Bald and balding men in space

Is commercial space travel the right way for the wealthy to gain perspective?

It finally happened; at 90 years of age, Scotty beamed up Captain Kirk. 

After all of those years on an SS Enterprise constructed from tinfoil, cardboard, and hot glue, William Shatner, at 90, became the oldest person to go to space. For a whopping 10 minutes, the second manned flight of Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin propelled the millionaire celebrity, along with three others, into the landscape that served as the background for his on-screen crew. 

Shatner’s trip to space, and the tearful interview that followed, were part of an effort to promote Blue Origin and encourage more millionaires to consider a trip to space for their next holiday. As of July, Blue Origin had $100 million in ticket sales - $28 million of which was paid by a single bidder- for less time in space than it takes to watch “Pigs in Space”, Blue Origin voyages are indeed reserved for none but the uber-wealthy. 

Blue Origin competes with Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic, which similarly offers millionaires a joy-ride to space, though at a lower orbit, in a vessel more similar to an airplane, and with a $450,000 ticket price as of August. Next year, three passengers have secured spots on a SpaceX Axiom rocket to the International Space Station for $55 million apiece. All of this goes to show that as crazy as it may seem, there does appear to be a market for luxury trips to space, and for that reason, it’s worth discussing some of the things that go along with that. 

Shatner described the experience as “the most profound I could imagine” and said that “everyone needs to do this”. When Bezos went to space in a cowboy hat in July with three other passengers, the four-minute trip cost $5.5 billion. He talked about his motivation for Blue Origin as being about “gaining perspective”, and Twitter responded to this comment appropriately. There were suggestions that if Bezos was looking to gain perspective, he might want to consider visiting a Covid-19 ward or ending world hunger. The irony was not lost on the world of social media that in Van Horn, Texas, the launch site for Blue Origin, 28.5% of the population, or one in every 3.5 residents, currently lives below the poverty line. While it is without a doubt that Shatner and Bezos gained perspective on their suborbital flights, it is fair to ask why men with so much money and a purported desire to broaden their horizons wouldn’t choose to do so by exposing themselves to countless issues in the world. 

We are all wearing red shirts right now when it comes to the future of our planet, a future that will be realized well within my lifetime. From Yuri Gagarin to Bob and Doug, rocket launches consistently involve a consuming cloud of smoke. But it’s not just a cloud; it’s the emissions of sometimes water vapour, and sometimes alumina or black soot. SpaceX uses the last of these in launching their Falcon 9 rockets. Alumina and black soot both linger in the stratosphere and further damage our already damaged ozone layer. The number of space flights has increased since 2019 to over 100 per year, and the rise of commercial air travel is likely to continue growing that number. The launch is the last stage in a process that is resource intense, and environmentally harmful. Specifically, satellites and other objects launched into space often rely on hydrazine, a highly toxic material and poses a severe risk of spillage. Suppose commercial space travel becomes more regular, and the number of launches continues to increase. In that case, there is a real risk that they will contribute to further accelerating the pace of the climate emergency. In an interview with Time Magazine about his Blue Origin experience, Shatner said, “The [politicians] who are making these decisions for us—having trouble getting some goddamn million dollars, billion dollars to fight pollution. Are they crazy? We should send everybody up into space to see what they’re voting against. It’s crazy. There’s nothing more important”. And while he may be right that seeing what the problem looks like could sway the forces that be to take more aggressive action, it also begs the question of why billions that could be spent on addressing the climate crisis, should go to something likely to exacerbate it. 

While Bezos’ July trip came with a hefty price tag, the reality is that space travel has never been an inexpensive endeavour. When the Mercury and Apollo Projects raced to beat the Soviets, not everyone was gleefully following coverage of the first American Astronauts. As said by 1970s poet Gil Scott-Herron, “No hot water, no toilet, no lights/(But Whitey’s on the moon)”. Project Mercury, the first American space project, making John Glenn the first person to orbit the Earth, ran from 1958 to 1963, and cost the equivalent of $2.25 billion. The Apollo Project, which ran from 1961 to 1975, and put the first men on the moon, cost the equivalent of $194 billion. While I have long been personally fascinated with the early space race, I cannot help but acknowledge the merit in asking whether the money could have been spent on other things. This massive government expenditure on sending humans into space was set against the backdrop of the civil rights movement, Vietnam war, and NOW movement’s push for feminism and gender equality, not to mention the realities of poverty and access to resources that existed just as much in the 1960s as they do today. Scott-Heron was not necessarily wrong to point out that there were real social problems that needed to be addressed, and that money that could have gone to addressing them was instead being used on leaving footprints in moon dust. 

In the 1960s, the space program was justified by the Cold War. However, as time has gone on, explanations for spending massive sums on sending astronauts to the International Space Station have faded away. Legitimate claims continue to be made about scientific research, and SpaceX was recently awarded a contract with NASA for the aspired Mars landing under that umbrella. But why continue to put so much money and time into space exploration? How much value does landing on Mars have when people on Earth are struggling to meet their most basic needs? What will happen when we have polluted more than one planet? The space program has always come with its degree of moral ambiguity, and with the rise of commercial space travel, it is worth revisiting these questions.                                                                

There are key differences between the development of NASA and Blue Origin. The former relies on government money to send astronauts out of the atmosphere. This means that when we oppose the use of tax dollars for space programs rather than increasing access to health care or affordable nutrition, we have a leg to stand on in asking for change - it’s our money.  Blue Origin relies on private individuals of immeasurable wealth footing the bill for their trip to the stars. Like Bezos, Branson, and Shatner, private individuals can spend their money how they please; they aren’t accountable to the public. Our stance in calling them out for spending money that could have gone to solving actual problems, on gaining perspective out the window of a rocketship, is entirely moral and ethical. 

How far could Bezos’ $5.5 billion have gone? Global Citizen assessed the things that Bezos’ four-minute trip to space could have purchased. For the money spent on his July voyage, Bezos could have saved 37.5 million people from starving; fully funded humanitarian efforts in Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Yemen, and the Horn of Africa; and helping developing countries adapt to climate change, to name a few. While Bezos, and those in the market to buy a ticket on his next trip, are under no obligation to spend their money on humanitarian causes, it remains open for debate whether he has a moral obligation to do so. Suppose Blue Origin’s intention is to allow the wealthiest individuals to gain perspective. In that case, they may want to consider taking Twitter’s advice and take their danger-tourism to an Afghan refugee camp, and then decide if they have a better idea about how they should be spending their money. 

I can’t ignore the fact that Bezos benefitted financially from the pandemic more than most. During periods of lockdown, continuing concerns around the Delta Variant, and supply shortages, we have become incredibly reliant on Amazon to fill in the gaps of the past 18 months. We continued to use Amazon despite knowing how it was treating warehouse workers. Bezos might want to take the money he put into his four-minute trip and consider doing some good, even if it is for no other reason than improving his public image.

This is our world. The problems we see today, from climate change to the pandemic, to social inequality, poverty, and so many more, are all of our problems; they affect all of us, even if the line isn’t always a straight one. None of these problems will solve themselves, and some are in a better position to help than others. While how you spend your money is up to you, if a commercial flight to space is in your price range, consider whether you might get more bang for your buck by leaving a better world for your children and grandchildren. 

These men did not go boldly where no men have gone before. To be bold would have been to take the money spent on sending millionaires on commercial flights to space, and address any one of a growing list of crises we are facing here on Earth.