Should we ditch space race to save the planet? - Rashmi Dube

Jeff Bezos and Sir Richard Branson completed their first space trips amidst enthusiasm and excitement – “his best day,” cried Jeff Bezos – and the future is clearly here for space travel.

I can see the rush now by the large corporates such as McDonalds, Starbucks, and KFC, all waiting to put in their offers to reserve their location on whatever planet is decided on for humans emigrating, or at least in the first instance as a travel destination.

It is becoming a real possibility for space travel – a new form of tourism. All I can hear and feel vibrating through me is David Bowie’s “Ground Control to Major Tom… there’s something wrong”.

Am I being overanxious? Is this inevitable? The concerns I have come to greater light on the back of the IPCC report on the current state of the climate, and in face of the wildfires, flooding, and extraordinary heat. Is the commercialisation of travel into space a display of wealth and power? The launch pad is ready – are we leaving one planet burnt, drowned and extinct to inhabit a new planet only for those that can afford it?

In the first instance, it will only be travel which allows you to briefly experience, from all accounts, an awe-inducing view and microgravity for a ride that lasts between 10 to 90 minutes.

I have to question whether we should we be getting our kicks elsewhere. The adventure into space raises a number of questions – for instance, who is regulating this activity?

At present it is the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) which oversees the commercial activity, the largest transport agency based in the US. But as things develop, consideration needs to be given to other regulators and insurance – what happens if something goes wrong?

At the present moment, you sign a waiver accepting the risk. But in light of the IPCC report, the question is: are we in a position to commercialise space travel or should financial resources be redirected to saving the one planet we all know we can live upon? Studies have shown that the emissions of a flight to space in some instances can be worse than a typical airplane flight.

The reasons for this are because fewer people board a space flight, therefore the emissions per passenger are much higher. This would mean that commercialisation of space travel would increase pollution. Virgin Galactic has previously stated that they would aim to launch 400 flights annually.

According to Eloise Marais, a physical geography professor at the University College London: “The carbon footprint of launching yourself into space in one of these rockets is incredibly high, close to about 100 times higher than if you took a long-haul flight. It’s incredibly problematic if we want to be environmentally conscious and consider our carbon footprint.”

Jeff Bezos argues the impact on the environment can differ depending on factors such as fuel. The liquid hydrogen and oxygen fuel Blue Origin uses is less damaging as it does not release carbon dioxide.

There is then the argument that funds from billionaires ought to be reinvested into what is needed now to combat climate change. The fight is not easy. The change is not just with the individual but with corporations. It comes down to priorities. Is planet Earth and the human race worth saving?

I am not saying we should stop space exploration, but I question the need at this point in time for the commercialisation of space travel.

The humanitarian issues Earth is currently facing has made us all aware of the clock. What is clear is more research is required to understand the environmental impact of space travel and for those running it to ask themselves, should we be leaving Earth behind or prioritising its needs first?

By Rashmi Dube, Partner – gunnercooke