Skip to content

Rising rocket launches linked to ozone layer thinning

Technology
24 20 1
  • Yeah, cows used to be blamed for everything, now Elon and Russians are blamed for everything.

    Don't remember cows using hairspray

  • As if we didn't know this already.

    Space launches disrupt ozone layer, contribute to air pollution and global warming, waste a lot of resources, and produce tons upon tons of space debris.

    We should be careful with this industry and technology, and use it when it makes sense. But hey, why not launch billionaires and their cars into space for leisure and launch hundreds of satellites under different brandings all promising the best Internet ever or whatnot?

    Also, massive launches such as Starlink should be approved by international bodies, not national organizations. Cool, US has greenlit the launch, but now it's a global headache.

    I'd argue we need to advance spaceflight technology at as fast a pace as possible. Yes it does add CO2 to the atmosphere, but we've also gained some great advances through our exploration of space.

    We're doing a lot of things wrong on this planet, a whole fucking lot. But rocketry is one of the few things we're starting to do right and the bottom line is this, the situation on earth is not great, and it could get worse. Ultimately, the situation on earth will get a lot worse when a huge, life ending, continent obliterating asteroid hits the planet (and not if it hits earth, but when it hits earth). We should absolutely continue living on earth and striving to make it a good place to live, but we also, desperately need to get a foothold off of earth. When the next global calamity occurs (and it will), I would prefer if it didn't end all known intelligent life in the galaxy.

  • As if we didn't know this already.

    Space launches disrupt ozone layer, contribute to air pollution and global warming, waste a lot of resources, and produce tons upon tons of space debris.

    We should be careful with this industry and technology, and use it when it makes sense. But hey, why not launch billionaires and their cars into space for leisure and launch hundreds of satellites under different brandings all promising the best Internet ever or whatnot?

    Also, massive launches such as Starlink should be approved by international bodies, not national organizations. Cool, US has greenlit the launch, but now it's a global headache.

    Yes, but in today's geopolitical landscape, some countries would tie the allowance of such launches to weird requests.

    Israel denies the launch of European rockets, until support for Palestine is outlawed as "antisemitism", and pledge to donate weapons to IDF for free.

    Russia doesn't allow rocket launches to other countries as long as said countries not outlaw "Russophobia", which includes "recognition of Ukraine, the Ukrainian language, and Ukrainian people, as separate from Russia in any way of form".

    China demands the returning of its political refugees, or they will not allow rocket launches.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    Again? GOD DAMET!

  • So the billionaires escaping climate collapse into space will cause more climate collapse? That's a bit ironic but not really a problem since the important people will be in space anyway, right?

    But this can also encourage more billionaires to escape into space creating a feedback loop and new tipping point we have to worry about so maybe it actually is problematic.

    Let's just launch all of them into space preemptively!

  • I'd argue we need to advance spaceflight technology at as fast a pace as possible. Yes it does add CO2 to the atmosphere, but we've also gained some great advances through our exploration of space.

    We're doing a lot of things wrong on this planet, a whole fucking lot. But rocketry is one of the few things we're starting to do right and the bottom line is this, the situation on earth is not great, and it could get worse. Ultimately, the situation on earth will get a lot worse when a huge, life ending, continent obliterating asteroid hits the planet (and not if it hits earth, but when it hits earth). We should absolutely continue living on earth and striving to make it a good place to live, but we also, desperately need to get a foothold off of earth. When the next global calamity occurs (and it will), I would prefer if it didn't end all known intelligent life in the galaxy.

    To me, there are two reasons we're doing it too soon;

    • We don't really have technology needed to build a self-sustaining colony anywhere outside Earth; say, a colony on Mars is inherently dependent on Earth's supplies, and will quickly die out as Earth does too; the technologies needed can largely be developed on Earth;
    • The chance of some asteroid obliterating Earth in the coming millenia is so minor we might as well focus on much more real threats.
  • Don't remember cows using hairspray

    Or fridges.

    But I suspect we're over-thinking this comment. Its more dumb right wing attitude more than actual link to the ozone hole.

    Environmentalists point out the massive damage done by expanding the beef industry - through deforestation, effluent pollution of water systems, methane release, etc. Conservatives: stupid greenies are blaming cows for their problems lol.

  • To me, there are two reasons we're doing it too soon;

    • We don't really have technology needed to build a self-sustaining colony anywhere outside Earth; say, a colony on Mars is inherently dependent on Earth's supplies, and will quickly die out as Earth does too; the technologies needed can largely be developed on Earth;
    • The chance of some asteroid obliterating Earth in the coming millenia is so minor we might as well focus on much more real threats.

    Yeah, every time I see someone say go to Mars as an answer to the earth getting ruined, have to keep in mind that Mars is pre ruined, and whatever calamity that ruins earth will be easier to survive than colonizing Mars

  • To me, there are two reasons we're doing it too soon;

    • We don't really have technology needed to build a self-sustaining colony anywhere outside Earth; say, a colony on Mars is inherently dependent on Earth's supplies, and will quickly die out as Earth does too; the technologies needed can largely be developed on Earth;
    • The chance of some asteroid obliterating Earth in the coming millenia is so minor we might as well focus on much more real threats.

