At his inauguration, US President Donald Trump pledged to plant a flag on Mars. “We will pursue our manifest destiny into the stars,” he said on Monday, “launching American astronauts to plant the stars and stripes on the planet Mars.”

The comment elicited a big thumbs-up from Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who hasn’t been shy about his ambition to not only reach but also colonise the red planet.

In a speech following the inauguration, which included that salute, Musk said, “Can you imagine how awesome it will be to have American astronauts plant the flag on another planet for the first time?”

But how close are we really to being able to take a person to Mars, and what are the hopes for the man on the street of taking a trip into space?

Is it possible to take a holiday into space?

Space tourism is a reality. In fact, the first space tourist took his trip nearly a quarter of a century ago, when Dennis Tito joined the Soyuz TM-32 mission in April 2001.

Since then, around 60 tourists have already travelled into ‘space,’ although most of these have been on suborbital joyrides, only briefly leaving the atmosphere before returning to Earth.

Leading the way is Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic, launched back in 2004. Although the company has had some setbacks over the years, it has successfully completed seven commercial flights over the past two years with its VSS Unity space plane.

But these flights aren’t exactly reaching the moon. The VSS Unity travels to around 90 km above the Earth’s surface, which reaches the definition of space in NASA’s book, defined as 80 km above sea level. However, the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) defines space as beginning at 100 km.

Alongside Virgin Galactic, Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos created the Blue Origin project to take paying passengers into space. The New Shepard, his reusable passenger rocket, has flown eight crewed space flights since 2021.

Then there’s Musk’s own bid for interplanetary exploration, conducted under his SpaceX company. There are a lot of moving parts to this business, from the huge (and regularly exploding) Starship to the incredible Falcon 9 launchers that bizarrely guide themselves back down to the launch pad for reuse.

The tourism part of SpaceX is undertaken by its Crew Dragon spacecraft, a highly automated spaceship designed to be accessible to civilians with little to no training. Fifteen crewed launches have taken place, 10 on behalf of NASA and five purely commercial.

Although SpaceX draws attention for its rocket launches and Starlink constellation, the founding ethos of the company was to make human life multi-planetary. Specifically, its goal is to colonise Mars.

“History is going to bifurcate along two directions. One path is we stay on Earth forever, and then there will be some eventual extinction event,” Musk said in 2016. “The alternative is to become a spacefaring civilisation and a multi-planet species, which I hope you would agree is the right way to go.”

How will space tourism evolve over the coming years?

When it comes to making space tourism more accessible to the masses, technology is key. And thanks to having both President Trump and his sidekick Elon Musk making the rules, things could start moving a lot faster.

“There is a new supportive attitude for developments coming from America,” Dr Annette Toivonen, space tourism expert from Haaga-Helia University of Applied Sciences, told Euronews Travel. “That will bring with it good things and bad.”

“The technology will rapidly evolve because legislation on space will be kept as minimal as possible,” she adds. “But at the same time there are some big questions to answer, such as is it ethical, is it environmentally friendly?”

Not much about rocket launches could be considered sustainable, although companies are working hard to improve propulsion systems and develop reusable launchers. Nevertheless, Dr Toivonen believes there is an environmental benefit to sending billionaires into space.

“When people go to space and see how fragile we are, and they see this very thin layer of ozone, it’s a scary experience for them,” she explained. “For some people, to see this with their own eyes and to know how we are polluting the planet, it could be a life-changing experience for them.”

When the people who are having these life-changing experiences are the wealthiest and most powerful people on Earth, the consequences could be positive. “It’s a bit of a twisted angle,” Toivonen says, “but these people are the ones with the influence and the money and the power to actually change something.”

Nevertheless, she agrees that it’s a tricky time to be a space exploration company. “With the climate crisis and everything else that’s going on, they really need to justify their presence.”

How realistic is manned flight to Mars?

“The technology is not present at the moment,” says Dr Tovionen, “not to get there in four years anyway. Right now it seems like mission impossible.”

Cost is a major factor. When the USA went to the moon in 1969, it cost the nation $25.8 billion (€24.5 billion). In today’s money, that would equate to almost $320 billion (€300bn). That was around 4 per cent of the total federal budget, and a big indicator of why we haven’t been back since.

Technological and financial restrictions aside, there are some fundamental problems with travelling to space that humanity just hasn’t solved yet. Cosmic radiation remains one of the most significant challenges for human space exploration, particularly when thinking about long missions to Mars or other planets.

“Although space tourism is very niche, it will quickly grow as an industry,” says Chris Rees, postgraduate researcher at the University of Surrey, who recently published a paper on the need for more warnings about cosmic radiation.

“With increased flights, more people could be impacted by cosmic radiation,” he added. “Regulators and industry should work together to keep people safe without unnecessarily holding back innovation.”

Despite the potential roadblocks, several companies are already making plans to facilitate human arrival on Mars. One such project is Mars Base Camp, Lockheed Martin’s vision for sending humans to Mars in about a decade.

“The concept is simple: transport astronauts from Earth, via the Moon, to a Mars-orbiting science laboratory,” says Lockheed Martin. “There, they can perform real-time scientific exploration, analyze Martian rock and soil samples, and confirm the ideal place to land humans on the surface in the 2030s.”

On the way to Mars, companies think we might like to spend a night or two in outer space, and several are floating concepts for ‘space hotels’.

Above: Space Development (previously called Orbital Assembly) says it could have a space hotel in operation within 60 months of funding being secured. Holding up to 440 people, the Voyager Station is planned to have living quarters, gyms, restaurants and even research pods for scientists.

Jeff Bezos is getting in on the action as well with his proposed Orbital Reef. This $100 billion (€95 billion) space station is designed to orbit Earth like the International Space Station (ISS), but with a focus on tourism, luxury and research.

“Humanity’s future lies in orbital habitats like Orbital Reef, where we can live and work without being tied to a single planet,” Bezos told NASA.

However, not all space tourism concepts have been so fruitful. Dutch company Mars One aimed to be the first to land humans on Mars and establish a permanent colony. Announced in 2012, it drew plenty of interest from wannabe astronauts, receiving 2,700 applications for the 24 places in the settlement programme.

Unfortunately, the company went bankrupt in 2019 owing investors approximately €1 million.

Despite all the signals pointing to humans on Mars being rather far-fetched, at least in the near future, Dr Tovionen reminds us there is always the possibility of a surprise.

“There is always the X factor,” she says. “Because of President Trump’s comments, the whole planet is now aware of the progress we are making in space, and there’s always that unknown, that maybe Musk has an ace up his sleeve that we just don’t know about yet.”

Would there be demand for space tourism to Mars?

Right now, space tourism is the preserve of Ultra-High-Net-Worth individuals (UHNWI). These are people with a net worth of at least $30 million ($28.5 million), of which there are 626,619 in the world today.

But that could change as spaceflight becomes more developed and successful. Efficiency improvements, cheaper materials and technology breakthroughs are likely to bring the cost down, letting space travel companies reduce the price of their tickets.

At present, Virgin Galactic sells seats on its flights for $250,000 to $500,000 per person (€238,000 to €475,000), depending on the mission. SpaceX keeps the details of ticket prices for Blue Origin under wraps, but they’re rumoured to cost around $1 billion.

Until the cost comes down, demand is likely to be minimal, and space will remain accessible only to those with the deepest pockets. But there’s another problem too, and one which could even take the UHNWIs out of contention.

Research by the Chicago Society for Space Studies evaluated holidaymakers, who would need to stay until the planet was at a suitable location to fly back to Earth, would reside on Mars for a minimum of 112 days to a maximum of 1,328 days.

Given the time it takes to fly to Mars from Earth, the total trip would last at least 2.5 years, and could be as long as five years. “The dramatic increase in total vacation duration … will most likely have an overwhelming impact on the number of people willing to undertake a vacation on Mars,” researchers concluded.

UHNWIs are busy people, and spending several years not only out of the country but out of the planet would likely be somewhat awkward. Even if they could spare the time, the living conditions on the Martian surface are unlikely to offer the luxuries to which they are accustomed.

There’s nothing worse than landing at your long-awaited holiday destination only to find a lengthy transfer from the airport to the city.

Despite the names of some airports, they’re located woefully far away from the cities they serve. Ever flown into Paris-Vatry Airport? If you have, you’ll have been surprised to find yourself around 160 km away from the City of Lights.

Similar situations can be found at ‘Munich West,’ an airport that is 120 km from Munich, and at Frankfurt Hahn, 125 km from the city of Frankfurt and closer, in fact, to Luxembourg.

If you’d rather not face a two-hour coach ride at the end of your journey, opting for a city with a very close airport is a much better bet. We take a look at the cities with the closest airports, and the average cost to transfer.

Which airports are closest to the city they serve?

If you’ve ever flown into the airport in Gibraltar, you’ll understand why it’s the closest airport to the city in all of Europe. The planes practically touch down in the centre, just 1.4 km away from the Moorish Castle and Market Place.

