I would expect a tourist needs to demonstrate they have the fortitude to:
1. Not Die
2. (Possibly) not lose their shit (any definition)
These can probably be handled with a centrifuge after the tourist demonstrates surviving an extreme rollercoaster.
This is the funniest thing I've read all day.
No pretend required.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Tito
I know this is a Jeff Bezos / Blue Origin article, but I would fully expect the same to be true here. Jeff has stated multiple times that he sees millions of people moving to space stations for work and general life. Earth should be left void of manufacturing and mining and things, which could be moved to space (and asteroids, etc) leaving Earth to be more of a natural environment for life to thrive.
This is the real world, not Star Trek.
Manned spacecraft so far have always allowed the pilots to take over a significant degree of manual control. This new generation of private manned capsules will be no different.
This is untrue for Soyuz or Dragon 2 - any capsule design is not pilotable. It will also be untrue for the upcoming starship for example. It might have crew but I struggle to think why it would have a pilot.
Falcon 9 is just another unmanned booster.
Which just so happens to land itself.
The point I'm trying to make is that machines can land themselves perfectly well nowadays, and control software and its interaction with hardware is now too complex for puny humans to understand or interact with, so they're better off just letting it do its thing and land or crash - a human interaction during landing is not going to save the machine - things have moved on from the mooon landings.
Time will tell.
First up is lowering the cost of escape velocity such that "casual" flights are financially feasible. This includes reusable components, a very low failure rate, and an ecosystem of employees, engineers, and culture that supports it.
If M/B achieves their stated goals in this domain, then the next steps can be practically executed.