The rapid rise in global rocket launches could slow the recovery of the vital ozone layer, says Sandro Vattioni. The problem is being underestimated—yet it could be mitigated by forward-looking, coordinated action.
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.
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
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;
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