4 ms·

Yes, about 0%. If you want to fix climate change there are much better targets.

bmitc 3y ago
Being wrong is not lying. (Edit: Again parent comment was edited.) However, I am not wrong with currently presented facts, of which you are free to bring yourself and haven't as of yet. First Google result: https://time.com/6273065/space-travel-climate-impact/ https://time.com/6273065/space-travel-climate-impact/ and https://research.noaa.gov/2022/06/21/projected-increase-in-space-travel-may-damage-ozone-layer/ https://research.noaa.gov/2022/06/21/projected-increase-in-s... > Indeed, according to the NOAA report, a single passenger aboard a rocket is responsible for 100 times more climate-changing pollution than a passenger aboard an airplane. > The researchers found that this level of activity would increase annual temperatures in the stratosphere by 0.5 – 2° Celsius or approximately 1-4°Farenheit, which would change global circulation patterns by slowing the subtropical jet streams as much as 3.5%, and weakening the stratospheric overturning circulation.
- matthewfelgate 3y ago
  [flagged]
Delphiza 3y ago
Agreed. "Q: What is the difference between a million and a billion. A: About a billion" (don't remember the source). Space travel carbon costs are as close to 0% as makes no difference. There are about 8,000 commercial planes in the air right now.
- bmitc 3y ago
  The parent commenter edited their comments several times, so the argument there now is different than it was. My original comment above does not say that rockets should be the top focus on reducing climate change. It says they are a contributor to climate change, which they are. I don't see why we're wanting to send humans to Mars and doing so will thus needlessly increase the impact of rockets on the environment. Yes, there are worse things than rockets, but the impact is definitely not zero, and more and more rockets are going off, so the impact will only increase. The rockets required for human flight are much, much larger than those for unmanned missions. Further, the negative affect of rockets on the local environment, that is local to the launch sites, is very underrated. As noted in the linked article from the NOAA, the impact of rockets needs more study, and the impact is different than airplanes and is estimated to increase the temperature of the stratosphere by degrees, and not a fraction of degrees. This has downstream effects that are not good and is again different than airplanes. Lastly, yes, planes are bad, too, and we should absolutely reconsider plane fuel and flight use.
  - matthewfelgate 3y ago
    The impact of rockets on climate change is about 0%.

Being wrong is not lying. (Edit: Again parent comment was edited.) However, I am not wrong with currently presented facts, of which you are free to bring yourself and haven't as of yet. First Google result: https://time.com/6273065/space-travel-climate-impact/ https://time.com/6273065/space-travel-climate-impact/ and https://research.noaa.gov/2022/06/21/projected-increase-in-space-travel-may-damage-ozone-layer/ https://research.noaa.gov/2022/06/21/projected-increase-in-s... > Indeed, according to the NOAA report, a single passenger aboard a rocket is responsible for 100 times more climate-changing pollution than a passenger aboard an airplane. > The researchers found that this level of activity would increase annual temperatures in the stratosphere by 0.5 – 2° Celsius or approximately 1-4°Farenheit, which would change global circulation patterns by slowing the subtropical jet streams as much as 3.5%, and weakening the stratospheric overturning circulation.

matthewfelgate 3y ago
[flagged]

Delphiza 3y ago

Agreed. "Q: What is the difference between a million and a billion. A: About a billion" (don't remember the source). Space travel carbon costs are as close to 0% as makes no difference. There are about 8,000 commercial planes in the air right now.

bmitc 3y ago
The parent commenter edited their comments several times, so the argument there now is different than it was. My original comment above does not say that rockets should be the top focus on reducing climate change. It says they are a contributor to climate change, which they are. I don't see why we're wanting to send humans to Mars and doing so will thus needlessly increase the impact of rockets on the environment. Yes, there are worse things than rockets, but the impact is definitely not zero, and more and more rockets are going off, so the impact will only increase. The rockets required for human flight are much, much larger than those for unmanned missions. Further, the negative affect of rockets on the local environment, that is local to the launch sites, is very underrated. As noted in the linked article from the NOAA, the impact of rockets needs more study, and the impact is different than airplanes and is estimated to increase the temperature of the stratosphere by degrees, and not a fraction of degrees. This has downstream effects that are not good and is again different than airplanes. Lastly, yes, planes are bad, too, and we should absolutely reconsider plane fuel and flight use.
- matthewfelgate 3y ago
  The impact of rockets on climate change is about 0%.