1

Please refer to the published version when citing:

Spector, S., Higham, J.E.S. & Doering, A. (2017). Beyond the biosphere: Tourism, outer space,
and sustainability. Tourism Recreation Research.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2017.1286062

Beyond the biosphere: Tourism, outer space, and sustainability

Dominant sustainability discourses commonly situate Earth as the singular

realm of human influence and position modern mobility as one of the

primary means through which we are destroying the biosphere. The

commercialisation of activities in outer space and the development of

space tourism have resulted in drastically reduced launch costs, enabling

an increased human presence beyond the biosphere. This paper argues that

current debates concerning the relationship between tourism mobilities and

sustainability are marked by increasingly untenable assumptions

concerning the spatial and temporal parameters of human influence. We

critique those assumptions by introducing the concept of a sustainable

trajectory to examine the relationship between modern mobility and

sustainability, a relationship that is being redefined by the rapidly

advancing fields of commercial spaceflight and space tourism. Greater

attention to space tourism and commercial spaceflights is required in order

to develop a coherent, long-term conceptualisation of the implications of

modern mobility for sustainability.

 2

Keywords: spaceflight; commercial spaceflight; space tourism; tourism

mobility; sustainability

Introduction

Outer space, mobility, and sustainability have had an enduring yet curious relationship

over the past forty years. On December 7, 1972, from a vantage point 45,000 kilometres away,

the crew of Apollo 17 captured the first photograph of the Earth from beyond our biosphere

(Petsko, 2011). That blue marble image became an icon of the preservationist

environmentalism that the sustainability literature still subscribes to today (Klein, 2014; Petsko,

2011). The astronauts eye-view environmentalism, as Naomi Klein (2014) recently described

it, encourages us to position ourselves etically and view Earth as an isolated, balanced, and

fragile object that human hubris is capable of either destroying or saving. The release of the

seminal book The Limits to Growth in the spring of 1972 solidified this preservationist approach

towards Earth with its aim to raise the space and time horizonsand prepar[e] for a period of

great transition - the transition from growth to global equilibrium (Meadows, Meadows,

Randers, & Behrens, 1972, p. 24). The blue marble image now features prominently on the cover

of The Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update (Meadows, Randers, & Meadows, 2004), not to

mention being the iconic image for over two decades of Al Gores (1992; 2006; 2009) published

works. This infamous blue marble image shot from space has played an integral role in framing

the sustainability of Earth within a preservationist discourse of limits, boundaries, and the search

for balance.

Dominant post-1970s sustainability discourses continue to assert Earths biosphere as

the sole realm of human influence and responsibility, a fragile enclosure intrinsically limiting
 3

growth and expansion (Bernasconi & Bernasconi, 2004; Kirby, 2013). That this unsubstantiated

premise is so readily accepted is perhaps unsurprising a mere 24 humans have left Earths

orbit, only half of those astronauts actually set foot on another celestial body, and no human has

left orbit since the Apollo 17 Moon landing in 1972 (Atkinson, 2013; NASA, n.d.-a; Verger,

Sourbs-Verger, & Ghiradi, 2003; Williamson, 2001). However, more than ten years ago the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) stated the technology to facilitate the

development of space tourism was largely in place, and a study conducted in 1998 by NASA and

the Space Transportation Association found space tourism will likely become the biggest

commercial use of space within the near future (Collins, 2001; NASA, 1994). The

commercialisation of space exploration and the development of the nascent space tourism

industry have led to significantly reduced launch costs, addressing what has historically been the

chief impediment to access to space (Ashford, 1990; Lappas, 2006; Launius, 2006; Peeters,

2010; Penn & Lindley, 2003; Reddy, Nica, & Wilkes, 2012). While there is little doubt that the

discourse of planetary boundaries plays an ongoing and critical role in exploring ways to better

manage and regulate unsustainable modes of living on Earth, tourism scholars must now also

consider the implications of increased access to outer space and the advancement of spacefaring

mobilities (see Cohen, 2016; Smith, 2000).

Young, Markham, Reis, and Higham (2015) said, Before we can imagine a politics of

the future we are obliged to philosophically resolve this dilemma of the present (p.13). In this

paper we argue that this task requires experimenting with new ways of being, knowing and

thinking that stretch the boundaries of sustainability and how to approach it. Furthermore, in

their February 2016 introduction to a special volume on Sustainable Tourism in The Journal of

Cleaner Production, Budeanu, Miller, Moscardo, and Ooi (2016) state there has been a lack of
 4

criticality in the research addressing sustainability in tourism. We offer a critical perspective of

one of the most unquestionable tenets of sustainable tourism that Earth, the blue dot, is the sole

realm of human influence and responsibility.

A long-term perspective of sustainable tourism development requires consideration of

both planetary boundaries and the potential of moving beyond the biosphere (Bostrom, 2013;

Karlsson, 2015). While the traditional scales of sustainability (local, regional, national, and

global) remain important, developments that are already underway require those scales to be

expanded to include very long-term implications beyond the biosphere. As argued by Bostrom

(2013), Sustainability should be reconceptualised in dynamic terms, as aiming for a sustainable

trajectory rather than a sustainable state (p. 15). Aiming for a sustainable trajectory necessitates

rethinking the spatial and temporal limits of human influence. Spatially, just as complex issues

such as climate change compelled a transition from local to global thinking (Becken &

Schellhorn 2007; Hall, 2007), increased access to space requires moving beyond the limitations

of current global perspectives. Whether ignoring the use of outer space for government

surveillance and militarisation (United Nations, 2010; Verger at al., 2003) or the possibility of

accessing vast amounts of energy from space-based solar power (Earth receives 100,000

terawatts of energy from the Sun each year; humans collectively use less than 15 terawatts

Bernasconoi & Bernasconi, 2004; Yarris, 2010), the changing realm of human influence

demands a shift in the spatial parameters of sustainability.

In terms of the temporal implications, Timothy Mortons (2010; 2013) work offers an

important point of departure for reconsidering the predominant timescales of sustainability. Our

species consumes non-renewable resources that required millions of years to form, and we

produce materials and pollutants that will outlive us by tens of thousands of years (Morton, 2010;
 5

2013). Given such timeframes, and as we begin to understand our species as a geological force,

preservationist approaches to sustainability that focus on the next 15-50 years are clearly limited.