    It's not a zero sum game. I'd rather keep space research going to lower the risk as fast as we can. If you want to focus on the climate then we should end fast fashion which is much much worse for the environment.
    Also, space colonies are a chicken and egg problem, you cant just wait until the tech magically appears, you have to spend money inventing it.
    [Insert famous JFK quote about going to the moon here]

  • Yeah, every time I see someone say go to Mars as an answer to the earth getting ruined, have to keep in mind that Mars is pre ruined, and whatever calamity that ruins earth will be easier to survive than colonizing Mars

    Exactly

    Or those "terraform Mars" fantasies

    TERRAFORM THE DAMN EARTH FIRST

  • 35 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    25 Aufrufe
    T
    On the one hand, this is possibly dubious in that things that aren't generally considered to be part of defence will be used to inflate our defence spending numbers without actually spending more than previous (i.e. it's just a PR move) But on the other hand, this could be immensely useful in telling the NIMBYs to fuck right off. What's that, you're opposing infrastructure improvements, new housing, or wind turbines? Aw, diddums, that's too bad. This is deemed critical for national security, and thus the government can give it approval regardless. Sorry Bernard, sorry Mary, your petition against any change in the area is going nowhere.
  • 324 Stimmen
    40 Beiträge
    162 Aufrufe
    P
    Jimmy Carter gave up his tiny peanut farm. Yet people nowadays are just incapable of understanding the concept of conflict of interest?
  • 71 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    64 Aufrufe
    C
    Because that worked so well for South Korea
  • 558 Stimmen
    99 Beiträge
    393 Aufrufe
    N
    In this year of 2025? No. But it still is basically setting oneself for failure from the perspective of Graphene, IMO. Like, the strongest protection in the world (assuming Graphene even is, which is quite a tall order statement) is useless if it only works on the mornings of a Tuesday that falls in a prime number day that has a blue moon and where there are no ATP tennis matches going on. Everyone else is, like, living in the real world, and the uniqueness of your scenario is going to go down the drain once your users get presented with a $5 wrench, or even cheaper: a waterboard. Because cops, let alone ICE, are not going to stop to ask you if they can make you more comfortable with your privacy being violated.
  • Tesla customers in France sue over brand becoming 'extreme right'

    Technology technology
    32
    1
    507 Stimmen
    32 Beiträge
    163 Aufrufe
    P
    sorry I meant it in a joking way, I should have worded that better
  • 288 Stimmen
    46 Beiträge
    474 Aufrufe
    G
    Just for the record, even in Italy the winter tires are required for the season (but we can just have chains on board and we are good). Double checking and it doesn’t seem like it? Then again I don’t live in Italy. Here in Sweden you’ll face a fine of ~2000kr (roughly 200€) per tire on your vehicle that is out of spec. https://www.europe-consommateurs.eu/en/travelling-motor-vehicles/motor-vehicles/winter-tyres-in-europe.html Well, I live in Italy and they are required at least in all the northern regions and over a certain altitude in all the others from 15th November to 15th April. Then in some regions these limits are differents as you have seen. So we in Italy already have a law that consider a different situation for the same rule. Granted that you need to write a more complex law, but in the end it is nothing impossible. …and thus it is much simpler to handle these kinds of regulations at a lower level. No need for everyone everywhere to agree, people can have rules that work for them where they live, folks are happier and don’t have to struggle against a system run by bureaucrats so far away they have no idea what reality on the ground is (and they can’t, it’s impossible to account for every scenario centrally). Even on a municipal level certain regulations differ, and that’s completely ok! So it is not that difficult, just write a directive that say: "All the member states should make laws that require winter tires in every place it is deemed necessary". I don't really think that making EU more integrated is impossibile
  • lemm.ee is shutting down at the end of this month

    Technology technology
    130
    625 Stimmen
    130 Beiträge
    590 Aufrufe
    vopyr@lemmy.worldV
    If I know correctly, it is not possible to export posts, comments, replies.
  • 154 Stimmen
    137 Beiträge
    525 Aufrufe
    brewchin@lemmy.worldB
    If you're after text, there are a number of options. If you're after group voice, there are a number of options. You could mix and match both, but "where everyone else is" will also likely be a factor in that kind of decision. If you want both together, then there's probably just Element (Matrix + voice)? Not sure of other options that aren't centralised, where you're the product, or otherwise at obvious risk of enshittifying. (And Element has the smell of the latter to me, but that's another topic). I've prepared for Discord's inevitable "final straw" moment by setting up a Matrix room and maintaining a self-hosted Mumble server in Docker for my gaming buddies. It's worked when Discord has been down, so I know it works. Yet to convince them to test Element...