flight/

EDIT: It turns out that Blue Origin's rocket exhaust is water, so all the CO2 is retained at ground level. I guess that's good news.

[morsch]

As a side note: Stratospheric/high-altitude water vapor is probably also a contributor to global warming.

[fsloth]

If you think the future of humanity is in space (I do, but opinions vary) then yes, space tourism is excellent and critical idea.

Generally it drives practical use cases, has a clear revenue model (which is really, really important to keep any complex financial and technical project honest) and drives popular demand for "space" in general. Having rich and famous tweeting orbital and translunar updates would do more for image of space travel than 50 years of science fiction and state advertising combined.

For example, low gravity has lots of well documented side effects. Even though short term microgravity is not too bad, having a constant stream of rich people travel there will create more demand for space medicine, which will probably drive innovation to improve the lot of all space travelers long term.

Launching stuff to orbit will have a carbon cost. And it should be tallied. But it's a cost we have to pay ANYWAY to become an interstellar species.

[rplnt]

The Blue Origin "tourist rocket"[1] uses hydrogen as a fuel and oxygen as an oxidizer, so there are no direct emissions or pollutants.

In general you are of course right. The top 1% will slightly increase their already large carbon footprint by a small amount.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Shepard

[jetpackjoe]

How many emissions and pollutants came from refining the hydrogen and oxygen though?

[anotheryou]

Is it done with electricity? In that case it would be whatever the grip offers and probably the 'd pay the premium for renewables to keep their image.

[analog31]

No, hydrogen at an industrial scale is produced chemically from petroleum. The two steps are "shift reaction" and "steam reforming."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-gas_shift_reaction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming

The days of hydrogen being an efficient storage medium for solar or nuclear energy through electrolysis are far in the future.

[bryanlarsen]

Blue Origin doesn't need hydrogen at industrial scale. They could easily supply themselves with "green" hydrogen created via electrolysis.

Elon Musk has promised to eventually fuel Starship with synthetic "green" methane. Green hydrogen is a much simpler problem, so if Blue Origin hasn't yet made that promise, it's quite likely they will soon.

[lakecresva]

>Elon Musk has promised to eventually fuel Starship with synthetic "green" methane.

Just so I can pencil this on my calendar, where does this fit on the timeline relative to full self-driving and the hyperloop?

[auxym]

According to wikipedia, 95% is hydrogen is made from fossil fuels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production

[leetcrew]

not quite. any high-temperature combustion in atmosphere is going to create some NOx.

[wongarsu]

If the overview effect [1] is real, even just a few world leaders and ultra-wealthy appreciating the fragility of earth could easily outweigh any pollution from space tourism.

In terms of carbon it's not even that bad, a spaceflight is roughly comparable to an airliner crossing the Atlantic. Of course it puts other pollutants in more layers of the atmosphere, something we definitely have to study as spaceflight becomes more common.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect

[Tepix]

Why wouldn't the overview effect be real?

Anyway the question is if 2-3 minutes are enough to have it kick in.

[schnebbau]

Regular tourism is far worse.

[cinntaile]

In absolute numbers you're right because millions of people are tourists compared to a few wealthy space tourists. But that's a strange metric to use, the space tourists are part of the regular tourist group as well. If we compare energy usage per tourist the numbers will be stacked against space tourism.

[cdmckay]

Regular tourism is bad, but rocket tourism is a new kind of bad because it puts pollutants in the upper atmosphere and we really don't know what the effects of that will be.

Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-air-poll...

[bryanlarsen]

New Shepard doesn't use solid fuel. Its exhaust is water.

[zepolen]

Is life a good idea? Human have a hefty carbon cost, and aren't they also the leading cause of pollutants? I could imagine individuals truly concerned for the environment would stop reproducing.

[ecmascript]

It will probably help humanity venture into space so I would answer yes it is a good idea. Rich people that can afford space tourism also can afford doing other things with their money which is also carbon intensive but doesn't bring humanity forward technology wise.