While the near-future impacts of tourism mobility are certainly of key importance, the

relationship between mobility and sustainability must also be conceptualised in terms of a

sustainable trajectory. If we expand the temporal parameters of sustainability from years and

decades to centuries and millennia there are compelling arguments for the inherent

precariousness of Earthbound life (Bostrom, 2013; Bostrom & irkovi, 2008; Burrows, 2006).

Modern mobility then becomes not only one of the most significant contributors to

environmental impacts on Earth but also a prerequisite for seeking the long-term survival of our

species. The prospect of increased access to outer space (Aldrin, 2013; Davies, 2010; Genta &

Rycroft, 2003; Zubrin, 2011) requires us to critically consider the implications of decoupling our

existence from Earth, thereby calling into question the narrow parameters within which

conceptualisations of sustainability and sustainable mobility are traditionally embedded.

The necessity of addressing these spatial and temporal shifts is demonstrated by the fact

that spacefaring mobility appears to have largely escaped the critical attention of sustainable

tourism scholarship. Meanwhile, the commercial spaceflight sector has been developing rapidly.

Figure 1 depicts a spaceport (space travels equivalent of an airport) nearing completion in New

Mexico, USA. Virgin Galactic, the space travel division of Richard Bransons Virgin Group,

continues to focus on the commercial development of the VSS Enterprise, a suborbital spacecraft

for which over 700 tickets had been sold to tourists prior to the spacecraft breaking up during a

test flight in 2014. A replacement is currently under development and construction (Chang &

Schwartz, 2014). The private spaceflight company Blue Origin, which will take tourists on

suborbital spaceflights, has already successfully test flown its New Shepard spacecraft three
 6

times in 2016 (Malik, 2016). XCOR Aerospaces Lynx spacecraft, also intended for suborbital

space tourism flights, is currently under construction (Wall, 2016). The National Aeronautics and

Space Administration is currently testing a space hotel consisting of an inflatable module that

can be attached to the International Space Station and used to host tourists (Pultarova, 2016).

[insert Figure 1 near here]

Figure 1: Gateway to Space Terminal/Hangar Building. Image courtesy of Spaceport America.

The aim of this paper is threefold. We first initiate a more nuanced debate concerning the

narrow temporal and spatial parameters that pervade discussions of sustainable mobility within

the tourism literature. In doing so we elucidate the problems inherent in accepting spatio-

temporal assumptions of sustainability that space tourism renders increasingly tenuous. The

second aim is to introduce the concept of sustainable trajectory within the context of sustainable

mobility and examine space tourisms role in contributing to or hindering a sustainable

trajectory. We discuss how an expanded spatial and temporal perspective requires a critical

reconsideration of the sustainability of Earthbound life. A pivotal outcome of that

reconsideration, we argue, is the necessity to analyse the relationship between mobility and

sustainability under the pretexts of this expanded perspective rather than the 50-year, biosphere-

bounded view common in existing tourism development and sustainability discourses. Finally,

we provide a critical exploration of the role of space tourism and commercial spaceflight in

potentially precipitating an increased human presence beyond the biosphere.

Sustainability, the biosphere, and the near future

 7

Our species influence on the Earth has increased exponentially, leading some to suggest

we have entered a new geological period the Anthropocene (Flannery, 2005; Ruddiman, 2005).

While we impact a significant portion of the Earths surface, 83% according to the Human

Footprint Project (National Geographic Society, 2008), our planet is one amongst at least 100

billion in the Milky Way galaxy alone (Villard & Sahu, 2012). The observable Universe, in turn,

contains 100 billion other galaxies, each with its own multitude of stars and planets (Johnson,

2012). We inhabit an infinitesimal fraction of the Universe, but our influence is also temporally

miniscule. The Big Bang occurred 13.7 billion years ago; Homo sapiens have existed a mere

200,000 years (Smithsonian Institution, 2013). If the history of the Universe were compressed

into a single year the entirety of recorded human history would span the 10 second countdown

before New Years Eve (Sagan, 1977).

The Brundtland Report defines sustainable development as development that meets the

needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations to meet their own

needs (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, p. 43). However,

tremendous temporal constraints are placed upon popular approaches to sustainability as seen in

statements such as: 2050 is a time horizon frequently used, allowing consideration of long-term

environmental issues (Dubois, Peeters, Ceron, & Gssling, 2011, p. 1032). The Organisation for

Economic Co-operation and Development (2004b) used the year 2030, later extending

predictions to 2050, as the time horizon for considering sustainable transport in their report

Mobility 2030: Meeting the challenges to sustainability. We use non-renewable resources such

as oil that were millions of years in the making, a Styrofoam cup used today will outlive us by

over four hundred years, the half-life of the plutonium-239 used in the production of nuclear

weapons is 24,100 years, and 25% of the carbon compounds associated with global warming will
 8

still be in the atmosphere 30,000 years from now (Morton, 2010; 2013). Seen in relation to the

actual timescale of human impact, predominant sustainability discourses only address working

towards a sustainable state. While some scholars have recently argued for extending evaluations

of mobilitys impacts out to the year 2100 or even 2300 (e.g. Peeters, 2014), the sustainability

literature has largely failed to utilise long enough timeframes to allow for ethical, philosophical,

and pragmatic consideration of a sustainable trajectory. Conceptualising the relationship between

mobility and sustainability over expanded time horizons requires accounting for the looming

arrival of greater access to space in addition to the prospect of human life no longer being

confined to Earth. While ostensibly taking the needs of future generations into account, the

current sustainability discourse is only progressive in that it uses timeframes marginally extended

beyond the four to eight years of a political lifecycle.

