First, I would call this flight "tourism" with an added "DEI enhancement" - it seems to have no scientific value, and is promoted with political purpose.
The "privately funded flights" that SpaceX has conducted seem to have much more value from the standpoint of development of actual, useful technology and scientific results. And, there are women on those SpaceX flights, too.
What is the purpose of "excluding" men from this New Shepard suborbital flight? It is not as if the women are actually controlling anything in these suborbital flights, anyway - they are just passengers - same as men when they are included.
That said, the criticism that it is "gluttonous" seems to also apply to the people who go on tourist trips on cruise ships, go to Disney World and Disney Land and other theme parks, etc. when they could be donating the money that costs to charities that feed the poor, instead of spending on their own entertainment. Where do you draw the line for criticizing "excessive" expenditures for "entertainment"?
Personally, I would draw the line somewhere short of Bezeos' huge private sailboat yacht. Yes, it is sort-of "green", although it produced a lot of CO2 emissions to build it. But, because it doesn't have a way to provide a helicopter landing pad, it is followed around by a huge, diesel powered support ship - which is far from "green".
Does Musk even have a yacht? It is true that they both have private airplanes. But, those have substantial utility for CEOs that have far flung enterprises and need to be able to travel with security on short notice.
I wonder what fraction of her income actress Olivia Munn gives to charity, and what fraction she spends on her own entertainment. She doesn't seem to be emulating St. Theresa of Calcutta. It seems incongruous to hear people in the Hollywood entertainment business complaining about the excessive extravagance of others.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram