Blue Origin All-Female Mission – Can the Symbolic Value Justify the Environmental Cost?

Image source: Blue Origin Handout/EPA

On 14 April, an all-female crew including pop star Katy Perry, broadcast journalist Gayle King, journalist Lauren Sánchez, STEM advocate and entrepreneur Aisha Bowe, civil rights activist Amanda Nguyen, and film producer Kerianne Flynn flew to space and returned safely to Earth. The Blue Origin NS-31 mission lasted 10 minutes and 21 seconds, and many including us are questioning whether the environmental impact can be justified.

Reusability and Fuel Efficiency

The crew travelled on the New Shepard rocket, whose fully reusable design reduces reliance on raw materials and minimises space debris compared to single-use rockets. Blue Origin has not publicly specified an exact limit on the number of times a New Shepard system can be reused; however, the system has now conducted over 30 flights, with boosters being reused up to seven times. It is fuelled by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, which produce water vapour as the primary exhaust, meaning no direct CO₂ emissions during the flight. While producing no CO₂ emissions is a significant achievement, the environmental impact is more complex than it first appears.

Environmental Challenges

Water Vapour

Although releasing water vapour as the main exhaust may seem like an ideal solution, it comes with complications. Water vapour released into the upper atmosphere acts as a potent greenhouse gas and can contribute to ozone layer depletion.

Nitrogen Oxides

High-temperature combustion during flight generates nitrogen oxides, which damage the ozone layer and have a warming effect far stronger than ground-level emissions. These compounds can persist in the stratosphere for years, amplifying their impact.

Soot Particles

Blue Origin launches also emit black carbon (soot) during flight, which remains in the stratosphere for years, causing disproportionate warming compared to other sources. A 2022 study found that soot’s atmospheric impact is up to 500 times more climate-intensive than equivalent emissions at the surface.

Image Source: Blue Origin

Other Challenges

Frequency

Space travel has historically been limited by its high cost and complexity, meaning relatively few missions. Since 2015, there have only been around 51 New Shepard missions. However, as the space tourism industry expands—driven by competition between Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, launches are becoming more frequent, raising concerns about the exponential increase in atmospheric pollution.

Regulatory Gaps

Currently, no comprehensive regulations exist to govern stratospheric emissions or address the cumulative climate impacts of commercial space tourism. This leaves a significant gap in environmental governance.

Pathways Forward

While Blue Origin emphasises circular supply chains and lunar resource development (which focuses on extracting and utilising materials from the Moon to create a sustainable space economy)-both encouraging from an environmental perspective-more work is needed.

Key priorities should include:

• Lifecycle emissions reporting, including emissions from manufacturing and fuel production.

• Atmospheric monitoring systems to measure and understand the impacts of rocket exhaust.

• Cross-country space policies, ensuring that commercial space ventures align with broader climate justice goals.

  
  

Summary

Blue Origin’s all-female NS-31 mission symbolised a historic step forward in representation and inspiration. However, the environmental cost of even short spaceflights raises important questions about the sustainability of space tourism. As more missions are planned, the industry needs to go beyond symbolism and actively understand and address its environmental impact.

To make sure space travel helps rather than harms our planet, we need to get better at tracking its full impact—like understanding its effects on the atmosphere, setting up meaningful regulations, and developing ways to measure its planet warming emissions across the entire “space life”.