The focus on the next 50 years and the presumption humans will or should remain

Earthbound may appear innocuous. The thrust of the sustainability argument, the imperative to

protect the biosphere, remains valid; but blindly accepting the unsound logic upon which this

conclusion rests is problematic. By failing to consider the possibility we will become a

spacefaring species, some of those most keenly aware of the importance of sustainability on

Earth neglect participating in debates regarding issues such as access to space resources

(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2004a), build-up of debris in space

(Duval & Hall, 2015; NASA, n.d.-b), the extension of capitalism into the cosmos (Dickens &

Ormrod, 2007), use of outer space for government surveillance and militarisation (United

Nations, 2010; Verger at al., 2003), and the role of space in furthering hegemonic power

structures already in place on Earth (Dickens & Ormrod, 2007; Duval & Hall, 2015). These

factors fundamentally shape the future of human and non-human life, and an adequately
 9

comprehensive and long-term perspective of sustainability is prevented if we dismiss space as

the realm of science fiction writers and great-great-grandchildren (Kirby, 2013).

Diverging demarcations of the sphere of human influence also inhibit constructive

dialogue between those in favour of space exploration and those principally concerned with

sustainability on Earth (Bernasconi & Bernasconi, 2004; Kirby, 2013). The latter tend to see

expansion into space as at odds with issues of terrestrial importance such as fighting poverty and

addressing climate change (Dickens & Ormrod, 2007). The former sometimes adopt an overly

optimistic position, viewing space as the ultimate panacea for every conceivable threat to our

survival or limit to our growth (for instance, as seen in Kemp, 2007). These dichotomous

discourses too often promulgate technology as harbinger of either salvation or decimation, but

the situation is nuanced and worthy of careful and critical treatment. Missions into space may be

superfluous for a permanently Earthbound species but essential if we endeavour to populate the

cosmos (Launius, 2006). Contrasting between a sustainable state and trajectory encourages

scholars to explicate over what timeframe they are deeming a given technology, such as modern

forms of mobility, sustainable or unsustainable.

A crucial outcome of framing sustainability in dynamic rather than static terms is

revaluating the sustainability of Earthbound life. Henry George (1879) described Earth as a

well-provisioned ship, this on which we sail through space (p. 24). As currently the only viable

habitat for the human species and the only known bastion of life in the Universe, Earth is

imperative for near-future survival, and the biosphere is, and will remain of central importance

under a perspective of sustainable trajectory. While this is a given, we must also evaluate the

long-term viability of humankinds passage aboard Earth. Such evaluations occur outside the

tourism literature. For instance, the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at the University of
 10

Cambridge studies species-wide threats (existential risks) such as those that may be posed by

emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and nanotechnology. The

Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford also aims to address the long-term

prospects of our species. The institute states, Because of the extreme severity of existential

risks, they deserve extremely careful attention even if their probability could confidently be

assessed to be very small (Future of Humanity Institute, 2013, n.p.).

A sustainable trajectory for an Earthbound species is potentially imperilled both by self-

induced and non-anthropogenic risks. The expanding human population is responsible for a

cornucopia of hazards including resource depletion, warfare, climate change, and other

ecological and social disasters (Diamond, 2005; Flannery, 2005; Ruddiman, 2005). While sound

management and cooperation can reduce anthropogenic risks, our species also faces threats

fundamental to life on Earth including asteroid or comet impact, natural changes in the climate,

global pandemic, solar flares, and geological events such as the eruption of a super-volcano or

the cessation of plate tectonics (Bostrom, 2013; Bostrom & irkovi, 2008; Burrows, 2006).

These intrinsic perils, the likes of which ended the 210 million year existence of dinosaurs at the

end of the Jurassic period 65 million years ago, underscore the need to reconsider the

sustainability of Earthbound life. As noted by Bostrom and irkovi (2008), At least 99.9% of

all species that have ever walked, crawled, flown, swum, or otherwise abided on Earth are

extinct (p. 9).

Developing human settlements in outer space has been proposed as a compelling strategy

for seeking the survival of our species (Aldrin, 2013; Collins & Autino, 2010; Davies, 2010;

Genta & Rycroft, 2003; National Space Society, 2012; Organisation for Economic Co-operation

and Development, 2004a; Webber, 2012; Zubrin, 2011). While there are impediments to the
 11

feasibility of humans living permanently in outer space (such as the health-related impacts

associated with zero gravity), technologies are developing rapidly. The scientists responsible for

making spaceflight a reality, such as Robert H. Goddard, Wernher von Braun, Gerard K. ONeill,

and Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, predicted humans would settle space in the near future (Launius,

2006). Prominent thinkers such as cosmologist Stephen Hawking (2012), physicist Paul Davies

(2010), astronaut Buzz Aldrin (2013), and physicist and mathematician Freeman Dyson (1997)

argue in favour of developing a permanent human presence in space in order to ensure the

survival of our species. As commercial space tourism is predicted to be one of the primary

impetuses for advancing spacefaring technologies (Ashford, 1990; Lappas, 2006; Peeters, 2010;

Penn & Lindley, 2003; Reddy et al., 2012), tourism scholars must begin to participate in debates

about the relationship between tourism mobility and a sustainable trajectory. Whether or not

permanent settlements in outer space become possible, the stage is set for an increased human

presence beyond the biosphere, both for tourism and transport.

Tourism, mobility, and sustainability

If the biosphere constitutes an inescapable boundary there is a point where an

exponentially expanding human population traverses the threshold between sustainable and

unsustainable. Technology may shift this limit to growth or carrying capacity, but the

biosphere is fundamentally bounded in its ability to sustain human population growth and

resource use (Diamond, 2005; Lubchenco et al., 1991; Meadows, Randers, & Meadows, 2004).

Many argue we have already crossed the brink between sustainability and unsustainability

(Ehrlich & Ehrlich, 1990; Meadows et al., 2004). However, if the restriction of the biosphere is

challenged, mobility, while still far from benign in terms of near-future impacts, constitutes an

integral component of working towards a sustainable trajectory.

 12

Given this expanded spatial and temporal perspective, modern forms of mobility, as

especially salient in terms of terrestrial, near-future impact but simultaneously prerequisite for

unhinging our existence from Earth, are particularly paradoxical. Air travel, for instance, is a

significant contributor to near-future environmental degradation; indeed, on a per capita basis,

there is hardly any other human activity that contributes to such substantial amounts of

greenhouse gas emissions in a comparably short period of time (Gssling, Haglund, Kallgren,

Revahl, & Hultman, 2009, p. 2). But, as successive innovations tend to hinge on preceding

technologies (Arthur, 2009; Lienhard, 2006), air travel and the tourism industry that supports it

can also be situated as an intermediary link in, rather than the culmination of, a long chain of

mobility developments.

