this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
564 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

59402 readers
3434 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin rocket tests in Texas are emitting so much methane you can see it from space::So much you can see it from the ISS in space.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] wagoner@infosec.pub 36 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Let's not make dirty industrial activity clean, let's move it off world (destroying another different planet). Because, you know, that's apparently easier than actually solving the problem.

[–] mrginger@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

No, that is literally solving the problem. You can't make it clean. What exactly would we need to protect out in space or say the moon? The space whales, or moon frogs? You're protecting nothing but the vacuum of space and some rocks.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

My oil stocks say keep it here. I won’t be alive to find out what happens. /s

[–] Cataphract@lemmy.ko4abp.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I must have an overactive imagination because I can think of plenty of problems that unregulated space industry could cause.

Industry requires infrastructure and support, when speaking space terms everything is way more expensive so cost cutting will be rampant on all systems. Centralized space communication hub? No, we're gonna be bombarded with signals since maintaining the equipment on ground is cheaper (astrology sciences would suffer). Way to many objects in an orbital plane? Not their problem till eventually it becomes a catastrophic event as our own planet can become (Kessler Syndrome). More mass requires more fuel? Dump all the junk at every opportunity clogging space lanes (micro meteors and radiation will no longer be the main safety concern for travel).

I could go on and on, think about the current state of shipping and logistics. We already have events where ships were forced to sit for weeks outside of docks waiting to be unloaded (source). The space faring ships will only increase in size. What do you do with the useless containers they ship the contents back to earth with? The cost would be too high for re-usability getting it back into space. What about the workers who are at an unregulated site and their conditions?

I agree it's a conundrum of how do we advance when advancement causes destruction. It's something I've wrestled with when considering the Fermi paradox. Either you live harmoniously with the planet and die when it's environment changes, or you use that sucker up and get out of dodge before the next mass extinction takes you and nearly all of the living creatures out. I'm hoping in the future we meet some neighbors that can show a middle ground works well to persuade out current trajectory.

[–] mrginger@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think you quite grasp how enormously big space is.

[–] Cataphract@lemmy.ko4abp.com 1 points 1 year ago

I agree, it's difficult for anyone to truly grasp how big space is. The problem is we're not interested in 99.9999999...% of space, we're interested in key points. You can drop one grain of bright pink sand on a mountain and no one would care or notice. If you only concentrate that on one path up the mountain and back down, eventually the infinite number of people traversing/dropping on that path will be noticeable and have an effect.

[–] wagoner@infosec.pub 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Didn't we originally think the same ("you're protecting nothing") when it came to the ocean, the Rain Forests, lakes, streams, the Arctic, etc? Until we learned otherwise. By that time, the profit motive was too entrenched to ever allow things to change.

By way of example, what if the moon were mined to such an extreme that it changed its orbit? Wouldn't that impact it or the earth itself? What if the moon were no longer there at all because that suited a future trillionaire's aim to add another billion to their bank account?

[–] bernieecclestoned@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, the environmental movement has been happening since the industrial revolution caused air pollution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_movement

Mining the moon for rocket fuel won't affect its orbit, and I'm not sure how a trillionaire could remove the moon

[–] Marsupial@quokk.au -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bet if Elon was in charge he’d find a way to crash it.

[–] Deftdrummer@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"wahhhh, Twitter, wahhhh"

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Honestly? You can't collapse the moon's ecosystem because the moon doesn't have an ecosystem.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, the moon doesn't have an ecosystem.

It's important to note that we know for sure that the moon has no ecosystem, because every ecosystem is based on plants/solar irradiation as a source for energy, and therefore it would have to be on the surface.

There's no "hidden" ecosystems or underground oceans with life in them.

[–] wagoner@infosec.pub 0 points 1 year ago

I never said anything specific to an eco system