The Gibraltar Bus Company picks up from the airport and transfers passengers to the centre in five minutes for a cost of less than €2. Alternatively, it’s a nice experience to walk, which should only take 15 minutes and includes crossing the airport’s runway to get to the city.

Over in Italy, Pisa International Airport is built right on top of the city centre. To the central railway station, it’s only 1.5 km away, although the historic centre is more like 3 km distant.

But the beauty of Pisa is its people-mover, which shuttles people between the airport and the central railway station. Transfer time is around five minutes and costs €6.50 one way.

If you’re heading to Estonia, you’ll be pleased to hear Tallinn Airport is super-close to the city centre. At just 4 km to the historic centre, the transfer can be easily completed in around 15 minutes for a cost of just €2 on the bus or tram.

Staying in the Baltics, a visit to Lithuania will be made even more pleasant by the fact that Vilnius airport is located just 5.9 km south of the city centre. Direct buses run every 10 minutes, costing from just €0.65.

Which airports have the best transport links?

Like Pisa, many European cities have invested in efficient people movers to get their passengers right into the city as quickly as possible.

Lisbon Airport, for example, is a good 10 km from the city centre, but thanks to its direct connection by rail, the Aeroporto-Saldanha line will get you into the historic centre for just a few euros and in less than 20 minutes.

Malaga is another well-equipped airport, with a train station located right outside the terminal building. Although it’s a 12 km transfer, the C-1 line gets into the city in around 12 minutes, and also has connections into popular destinations such as Fuengirola, Benalmadena and Torremolinos.

Zurich has a rapid transfer time of just 10 minutes, using the S2 or S16 train lines to transfer into Hauptbahnhof main station. Also deserving of a shout is Copenhagen with its direct train to Central Station from the airport, completing the transfer in 13 minutes and for less than €5.

While it may be tempting to immediately order an Uber when you arrive, European airports are working hard to make public transport a cheap and accessible option. The environmental benefits speak for themselves, so rather than hoping straight in a cab or rideshare, consider the alternatives for a greener and less stressful transfer.

When Mayor Christian Estrosi addressed a crowd of supporters for Nice’s traditional New Year’s ceremony this week, nobody was prepared for the bombshell he would drop.

“Cruises that pollute, that dump their low-cost clientele who consume nothing but leave their waste behind, have no place here,” he announced. “We prevented concrete from suffocating Nice, it is not to let overtourism suffocate it in turn.”

“I don’t want floating hotels to drop anchor in front of Nice,” he added.

In a statement sent to Euronews Travel, Christian Estrosi’s office told us,

“We have decided, based on the contracts signed in 2025, to ban these large units and allow only those that do not exceed 190 meters in length and a capacity of 900 passengers.”

But not all cruise ships will be hit by the new rules. The mayor advised he will specifically stop ships longer than 190m and those with a capacity for more than 900 passengers from docking in the ports.

“I want us to act so that we are rid of cruise ships from July 1, 2025, without having to wait until January 1, 2026,” Estrosi told Nice Press. “We are working to cancel all cruises that can still be cancelled and we will draft a banning order.”

Mayor Estrosi claims that such an order would reduce the number of arriving cruise passengers by 70 per cent.

“Venice has regained its beauty and its landscape by having a mayor who definitively refuses cruises. We intend to go in this direction, too,” he said to local press.

Why does Nice want to ban cruise ships?

Like residents of many European ports, people in Nice have had enough of the growing cruise industry.

Europe is one of the largest cruise markets in the world, with Eurostat figures showing a record 16.4 million cruise passengers passing through EU ports in 2023, five million more than a decade ago.

Cruise ships are growing too. Celebrity Cruises bring their Apex Edge-class cruise ship to Villefranche-sur-Mer, the port immediately to the east of the city of Nice. It’s a 306-metre-long behemoth, depositing over 3,400 people (and likely some of the 1,300+ crew) into the small town, which has a population of 5,012.

Even Estrosi admits that tourism is essential to Nice. Tourism office figures suggest it’s in the region of 40 per cent of the revenue of Nice Côte d’Azur Metropolis. But cruise passengers may not spend as much with local businesses as you might think, partly because they have already paid for their food and drink onboard.

A study from Bergen, Norway – a popular stop for fjord tours – found that up to 40 per cent of people never left the ship. For those who did go ashore, their average spend was less than €23.

The cruise industry argues that a passenger’s average contribution to the local economy is much higher than the Bergen estimate at around $100 (€91) a day.

