[lukealization]

Yes, because the "charge forward and worry about the consequences later" mantra has proven so historically successful over the past 100 years when it comes to environmental stewardship. CFC's, HFC's, PFAS, leaded fuel, and abundant plastic waste are proof we definitely know what we're doing when it comes to ensuring we don't pollute our planet or ourselves, right? The science on this remains novel precisely because the idea of launching hundreds of rockets a day was inconceivable even 10 years ago.

You want more specifics, I take it?

* It's been well known for decades that high-altitude supersonic flight damages the ozone layer significantly faster than conventional aircraft. New Scientist, 1997 [1]

* More recently, concerning reentries of spacecraft: Atmospheric impacts of the space industry require oversight, Nature, 2022 [2]

Our upper atmosphere is fragile and contains the bulk of the ozone layer that protects us all from skin cancer and being bathed in brutal ultraviolet radiation. You willing to risk it because "space is cool"?

[1]: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15320692-500-science-...

[2]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-022-01001-5

[creddit]

So pretty much just vague references to some studies? Your second reference link is literally just the title of a study and you cite nothing directly from it.

For the first study, you have conveniently focused on "supersonic flight" as the issue which is not the fundamental issue cited in the article (link isn't working for me, btw, I had to google it find it myself). The fundamental issue is in aircraft fuel and the sulphur based impurities it carries. Starship burns Methane and LOX. In general, these fuels (fuel and oxidizer) are typically kept as pure as possible and are unlikely to contain much more than trace sulphur impurities as there removal is a standard and well followed practice.

So for full clarity, your argument as presented here is completely without merit and it looks like your first study was intentionally presented in a way to obfuscate its extremely tenuous link to the issue at hand.

As an aside, you're also quite focused on your mood affiliation with the topic, doing things like asserting the motivation of those you reply to without any evidence (eg 'You willing to risk it because "space is cool"?'). This won't help you think clearly about a topic.

[fallingknife]

If we listened to naysayers like you we wouldn't have ever moved out of caves

[lukealization]

A wholly reductionist comment that misstates my opinions. Believe it or not I think there’s an optimal space between the environmental conservatism I’m espousing and charging forward into an unregulated and environmentally destructive bliss that doesn’t result in being opposed to any form of new development ever.

[davidguetta]

That is still a lot of word for no substance beside vaguely quoting two articles you probably found with a 1min google search

If you are an engineer or even have half a brain nothing prevents you from doing a more in depth analysis, make a blog and post it here.

Right now not only are you a naysayer but you are even putting on hacker news commenter the burden of defending your point.