Many forms of tourism mobilities are concomitant with negative environmental

consequences, particularly in terms of resource depletion and climate change (Gssling, 2002).

While these near-future consequences are increasingly addressed both within and outside

academia, long-term perspectives of the role of mobility in human evolution are lacking. If, as

many researchers suggest, space tourism is to play a central role in driving the advancement of

spacefaring technologies (Cohen, 2016; Collins, 2001; Collins & Autino, 2010; Penn & Lindley,

2003), sustainable tourism scholars will be faced with the task of critically analysing the role of

mobility for a species no longer confined to Earth and consider the implications of such a course

of development for current sustainability discourses. After providing an overview of the different

types of spaceflight and the increasingly significant role of the private sector, the following

section analyses the potential outcomes associated with a growing space tourism industry.

The role of space tourism and commercial spaceflight

Delineating spaceflight
 13

Spaceflight can be divided into three categories with reference to the Earth: suborbital,

orbital, and beyond orbit. The Krmn line, located 100 kilometres above sea level, is the most

commonly recognised demarcation between the atmosphere and outer space (Cater, 2010;

Crdoba, n.d.; Webber, 2010). This boundary is artificial as the atmosphere becomes

progressively, rather than abruptly, thinner. While the specific location of outer space may be

subjective, there are pragmatic differences between suborbital, orbital, and beyond orbit

spaceflight. Reaching the Krmn line and returning to Earth (suborbital spaceflight) necessitates

speeds of less than one kilometre per second, but to stay in orbit at the Krmn line requires

travelling 7.8 kilometres per second (NASA, n.d.-c). While both suborbital and orbital

spaceflights may reach the same altitude, the latter requires significantly more propulsion in

addition to spacecraft capable of withstanding higher speeds and greater amounts of heat

(Masson-Zwaan & Freeland, 2010; Williamson, 2001). Due to gravity, orbiting further from

Earth requires less energy; but, of course, much more energy is required to initially attain such an

orbit (Williamson, 2001). Achieving the third category of spaceflight, leaving Earths orbit,

requires reaching the escape velocity over 11 kilometres per second (NASA, 2001;

Williamson, 2001).

A passenger on-board a suborbital spaceflight would experience weightlessness for

several minutes, observe the curvature of the Earth, and view non-twinkling stars (due to the lack

of atmosphere) (Ashford, 1990; Masson-Zwaan & Freeland, 2010; Peeters, 2010). Suborbital

spaceflight can be both a tourist activity and the next step in the development of point-to-point

travel (Cater, 2010; Peeters, 2010; Webber, 2010; Yeoman, 2012). Tourists would be seeking an

adventurous and educational experience allowing them to sample life as an astronaut; point-to-

point travellers would be primarily motivated by the time savings, thus prioritising safety and
 14

efficiency (Peeters, 2010; Webber, 2010). A conventional flight from London to New York

currently requires approximately 7.5 hours, but a suborbital spaceflight would need only 70

minutes to complete the same journey; New York to Tokyo, a 13 hour trip, would take 83

minutes (Peeters, 2010).

Tourism in outer space is not a new idea. In 1985 the company Society Expeditions

claimed they would offer flights to space aboard a commercially-built spacecraft, and there were

even proposals for using NASAs Space Shuttle for tourist flights (Billings, 2006; Goodrich,

1987). As NASA pointed out two decades ago, For the most part, the machinery to

accommodate the needs of an evolving space tourism industry is in place (NASA, 1994, n.p.).

There is significant interest in space tourism (Cohen, 2016; Crouch, 2001; Peeters, 2010; Reddy

et al., 2012; Ziliotto, 2010), but tourism in outer space to date has been limited. The nascent

space tourism industry can be envisioned as in a Catch-22 situation. Inexpensive spaceflight

would facilitate space tourism (in addition to other space activities), but increased interest in

space tourism is required to reduce launch costs (Hempsell, 2010). Ashford (1990) argued

governments failed to take space tourism seriously, preferring to view space as a conduit for

research, defence, and nation-building. A joint study with NASA and the Space Transportation

Association in 1998 concluded space tourism was likely to become the largest commercial use of

space, but NASA failed to explicitly act on these findings and even restricted access to the report

for many years (Collins, 2001).

The private sector

While they may have shown resistance to the commercialisation of space activities in the

past (Collins, 2001), NASAs strategic vision is now reliant on the private sector. NASA (n.d.-d)

states:
 15

Commercial space transportation is a vital component to the future of human space

exploration. As NASA charts a new course to send humans deeper into space than ever

before, we are stimulating efforts within the private sector to develop and operate safe,

reliable and affordable commercial space transportation systems. (n.p.)

Space missions increasingly rely upon cooperation between government and the private sector

(Peeters, 2010). NASA now has significant contracts with companies such as SpaceX, a private

space transport company which successfully sent a spacecraft to the International Space Station

in 2012. Indeed, a NASA (2011) study found SpaceX developed their Flacon 9 rocket for

approximately one-third the price it would have traditionally cost NASA1. Competitions such as

the X-Prize and the Google Lunar Prize are increasingly used to spur private-sector research and

development (Cater, 2010; Crouch, 2001; Peeters, 2010; Pelton, 2007; Van Pelt, 2005). This

situation mirrors the early years of aviation, such as the significant financial reward offered by

the Daily Mail newspaper for the first successful air crossing of the English Channel (won by

Louis Blriot in 1909) and the $25,000 offered by hotelier Raymond Orteig for flying from New

York City to Paris (which Charles Lindbergh won in 1927) (Crouch, 2001; Grant, 2010; Peeters,

2010).