While there may be an economic benefit to this sudden influx of people, it can be overwhelming for small towns and cities. But although overtourism was cited by Estrosi as his main motivation, his office clarified that the environmental impact was also a significant concern.

“Today, we have units that are essentially floating cities with over 5,000 passengers, keeping their engines running, emitting sulfur and other pollutants into the atmosphere, creating no jobs, and contributing to overtourism,” added Christian Estrosi’s office. “These units in no way align with the model we wish to develop in terms of tourism, hospitality, and respect for the local population.”

Cruise ships are incredibly polluting. Even the most efficient modern cruise ships emit around 250g of CO2 per passenger kilometre, ten times more than a passenger plane.

But it’s not just CO2 that pumps out of the funnels. Sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and ‘black carbon’ or soot is belched into the sky, damaging air quality and contributing to acid rain. Some LNG-powered vessels also release methane.

These floating cities release huge amounts of wastewater, leech toxic heavy metals into the ocean and endanger fragile wildlife, ocean mammals and habitats.

Several European towns and cities have already banned cruise ships from their ports. Venice, in 2021, banned ships from docking in its historic centre. Mallorca has limited the number of ships that can dock at once, and Barcelona has closed its north terminal to cruise ships.

Will locals in Nice be supportive of Estrosi’s wish?

Many locals have long been campaigning for an end to cruise ships in Nice and other parts of the region so they welcome Estrosi’s plans

Juliette Chesnel-Leroux, leader of the green opposition in Nice speaking to France 3, hailed the move as “a historic victory for ecology … obtained after a long fight.” She added that it demonstrates that “repeated warnings about the disastrous consequences of these giants of the seas have finally been heard.”

European ports have played host to a number of anti-cruise protests over the last year, many of which involved the group ‘Stop Crosière,’ or ‘Stop Cruises.’. Based in the Marseille region, they are actively campaigning to ban cruises. A statement on their website reads:

“On an environmental level as on a human level, nothing justifies the maintenance of these absurd, energy-intensive and toxic floating cities.”

Speaking on the ici Province radio station, a local Radio France outlet, co-founder and spokesperson for the Stop Croisiere collective Guillaume Piccard welcomed the prospect of a ban, but raised concerns with the details.

“What is a bit regrettable in the statement of Mr. Estrosi is that he wants to sort between luxury cruises and mass cruises,” said Piccard (translated). “He wants the small cruise ships to still come into the port of Nice, just that their passengers don’t drop rubbish on the ground.”

Jacky Bonnemains, director of the NGO Robin des Bois, also takes Estrosi’s comments with a pinch of salt. “The declarations made by Mr. Estrosi, Mayor of Nice, are a bit of a flash in the pan,” he told Euronews Travel. “It’s a political show before the United Nations Ocean Conference.”

Can the Nice mayor ban cruise ships?

According to BFMTV, Christian Estrosi and the town hall have little to no power to ban cruise ships. The decision will rest on the shoulders of the port and the chamber of commerce.

However, Estrosi does have some influence. In the past, he has held various ministerial positions in the French government, serving under both Sarkozy and Chirac. He is also a former president of the Regional Council of Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur, which owns the ports in Nice.

Experts have also questioned the deadline of 1 July as being rather optimistic to be able to implement a ban. Jacky Bonnemains points out that reservations have already been made for 124 cruises to dock in Nice, up from 117 in 2024 and 97 in 2023.

“These 2025 mega-ship calls are planned by MSC and Costa Croisières,” says Bonnemains. “They will anchor in the bay of Villefranche-sur-Mer bordering Nice, where passengers will embark and disembark by shuttle.” Parking offshore and shuttling passengers in would not be stopped under Mr Estrosi’s proposed ban.

The Robin des Bois chief also criticises the language used by the mayor, noting that he talked about low-cost passengers and litter, but failed to mention air pollution. “It’s more a class opposition between the poor and the rich,” says Boonemains, “than a critique of the various nuisances of mass cruising.”

The efforts of the mayor to ban cruise ships came less than two weeks after it was announced Nice had been picked to host the United Nations Ocean Conference in June.

While the sentiment behind Estrosi’s announcement is well-received by the environmental lobby, the impact will be dwarfed by the impact of heightened aviation activity in the region.

Nice Côte d’Azur Airport undertook a major expansion in 2024, with works ongoing throughout this year. By 2026, it will have increased its capacity from the current level of 14 million passengers per year to a new high of 18 million passengers.

The expansion has been backed by a €100 million loan from the European Investment Bank and has received plenty of vocal support from Mayor Christian Estrosi.