@chris_hayes @mike All I can think of are all of the toxic gases being created and the potential for damage from falling debris. We're at a point where there are so many launches and so many satellites, they need to be regulated and there needs to be severe fines (or fees) for using our thin atmosphere as a garbage dump. Additionally, each launch should be required to buy carbon offsets. I'm not a big fan of offset markets, but I know of no other way to neutralize the release of CO2.

@elaterite @mike I'm a big fan of the carbon offset idea (understanding that carbon offsets are not perfect). As a rocket fan, I know a lot of rocket people will point out that the airplane industry pollutes magnitudes more.

But, the focus should really be on solving problems not trying to assign blame. The rocket industry should be offseting all of the environmental harms it is creating, and so should the airline industry.

@504DR @chris_hayes @elaterite @mike yeah, offsetting turned out not to work anyway, and even if it had we’d still have to stop extracting fossil fuels.

We don’t need fossil fuels for rockets, they can run on simpler propellants, no need to stop. (But we should slow down a little, and address some of the other problems)

@ShadSterling @504DR @chris_hayes @elaterite @mike

What human problem do rockets solve ?

@the5thColumnist @504DR @chris_hayes @elaterite @mike I don’t know that I would characterize it as “solving a human problem”, but weather satellites and the modeling they’ve enabled have saved countless lives. So has GPS. And communication satellites have done a lot of good. (Not StarLink, but the ones that last decades and don’t ruin the view.)

@ShadSterling @504DR @chris_hayes @elaterite @mike

Certainly GPS and communications satellites have been good for humankind but much of the funds for the space race, even if they indirectly gave us useful technologies, could have been better spent directly on human problems. Probes to explore space probably worthwhile but all he manned missions just human vanity stuff.

@the5thColumnist @ShadSterling @504DR @chris_hayes @mike Even though the original space race had nothing to do with science, there was a ton of technology spinoffs from the effort. And I assume there is value in maintaining an orbital space station (maybe?). Beyond that, I agree, manned spaceflight is about vanity, hubris, & ego. It's a colossal waste of resources. I'm all for robotic exploration of the solar system, planetary geoscience, navigation, & critical communications missions, however.

@elaterite @the5thColumnist @504DR @chris_hayes @mike the recent commercial manned ~spaceflight is mostly about conspicuous consumption, but a civilizational capacity for living in space can support much more. The science in freefall we can do in the ISS is a start. The ecosystem knowledge we’d need to make an orbital habitat that doesn’t need constant resupply would have applications in almost everything.

@ShadSterling @elaterite @the5thColumnist @chris_hayes @mike

If we had unlimited time, and resources, that would certainly be a possibility.

Unfortunately, we have neither at this point.

@ShadSterling @the5thColumnist @504DR @chris_hayes @mike That's a good point about trying to make the space station as self-sufficient as possible. I'm sure things could be learned from such an effort. Still, flying people back-and-forth every few months is problematic. Maybe once per year wouldn't be too bad, though. (Not a mission I'd want to be on, lol!)

@504DR @elaterite @the5thColumnist @chris_hayes @mike there’s no meaningful time limit on learning to live in space. Not even as a race with destroying lifesupport ecosystems on Earth; if we can’t muster the political will to stop doing that, we also won’t be able to sustain lifesupport ecosystems in a pod. It’s not the amount of resources that limit us, it’s the deciding to let reckless destructive people control them

@ShadSterling @504DR @the5thColumnist @chris_hayes @mike Indeed. The money hording class is certainly our biggest problem.