I grew up addicted to Star Trek. And Star Wars. But don’t confuse science fiction for reality. Reality means that humans do not yet possess technology for space tourism. Sure, we know how to send up a rocket, but the death stats are pretty grim, compared with other modes of transit. Maybe in 20, 50 or 100 years, this will be a good idea - right now it’s just stupid.
If people want to waste their money on this crap I don’t object. But the risks need to be fully disclosed, and not a dime of public money should fund it. The Constitution preserves your right to do what you want with your money - it also preserves my right to call a spade a spade - or a dumb idea. There is a big difference between NASA (science) and space tourism. Don’t confuse them.
A lot of early launches (unmanned) blew up. By the time we were sending chimps up, we were doing better... but we lost three in the Apollo program, and nearly lost Apollo 13. We lost two shuttles, one to a launch explosion, one on reentry.
All the science in the world does not remove risk, but to imply that they aren't using science at Virgin, working with different fuels and configurations, while at Wallops Island a rocket is using relatively ancient Russian engines is a little odd.
Even in the relatively known area of commercial aviation, with all the safeguards and margins for error, we still lose aircraft.
I have little doubt the folks working on commercial spaceflight are drawing heavily from and working with those doing state-sponsored spaceflight. At some point, the former may replace much of the latter.
We don't yet possess the technology, but we are working on that. There was a time when we did not possess the technology to cross oceans, fly an aeroplane, travel at a mile a minute, and people still died getting there, pushing the envelope and developing the things which make the morning commute as relatively safe as it is. (I presume you aren't dealing with miles traveled, because one orbit is more than most people drive in a year.)
Where did that tech come from? People racing automobiles, flying planes, even the space industry--all developed by those pushing an envelope somewhere to make pushing that envelope more safe, and then incorporated in more mundane pursuits.
I'd rather have my space exploration dollars go to someone who is developing something other than Muslim outreach, for instance, or engaged in the perpetuation of the myth of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
At least the pursuit of profit has that streak of goal-oriented purity, of technological accomplishment not found in the political ambitions of bureaucratic minions, and to some degree it is self-funding.
Now for a number: the chance of getting killed on a shuttle mission was about 2%. A 'tried and true' NASA spacecraft.
Test pilots at virgin 1 death in 52 missions.
Roughly the same, but keep in mind the guys flying the Virgin spacecraft are test pilots, and that carries a higher level of risk.
The only way the numbers get better is to fly more successful missions. Stay ground bound, and nothing changes.
In the early days of the shuttle program, I recall an editorial in Analog magazine discussing what to do when, not if, a shuttle flight fatally failed. There’s the brand of sci-fi that falls into the category of “speculative fiction”, or hard sci-fi, and then there’s science fantasy and the like.* Any real fan of the former knew (and knows) well what the risks are. Most would jump at the chance to go into space, even at current risk levels.
The truth is, space flight will never become 1/10th as safe as present day aviation, unless space flight is done 10x, perhaps 100x more than what NASA and it’s equivalents around the world can do. Just as what “aviation tourism” and other high(?) risk “public” aviation travel” did for aviation in the early days of that endeavor, the development of safe human space flight needs similar “input”, support, and “numbers”.
The other side of it is what will happen without a continuous push to go to space in a significant way. Humanity will “end” early. It’s that simple.
*Though sometimes enjoyable, there is VERY little “sci” in Star Wars. Star Trek was only a bit better, with an occasional half-decent sci-fi script or idea sneaking in.