While the trend is certainly towards greater involvement of the private sector in space

exploration, the role of space tourism is less clear. There are three potential reasons space

tourism may bring settling space to fruition, and these reasons underscore the necessity of further

debate within tourism regarding the implications of this new form of mobility. First, space

tourism might spur research and development, particularly in terms of providing the needed

revenue and motivation for developing affordable and safe launch technologies (Brannen, 2010;

1
The founder and CEO of SpaceX, Elon Musk, envisions using commercial spaceflight to build and populate a
permanent settlement on Mars (Coppinger, 2012).
 16

Cohen, 2016; Lappas, 2006; Peeters, 2010; Penn & Lindley, 2003; Ziliotto, 2010). As has been

the case on Earth, individuals (with huge private wealth) and organisations unfettered by

government bureaucracy have developed, and plan to continue to develop, novel technologies

and seek increasingly distant destinations. For instance, Dennis Tito, the multimillionaire who in

2001 became the first tourist to visit the International Space Station, is engaged in planning a

privately funded and operated human mission to Mars, currently scheduled for lift-off in 2018

(Inspiration Mars Foundation, 2013). While the mission will flyby rather than land on the Red

Planet, the first human mission to Mars potentially being privately funded and operated is a

portent of how increased non-governmental access to space will incite rapid advances in space

exploration.

Space tourism also encourages the development of reusable launch vehicles as they are a

prerequisite for spaceflights to become frequent and economical (Ashford, 1990; Penn &

Lindley, 2003). While the recently decommissioned Space Shuttle was technically reusable, it

required 20,000 to 30,000 support staff in order to achieve a modest eight launches per year

(Penn & Lindley, 2003). Mainstream space tourism would require launch costs approximately

200 times cheaper than the Space Shuttle (Penn & Lindley, 2003). Even if tourists were allowed

to fly in the Space Shuttle (the idea was once suggested but quickly shelved after the explosion

of the Challenger Space Shuttle in 1986) the cost per passenger would have been on the order of

$4 million (Ashford, 1990). Whereas one-off scientific missions can justify the exorbitant costs

associated with non-reusable spacecraft, increased public access to space will require reusable,

affordable, and safe launch technologies. Reusable launch vehicles can be repeatedly tested

before being approved for commercial tourist transport (airplanes require approximately 1,000

test flights before entering commercial service), thus improving safety margins (Ashford, 1990).
 17

Second, space tourism may build public interest in and support for space exploration

(Collins & Autino, 2010; Genta & Rycroft, 2003). Compared with the can-do, visionary attitude

of the space race, achievements after the Apollo program have been relatively modest (Genta &

Rycroft, 2003). The situation may have been different if a wider market had the prospect of

going into space, as in the case of aviation which captured the imagination of the travelling

public from the outset (FitzSimons, 2010). The centrality of travel and exploration in tourism

(Cohen, 2016; Swarbrooke, Beard, Leckie, & Pomfret, 2003) indicates space tourism is a

possible means of providing the impetus for exploring and settling space. Increased access to

space is also likely to raise interest in terrestrial space tourism (such as spaceflight simulations,

space centre tours, and educational programmes), thereby indirectly building support for space

exploration (Cater, 2010; Duval, 2005; Ehrenfreund, Peter, & Billings, 2010).

Third, the market for space tourism is predicted to expand significantly, perhaps

becoming the most economically viable use of space (Ashford, 1990; Collins, 2001; Crouch,

2001; Hempsell, 2010; Lappas, 2006; Van Pelt, 2005). While other commercial activities, such

as mining asteroids and planets for resources, may eventually become economically feasible,

space tourism offers an initial stimulus for the prerequisite reduction in launch costs (Ashford,

1990; Van Pelt, 2005). If the airline industry is any guide, every 20% reduction in ticket price

will result in traffic doubling (Penn & Lindley, 2003). Tourism, as it has proven capable of

withstanding economic downturns, provides revenue for organisations that would otherwise face

the constant risk of losing government funding (Webber, 2012). If space tourism is already

playing an increasingly important role in the development of spaceflight exploration it is

important to understand the rationales for and against contributing to such a project.

Rationales for spaceflight

 18

Pro-space advocates offer numerous rationales for space exploration. Collins and Autino

(2010), for example, argue space offers access to inexpensive energy sources, precious metals,

and other resources in addition to the possibility of using satellites to stabilise Earths climate. Of

the myriad possible motives for space exploration, only extending human life into the Universe

currently justifies a human, rather than robotic, presence in space (Genta & Rycroft, 2003;

Launius, 2006). Pro-space advocates contend the benefits of space exploration cannot be

accurately predicted in advance; the Apollo program, for instance, provided numerous scientific

and technological insights even though the missions were politically, rather than scientifically,

motivated (Launius, 2006). Furthermore, scientific missions are not entirely distinct from space

tourism as experiments can be conducted aboard tourist flights, and the scientific exploration of

space will change markedly if space tourism results in new technologies and economies of scale

(Brannen, 2010; Foust, 2013). In addition to inducing scientific and technological development,

some see space exploration as resulting in other positive benefits. A collaborative human effort

to settle space is cited as potentially boosting employment and spurring economic growth

(Billings, 2006; Collins & Autino, 2010; White, 1998). More subjective benefits may also arise

from human spaceflight. For instance, individuals returning from space report a renewed sense of

the fragility of life on Earth (White, 1998). This dynamic is demonstrated by the famous

Earthrise photograph taken during the Apollo 8 mission, and the image of the Earth hovering

above a barren Lunar landscape proved instrumental in the fledgling environmental movement

(Poole, 2010).

These pro-space discourses run counter to those who view human activities beyond the

biosphere as enabling the militarisation of space, government surveillance, destruction of both

terrestrial and celestial environments, and propagation of economic systems that have
 19

contributed to unsustainability and inequality on Earth (Dickens & Ormrod, 2007). These

counterarguments are advanced by organisations such as the Institute for Security and

Cooperation in Outer Space and the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in

Space. Whereas pro-space advocates see the cosmos as salvation from terrestrial tribulations,

more critical perspectives argue a human presence in space will only amplify the negative effects

exerted by our species on Earth (Dickens & Ormrod, 2007). A thriving space tourism industry

will have significant implications for near future unsustainability in terms of CO2 emissions. Due

to particularly harmful black carbon being emitted at very high altitudes, 1,000 spaceflight

launches per year would constitute an analogous contribution to climate change as currently

exerted by the entire aviation industry (Duval & Hall, 2015; Krois, 2011; Ross, Mills, & Toohey,

2010). Tourism scholars need to critically examine the role of space tourism in bringing these

potentialities to fruition and consider the challenges space tourism presents in terms of current

sustainability discourses an assertion substantiated by the already occurring nature of space

tourism.

