We still need to account for the carbon emissions of such an explosion. A complete carbon study would include how much GHG we save thanks to the satellite we pa

We still need to account for the carbon emissions of such an explosion. A complete carbon study would include how much GHG we save thanks to the satellite we pace, how much we encourage emitting more GHG by making rockets ten times cheaper and encouraging satellite, how much energy we require to generate that weight of H2, how emissions of a normal launch at high altitude compare to ground-level emissions (hint: GHG from rockets are around 9x more harmful than the same weight of a Boeing 747's kerosen), and how frequently we have explosions that lead to no satellite launched and pollution. Whether SpaceX is actually advancing humanity is the real question here. But it seems the aircraft industry is much worse (3-5% of global warming). https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/4c9ts4/what_are_the_environmental_effects_of_rocket/ https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/4c9ts4/what_are_the... The best way to know would be to introduce a tax on GHG and let the markets decide which activities lose their affordability, instead of each of us trying to make a GHG calculation of our own activities.