> Findings in title are quoted from the linked summary

Yes I know the actual (journal) article was linked, as in the doi.org one by the royal society of new zealand. I looked over that and was already referring to the actual article. But what data did it add to the story? My summary of what I read is roughly:

• We counted that there's more launches than before.

• Launches in general have these handful of chemicals. The relative proportions of which are unspecified, either in whole OR by launch type.

• How many of each launch type there were before or among the newly added launches is also... unspecified.

• How badly each chemical affects the ozone layer is unspecified. We gave a reaction written out of what could happen with regard to ozone, but not how much this actually happens in practice (e.g. after accounting for other side reactions using up that chemical for other products first, before it gets to ozone).

• But it could be really bad! Maybe. If all those unspecified numbers turned out to be bad.

In summary: An unspecified mixture of types of new launches adds unspecified amounts of chemicals per type, and unspecified amounts overall, with an unspecified effect of each on the ozone layer... did I get that right?

> Perhaps correspondence with the authors — environmental physicist Laura Revell, planetary scientist Michele Bannister, and first author Tyler Brown — may be productive.

It's a reddit thread, it is a forum for quick discussion about what's presented already, not weeks long correspondence that nobody will ever see the results of since the thread will be gone for weeks by then itself.