Conclusions

Sustainability discourses are inextricably linked to considerations of time and space. The

historic deficiencies of short-term, local approaches to sustainability research have highlighted

the imperative to address longer-term (intergenerational) and global sustainability issues (Hall,

2007). Given the new reality of spacefaring mobility and space tourism, there is now a need to

further extend our spatio-temporal framing of sustainability. This paper raises three key

arguments. First, we must endeavour to attain both a sustainable state and a sustainable

trajectory, and the latter is too often neglected in dominant sustainability discourses. Second,

working towards a sustainable trajectory necessitates a more nuanced discussion regarding the
 20

relationship between tourism, mobility, and sustainability. Third, given the centrality of the

tourism industry in facilitating consumer access to space (and therefore the development of space

resources and the extension of human life beyond the biosphere), important questions about

sustainability (both specific to tourism and more broadly) need to be critically addressed by the

sustainable tourism academic community. These include: What does outer space mean for

sustainability? How can the sustainable tourism and space tourism literature be integrated? How

does reconceptualising sustainability in dynamic terms effect how we view tourism mobilities,

and how can we work towards both a sustainable state and a sustainable trajectory? What are the

political and ethical implications arising from the development of tourisms contribution to

developing spacefaring capabilities?

Space should not be seen as a neoliberal talisman that can be brandished to finally

vanquish all limits to growth. Guzzling Earths resources and then looking to the cosmos for

salvation is a risky gambit. Even if one accepts the imperative to decouple human life from

Earth, perhaps responsibility for such an initiative is best placed in the hands of government

(though this does not negate the need to reconceptualise the role of mobility in seeking long-term

survival). We do not have to look very far to encounter tourism seemingly being peddled as

means of addressing the pitfalls associated with capitalism (Harvey, 2011) including

environmental protection (ecotourism), poverty and economic development (voluntourism),

indigenous rights and awareness (cultural and heritage tourism), conflict (peace through

tourism), and connectedness to food sources and production (agritourism). Space tourism may

simply become another jewel in the pro-consumerism crown. Accessible, inexpensive spaceflight

may also exacerbate the social and environmental impacts already exerted by a hypermobile

species (Krois, 2010; Pelton, 2007; Ross et al., 2010).

 21

However, outer space may play a central role in determining the long-term sustainability

and, indeed, viability of our species. Approaching an ethics of space tourism requires that we

reflect upon the role of mobility in facilitating the presence of our species beyond the biosphere.

Perhaps it is time to jettison both extremes outer space is not a magical panacea, nor is the

relationship between mobility and unsustainability as simple as many would like to believe. The

looming prospect of greater access to space obliges us to re-evaluate the spatial and temporal

parameters of sustainability discourses that are quickly becoming obsolete. Such a re-evaluation

requires reconceptualising the relationship between tourism, mobility and sustainability. We

must seek both a sustainable state and a sustainable trajectory. The former without the latter is

myopia, not responsible stewardship.

References

Aldrin, B. (2013). Mission to Mars: My Vision for Space Exploration. Washington, DC: National

Geographic Society.

Arthur, W.B. (2009). The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves. London, UK:

Penguin Group.

Ashford, D. M. (1990, June). Prospects for space tourism. Tourism Management, 99104.
 22

Atkinson, N. (2013, August 1). How Many People Have Walked on the Moon? Universe Today.

Retrieved from http://www.universetoday.com/55512/how-many-people-have-walked-

on-the-moon/.

Ausubel, J.H. & Marchetti, C. (2001, April/May). The evolution of transport. The Industrial

Physicist, 2024.

Becken, S., & Schellhorn, M. (2007). Ecotourism, energy use, and the global climate: Widening

the local perspective. In J.E.S. Higham (Ed.) Critical issues in ecotourism:

Understanding a complex tourism phenomenon (pp. 85101). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Ltd.

Bernasconi, M.C. & Bernasconi, C. (2004). Why implementing the space option is necessary for

society. Acta Astronautica, 54, 371378.

Billings, L. (2006). Exploration for the masses? Or joyrides for the ultra-rich? Prospects for

space tourism. Space Policy, 22, 162164.

Bostrom, N. (2013, February). Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority. Global Policy,

4(1), 1531.

Bostrom, N. & irkovi, M. (Eds.) (2008). Global Catastrophic Risks. Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.

Brannen, T. (2010). Private commercial space transportations dependence on space tourism and

NASA's responsibility to both. J. Air L. & Com., 75, 639668.

Budeanu, A., Miller, G., Moscardo, G., & Ooi, C.S. (2016). Sustainable tourism, progress,

challenges and opportunities: an introduction. Journal of Cleaner Production, 111(Part

B), 285294.
 23

Bunch, B. & Hellemans, A. (1993). Time Timetables of Technology: A Chronology of the Most

Important People and Events in the History of Technology. New York, NY: Simon &

Schuster.

Burrows, W.E. (2006). The Survival Imperative: Using Space to Protect Earth. New York, NY:

Tom Doherty Associates, LLC.

Cater, C.I. (2010). Steps to Space; opportunities for astrotourism. Tourism Management, 31,

838845.

Chaline, E. (2012). Fifty Machines that Changed the Course of History. Buffalo, NY: Firefly

Books Ltd.

Challoner, J. (Ed.) (2009). 1001 Inventions that Changed the World. North Shore, NZ: Penguin

Group.

Chang, K. & Schwartz, J. (2014, Oct. 31). Virgin Galactics SpaceShipTwo Crashes in New

Setback for Commercial Spaceflight. The New York Times. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/01/science/virgin-galactics-spaceshiptwo-crashes-

during-test-flight.html?_r=1

Cohen, E. (2016). The paradoxes of space tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 1-10 (online

first)

Collins, P. & Autino, A. (2010) What the growth of a space tourism industry could contribute to

employment, economic growth, environmental protection, education, culture and world

peace. Acta Astronautica, 66, 15531562.

Collins, P. (2001). Public Choice Economics and Space Policy: Realising Space Tourism. Acta

Astronautica, 48(5), 921950.

