Submitted by marketrent t3_10ufb9b in science
Uh am I just blind, or is there no actual data here, just some dudes waving their hands and hypothesizing stuff they think is plausible?
And that hypothesis, even, is especially un-compelling IMO when they include hypergolic propellants in the list: that is the source of most of the super toxic shit BUT is also definitely not the propellant being used in the vast majority of those extra 100 launches.
Hypergolics are used for military rockets mostly where stable storage for years is the main concern. Commercial launches use almost entirely vastly cleaner RP-1 refined kerosene, hydrogen, or methane fuels
Angry luddites against the final frontier
They would have to be incredibly lucky and against almost all common sense that massive rooms of rock could get exhausted you know don't have a negative impact.
Typically when you mind chemicals on Earth and then Mass release them in almost any form it has a negative consequence.
Kind of like Earth is a big ball of unregulated chemical reaction and when you throw yet more non-naturally occurring chemicals into that biosphere of chemicals generally bad s*** happens.
Pattern has repeated so many times throughout human history that it's almost like you have to be in denial of science to come to that conclusion even without significant study.
The very least it's some massive wishful thinking to think that the rocket pollution is harmless enough just like humans thought CO2 was harmless enough or let it gasoline was harmless enough and looking back at it those were very dumb assumptions.
"Let's just go on common sense and off the cuff assumptions instead of measuring anything"
Why are you on a subreddit called /r/science if you don't think science is necessary, bro?
crimeoPhD
>Uh am I just blind, or is there no actual data here, just some dudes waving their hands and hypothesizing stuff they think is plausible?
>And that hypothesis, even, is especially un-compelling IMO when they include hypergolic propellants in the list: that is the source of most of the super toxic shit BUT is also definitely not the propellant being used in the vast majority of those extra 100 launches.
>Hypergolics are used for military rockets mostly where stable storage for years is the main concern. Commercial launches use almost entirely vastly cleaner RP-1 refined kerosene, hydrogen, or methane fuels
The authors are “just some dudes” whose review of research and policy is peer-reviewed.
The lexicon for describing peer-reviewed hypothesis — could or plausible included — may be unfamiliar to audiences accustomed to assertions of opinion.
I can't help but notice that you didn't answer the question
> Am I just blind, or is there no actual data here?
Where is the data? WHAT was reviewed by their peers? They haven't actually gone out and done or measured anything to be reviewed, unless I'm missing it in the article. Hence the "am I just blind?" because I was confused how this would be published if so and am doubting myself. The blind part is an honest question
>crimeoPhD
>I can't help but notice that you didn't answer the question
>>Am I just blind, or is there no actual data here?
>Where is the data? WHAT was reviewed by their peers? They haven't actually gone out and done or measured anything to be reviewed, unless I'm missing it in the article.
Findings in title are quoted from the linked summary^1 and its hyperlinked journal paper T. Brown, et al.^2 as cited in my excerpt comment.^3
Perhaps correspondence with the authors — environmental physicist Laura Revell, planetary scientist Michele Bannister, and first author Tyler Brown — may be productive.
^1 Rocket industry could undo decades of work to save the ozone layer, 3 Feb. 2023, https://www.canterbury.ac.nz/news/2023/rocket-industry-could-undo-decades-of-work-to-save-the-ozone-layer.html
^2 T. Brown, M. Bannister, and L. Revell. Envisioning a sustainable future for space launches: a review of current research and policy. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2022.2152467
> 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.
>crimeo
>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.
For veracity, you may wish to send a facsimile of your comments to the authors, as “quick discussion” by subreddit users other than authors could invite inaccuracies.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments