1010
SpaceX accused of dumping mercury into Texas waters for years
(www.popsci.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2024
1010 points (100.0% liked)
News
23627 readers
2157 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Maybe the latter is like, bad for the planet?
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/state/2024/06/28/spacex-is-destroying-earths-ozone-layer-elon-musk-new-study/74171065007/
Hmm, did you read that article before posting it?
Because Im struggling to see how Starship, a fully reusable spaceship made out of stainless steel, is going to deplete the ozone the way that aluminum satellites do when they are deorbited and burned up....
What exactly do you think SpaceX is regularly launching into space? Because it isn't Starship.
You literally quoted me talking about Starship, and the article OP linked is about Starship.
SpaceX is going to launch the ~4000 satellites it has permits for, starship doesn't change that in any way shape or form.
Your words? Because, again, it's not Starship they're launching every two weeks.
Yes, it is. That is using their projected budget and the launch cadence that's possible with both SLS and Starship. SLS can at most launch twice a year, Starship will be able to launch every two weeks, and costs orders of magnitude less.
And meanwhile, SpaceX will destroy the ozone layer with endless Starlink launches, so maybe let's not praise them, like I initially said?
My god. What do you do for a living? Does it have no effect on the environment in any way shape or form?
They literally just discovered that Starlink satellites are having that effect, and you have given them precisely zero time to even try and address and fix it. And in the meantime I literally just came back from a remote first Nations community that only has high quality internet because of it, amongst virtually every rural community in the world.
Honestly, disconnect yourself from the internet before you spend any time looking into the environmental impact of your phone, the servers you use, and the billions of miles of fibre optic cables that connect everything. Because if that's the kind of blood that prevents you from praising a company that is literally revolutionizing space launch, then literally nothing any of us ever do is worth praising because it's all built on a giant foundation of blood.
Hell, those solar thermal power plants that use mirrors to reflect light onto molten salts originally killed a whole bunch of birds. Are they bastards for trying to build out a new technology, realizing there's environmental consequences, and then finding ways of addressing it?
I don't. But even if I did, working for a company is not the same as being the company. I don't blame an Exxon oil rig worker for global warming.
Not to the extent SpaceX will since it's destroying the ozone layer. Not sure why you seem to think that's trivial.
You have literally said that nothing anyone does at SpaceX is worthy of praise and complained that people praise SpaceX's genuine accomplishments.
But they're not, they're slightly slowing it's rate of recovery. This is not a problem on the scale of CFCs that actually destroyed the ozone layer, both in terms of damage being done and potential scale it can grow to (4000 satellites vs millions and millions of refrigerators and freezers), and it's one that we literally just discovered now and have literally only started trying to address now.
Doing new things will have unexpected results and won't be perfect the first try. News at 11. You wanna demonize the engineers who try and build new things for not having them 100% perfect the first time, then you're free to be a Mennonite and separate yourself from all of t chbogy and modern society's benefits too.
Literally? Please quote me.
Please do show a study that rivals the University of Southern California which claims the exact opposite.
So I didn't literally say what you claimed I literally said, or even close.
If I had said, "maybe people will finally stop praising Starbucks," would you tell me that I was literally saying that baristas are bad at their jobs?
K, so when people praise SpaceX's engineers for designing unprecedented machines that do things that no one has ever seen before, that doesn't bother you?
You were referring specifically to all those times that people are praising SpaceX's environmental regulation compliance?
When people praise SpaceX, the company, it bothers me.
When people praise an engineer at SpaceX that does something cool, I am happy for the engineer.
Again- saying I hate Starbucks doesn't mean I hate the baristas who work there. Saying I hate Exxon doesn't mean I hate an oil rig worker who's just trying to make money to feed their family.
And sticking just with Musk-owned companies, saying I hate Tesla doesn't mean I hate some random Tesla employee I've never heard of.
I'm really not sure why I have to explain this to you.
You don't have to explain either of those things to me, you can just answer the question I asked:
i.e. when people praise SpaceX's rockets and launches, does that bother you? Is that praising the company or praising the engineer in your mind?
At the end of the day what the company does is an output of the workers. When people praise what SpaceX does they are praising the workers, unless you view the company as just the CEO, in which case you're falling into the folly of hero worship.
This is some real "corporations are people" bullshit.
No, that is referring to the idea of a corporation having legal rights the way that a person does. That is not what we're talking about. We're talking about the output of a corporation. Is the output of a corporation the result of the CEO or of a bunch of workers?
See, the fun thing here is that I've answered the question you keep rephrasing multiple times the same way. You just don't like my answer because it goes against your whole claim that this has something to do with Elon Musk.
And you are doing everything you can to defend a company which is destroying the ozone layer.
You literally have not answered the question.
When people praise what SpaceX does, does that bother you?
Simple question, answer it, not questions that you insert.
I, once again, have no idea why this has to be spelled out for you, but of course it bothers me when people praise a corporation that is destroying the ozone layer.
Similarly, it would bother me if someone praised Shell Oil or Nestle.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that SpaceX is destroying the ozone layer and that is a bad thing?
Got it. And when Exxon ends up heating the world beyond 2 degrees C, then we can criticize them. Until then, criticizing Exxon means criticizing every secretary in their branch office in Des Moines.
That is a lie.
This is what I said:
Why you think you can get away with lying to me about what I said is beyond me.
This is what you said:
I did not say people can't praise them. People can praise anyone they want. I am unable to tell anyone else what to do apart from my child.
You lied. You're done with this conversation because you know you lied and you refuse to admit it.
It wasn't a paraphrase, it was a lie. I never said anything about what anyone can't do. In fact, I asked a question about whether or not people will stop doing it.
It's such an obvious lie that I'm not sure why you're even trying to attempt this 'paraphrase' nonsense.
Do you know what the clouds coming out of the engines at shut down and start up are? Methane and oxygen. Do you think injecting methane into the upper atmosphere does the earth any favours?
Huh, if only NASA Earth's science budget could stretch farther somehow so they could better monitor and tell us.... now I wonder how they could reduce their mission costs by orders of magnitude....
They are literally monitoring it and telling us. You just don't like what you're being told.
No they're not. You're sitting here asking open ended questions like "do you think that will be good for the upper atmosphere".
It was a rhetorical question.
No, you said that NASA is monitoring methane emissions in the upper atmosphere and that it's harming us.
Please provide your source for that claim.
The article I showed you about SpaceX destroying the ozone layer was not talking about methane:
I guess you didn't read it.
But yes, NASA does monitor methane emissions.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/jpl/methane-super-emitters-mapped-by-nasas-new-earth-space-mission/
Lol I know. Then you brought up their methane missions.
Your 'bashing everything remotely associated with a villain' is just as flawed as people's hero worship. You see company's as their CEO, I see them as a large collection of workers.
Good thing that's not what I'm doing then.