 24

Coppinger, R. (2012, November 23). Huge Mars Colony Eyed by SpaceX Founder Elon Musk.

Space.com. Retrieved from http://www.space.com/18596-mars-colony-spacex-elon-

musk.html.

Crdoba, S.S.F. (n.d.). 100km Altitude Barrier for Astronautics. Fdration Aronautique

Internationale. Retrieved from http://www.fai.org/icare-records/100km-altitude-

boundary-for-astronautics.

Crouch, G.I. (2001, November). The Market for Space Tourism: Early Indicators. Journal of

Travel Research, 40, 213-19.

Davies, P. (2010). Human Mission to Mars: Colonizing the Red Planet. J. Lavine & R. Schild

(Eds.). Cosmology Science Publishers.

Dawkins, R. (2004). The Ancestors Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution. New York,

NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Diamond, J. (2005). Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York, NY:

Penguin Group.

Dickens, P. & Ormrod, J.S. (2007). Cosmic Society: Towards a sociology of the universe. New

York, NY: Routledge.

Dubois, G., Peeters, P., Ceron, J.P., & Gssling, S. (2011). The future tourism mobility of the

world population: Emission growth versus climate policy. Transportation Research Part

A: Policy and Practice, 45(10), 10311042.

Duval, D.T. (2005). Small steps, giant leaps: Space as the destination of the future. In M. Novelli

(Ed.), Niche Tourism: Contemporary Issues and Trends (pp. 213222). Oxford, UK:

Butterworth Heinemann.
 25

Dyson, F.J. (1997, November). Warm-Blooded Plants and Freeze-Dried Fish. The Atlantic

Online. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/past/issues/97nov/space.htm.

Ehrenfreund, P., Peter, N., & Billings, L. (2010). Building long-term constituencies for space

exploration: The challenge of raising public awareness and engagement in the United

States and in Europe. Acta Astronautica, 67, 502512.

Ehrlich, P.R. & Ehrlich, A.H. (1990). The Population Explosion. New York, NY: Simon and

Schuster.

FitzSimons, P. (2010). Charles Kingsford-Smith and those magnificent men. Sydney: Harper

Collins.

Flannery, T. (2005). The Weather Makers: The History & Future Impact of Climate Change.

Mebourne, Australia: The Test Publishing Company.

Foust, J. (2013, June 10). Suborbital research enters a time of transition. The Space Review:

Essays and commentary about the final frontier. Retrieved from

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2311/1.

Future of Humanity Institute. (2013). Research Areas. Retrieved from

http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/research/research-areas/.

Genta, G. & Rycroft, M. (2003). Space, the Final Frontier? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

George, H. (1879). Progress and Poverty. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Page & Co.

Goodrich, J.N. (1987). Touristic Travel to Outer Space: Profile And Barriers To Entry. Journal

of Travel Research, 26(40), 4043.

Gore, A. (1992) Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit. Boston, MA: Houghton

Mifflin Harcourt.
 26

Gore, A. (2006) An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What

We Can Do About It. London, UK: Bloomsbury.

Gore, A. (2009) Our choice: a plan to solve the climate crisis. Pennsylvania, USA: Rodale

Books.

Gssling, S., Haglund, L., Kallgren, H., Revahl, M., & Hultman, J. (2009). Swedish air travellers

and voluntary carbon offsets: Towards the co-creation of environmental value? Current

Issues in Tourism, 12(1), 119.

Gssling, S. (2002. Global environmental consequences of tourism. Global Environmental

Change, 12, 283-302.

Grant, R.G. (2010). Flight: The Complete History. London, UK: Dorling Kindersley Limited.

Hall, C.M. (2007). Scaling ecotourism: The role of scale in understanding the impacts of

ecotourism. In J.E.S. Higham (Ed.) Critical issues in ecotourism: Understanding a

complex tourism phenomenon (pp. 243253). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Ltd.

Harvey, D. (2011). The enigma of capital and the crises of capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Hawking, S. (2012). Brave New World with Stephen Hawking [DVD]. United Kingdom: Acorn

Media.

Hempsell, M. (2010). A phased approach to orbital public access. Acta Astronautica, 66, 1639

1644.

Inspiration Mars Foundation. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.inspirationmars.org/.

Johnson, J.R. (2012). Comprehending the Cosmos, a Macro View of the Universe. North

Charleston, SC: CreateSpace.

 27

Karlsson, R. (2015). Three metaphors for sustainability in the Anthropocene. The Anthropocene

Review, 1-10.

Kemp, K. (2007). Destination Space: How space tourism is making science fiction a reality.

London, UK: Virgin Books Ltd.

Kirby, J. (2013, July). Toward an Ecological and Cosmonautical Philosophy. Journal of

Evolution and Technology, 23(1), 113.

Krois, J. (2011). Onwards and Upwards: Space Tourisms Climate Costs and Solutions.

Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 3947.

Lappas, V. (2006). Space tourism. In D. Bruhalis & C. Costa (Eds.), Tourism Business Frontiers:

Consumers, Products, and Industry (pp. 157167). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Launius, R.D. (2006). Compelling rationales for spaceflight? History and the search for

relevance. In S. J. Dick & R. D. Launis (Eds.), Critical issues in the history of spaceflight

(pp. 3770). Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Lienhard, J.H. (2006). How Invention Begins: Echoes of old voices in the rise of new machines.

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Lubchenco, J., Olson, A. M., Brubaker, L. B., Carpenter, S. R., Holland, M. M., Hubbell, S. P.,

... & Risser, P. G. (1991). The Sustainable Biosphere Initiative: an ecological research

agenda: a report from the Ecological Society of America. Ecology, 72(2), 371412.

Masson-Zwaan, T. & Freeland, S. (2010). Between heaven and earth: The legal challenges of

human space travel. Acta Astronautica, 66, 15971607.

Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth.

New York: Universe Books.

 28

Meadows, D., Randers, J. & Meadows, D. (2004). Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. White

River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Group.

Morton, T. (2010). The ecological thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Morton, T. (2013). Hyperobjects: Philosophy and ecology after the end of the world.

Minneapolis, MN: The University of Minnesota Press.

NASA. (1994). Commercial Space Transportation Study. Retrieved from

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/webaccess/CommSpaceTrans/SpaceCommTransSec35/CommSp

acTransSec35.html#3_5_6.

NASA. (2001, October 25). What is orbit? Retrieved from

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/orbit_feature_5-8.html.

NASA. (2011, August). Falcon 9 Launch Vehicle NAFCOM Cost Estimates. Retrieved from

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/586023main_8-3-11_NAFCOM.pdf.

NASA. (n.d.-a). The Apollo Program. Retrieved from http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/history/apollo/.

NASA. (n.d.-b). NASA Orbital Debris Program Office. Retrieved from

http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/.

NASA. (n.d.-c). Flight to Orbit. Retrieved from

http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/rktrflght.html.

NASA. (n.d.-d). Commercial Space Transportation. Retrieved from

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/index.html#.UfrfTY0ya5I.

NASA. (n.d.-e). Our Solar System. Retrieved from http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/.

National Geographic Society. (2008). Human Footprint Project. Retrieved from

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/xpeditions/lessons/14/g68/HumanFootprint.pdf.
 29

National Space Society. (2012, August). Milestones to Space Settlement: An NSS Roadmap.

Retrieved from http://www.nss.org/settlement/roadmap/.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2004a). Space 2030: Exploring the

Future of Space Applications. Retrieved from http://www.space-

library.com/0404OECD_Space2030-1_2To1.pdf.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2004b). Mobility 2030: Meeting the

challenges to sustainability. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/sd-

roundtable/papersandpublications/39360485.pdf.

Parenti, C. (2012). The limits to growth: A book that launched a movement, The Nation,

December 24. Retrieved from www.thenation.com/article/171610/limits-growth-book-

launched-movement. Accessed on August 1, 2015.

Peeters, P. (2014). Developing a long-term global tourism transport model using a behavioural

approach: Implications for sustainable tourism policy making. In S.A. Cohen, J.E.S.

Higham, P. Peeters, & S. Gssling (Eds.), Understanding and Governing Sustainable

Tourism Mobility (pp. 184207). New York, NY: Routledge.

Peeters, W. (2010). From suborbital space tourism to commercial personal spaceflight. Acta

Astronautica, 66, 16251632.

Pelton, J.N. (2007). Space Planes and Space Tourism: The Industry and the Regulation of its

Safety. George Washington University, Space & Advanced Communications Research

Institute. Retrieved from

http://isulibrary.isunet.edu/opac/doc_num.php?explnum_id=300.

Penn, J.P. & Lindley, C.A. (2003). Requirements and approach for a space tourism launch

system. Acta Astronautica, 52, 4975.

 30

Poole, R. (2010). Earthrise: How Man First Saw the Earth. New Haven, CT: Yale University

Press.

Pultarova, T. (2016, April 11) Nasa to start testing inflatable space tourism module. Engineering

and Technology Magazine. Retrieved from: http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2016/apr/beam-

at-iss.cfm. Accessed on 15 November 2015.

Reddy, M.V., Nica, M., & Wilkes, K. (2012). Space tourism: Research recommendations for the

future of the industry and perspectives of potential participants. Tourism Management,

33(5), 10931102.

Ross, M., Mills, M., & Toohey, D. (2010). Potential climate impact of black carbon emitted by

rockets. Geophysical Research Letters, 37(24), 16.

Ruddiman, W.F. (2005). Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How humans took control of the

climate. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Sagan, C. (1977). The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence.

New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

Smith, V. L. (2000). Space tourism: The 21st Century Frontier. Tourism Recreation Research,

25(3), 5-15.

Smithsonian Institution. (2013). Homo Sapiens. Retrieved from

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-sapiens.

Stanford, C. (2003). Upright. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Swarbrooke, J., Beard, C., Leckie, S., & Pomfret, G. (2003). Adventure Tourism: The New

Frontier. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

 31

United Nations. (2010, October 25). Momentum Gathering for Weaponization of Outer Space,

Risk of Outer Space Arms Race. Retrieved from

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/gadis3421.doc.htm.

Young, M., Markham, F., Reis, A.C., & Higham, J.E.S. (2015). Flights of fantasy: A

reformulation of the flyers dilemma. Annals of Tourism Research, 54, 115.

Van Pelt, M. (2005). Space Tourism: Adventures in Earth Orbit and Beyond. New York, NY:

Copernicus Books.

Verger, Sourbs-Verger, & Ghirardi. (2003). The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Space

Missions, Applications and Exploration (S. Lyle & P. Reilly, Trans.). Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Villard, R. & Sahu, K. (2012, January 11). The Milky Way Contains at Least 100 Billion Planets

According to Survey. Retrieved from

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2012/07/full/.

Wall, M. (2016, April 5) Private Lynx Space Plane Could Take Off in Early 2017. Space.com.

Retrieved from http://www.space.com/32463-xcor-lynx-space-plane-2017.html.

Accessed on 15 November 2015.

Webber, D. (2010). Point-to-point sub-orbital space tourism: Some initial considerations. Acta

Astronautica, 66, 16451651.

Webber, D. (2012). Space Tourism Essential Step in Human Settlement of Space. Paper

presented at the 63rd International Astronautical Congress, Naples, Italy.

White, F. (1998). The Overview Effect: Space Exploration and Human Evolution (2nd Edition).

Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

Whitfield, P. (1993). The Natural History of Evolution. London, UK: Transworld Publishers Ltd.
 32

Whitford, R. (2007). Evolution of the Airliner. Wiltshire, UK: The Crowood Press Ltd.

Williamson, M. (2001). The Cambridge Dictionary of Space Technology. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future. New York,

NY: Oxford.

Yarris, L. (2010, May 1). Tapping into Solar Energy Riches: Berkeley Labs Helios Project and

the Solar Energy Research Center. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Retrieved

from http://www.lbl.gov/Publications/YOS/Apr/.

Yeoman, I. (2012). Tomorrows Tourism. Bristol, UK: Channel View Publications.

Ziliotto, V. (2010). Relevance of the futron/zogby survey conclusions to the current space

tourism industry. Acta Astronautica, 66, 15471552.

Zubrin, R. (2011). The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must

(Revised Edition). New York, NY: Free Press.