Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Status_Fox_1474 t1_ixd5ebx wrote

So a very serious question: There is a lot of waste and chemical burn and pollutants that are shot up into the atmosphere for a launch. What is up there that is so much better than what exists on Earth? How would anything be financially worth it? And if there are regular launches (weekly?) to bring stuff back and forth, what kind of damage will that do long-term to our existing planet?

I can understand few launches to study what's outside the Earth, but I think that should be the limit.

1

iNstein t1_ixex55b wrote

We can move heavy industry to space and possibly even farming. That means we no longer pollute the one place we know has life and we allow farms to rewild. Earth can be saved this way.

> There is a lot of waste and chemical burn and pollutants that are shot up into the atmosphere for a launch

Actually Artemis uses a combination of Oxygen and hydrogen, so the end result is..... Water. Similarly, SpaceX uses Methane and Oxygen which they will be making from CO2 and water. They need to start doing that asap and we should push for that rather than just complain about rockets in general. We need to shape future technology, not just try to stop it.

1

Seidans t1_ixdtl90 wrote

it's more about the cost or limited interest than the "damage" done to earth

people talk about space tourism, a completly useless business that would end quickly as soon the economy suffer

the only thing worth is a space based industry and especially moon, asteroid and planet mining and "worth" is the most important thing here because for now it's completly impossible or at a completly absurd cost that make it not worth it

USA and China are fighting to place the first human base on the moon, it's more of a cold-war competition than anything else, unfortunaly physic tell us that humanity living outside earth and exploiting space is extreamly difficult and not worth it (for now?)

0