this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2025
216 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

73416 readers
4251 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
216
Rising rocket launches linked to ozone layer thinning (phys.org)
submitted 1 week ago by i_have_no_enemies@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Allero@lemmy.today 76 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 27 points 1 week ago (2 children)

we should be careful with.....

Yeaaahhh, you're talking to humanity here

[–] chellomere@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

Yeah what about the economy? /s

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 4 points 1 week ago

Yep, and I understand how little this message changes in the world

But at least it's good to highlight the basics to ensure people understand the dangers and shortcomings

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why the fuck would Israel be allowed anywhere near anything internationally, other the criminal courts that is.

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

They cry antisemitism, then the Seven Mountain Mandate people cry antisemitism, yadda yadda yadda...

[–] vollkorntomate@infosec.pub 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Plus all the space debris (like hundreds of Starlink satellites) burning up in the atmosphere. Without searching for sources, I’m pretty confident that this isn’t good for the atmosphere either

[–] RangerAndTheCat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Kessler syndrome enters chat Don’t worry I will fix it ～(つˆ0ˆ)つ｡☆

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.
[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 1 points 1 week ago

Exactly

Or those "terraform Mars" fantasies

TERRAFORM THE DAMN EARTH FIRST

[–] CybranM@feddit.nu 2 points 1 week ago

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]

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 22 points 1 week ago

phys.org often has rather poor-quality articles

i'm not sure whether this one is one of them, but i'd rather be careful with taking them too seriously

[–] Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 1 week ago

Again? GOD DAMET!

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] cecilkorik@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

Don't worry. Once we are no longer useful to them, something the billionaires are actively working on, and once they have successfully insulated themselves from the resulting conflict, they will start to kill us all off and they will say they are doing it to "save the planet". They still care about the planet. Just not with all of us poor people still on it. It deserves to be returned to nature. Except for the billionaires and their friends, of course.

[–] MurrayL@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The billionaires’ various acts of performative space tourism are dumb to be sure, but they’re just a drop in the ocean for this specific issue.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 3 points 1 week ago

I know, I meant more the general goal of billionaires to profit from space while ignoring any negative consequence of them doing so. Escaping earth and leaving all of us to die in the mess they created is just their wet, objectivist dream.

[–] Strider@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

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

[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Aww shit. Here we go again.