[stcredzero]

This article started out good but got pretty lazy toward the end.

It started getting lazy a lot sooner than the end. The "debunking" by pointing out that there are some destinations that are more than 30 minutes away? That's not the actual position they were presenting. There is a lot of the world's population which lives in a strategically drawn circle of that travel radius. They know full well that going halfway around will take a bit longer. Also, the issue of flying around bombs is already mitigated by SpaceX's current practices with reusable Falcon boosters. (Namely that on approach, the trajectory is designed such that everything has to go right for the booster to do other than land in the ocean. Also, by the time the ship gets to the end of a flight, it will be mostly empty, so the explosion risk will be much less than 20kt.) The fact that none of that is talked about indicates to me that this is a hit piece.

[ams6110]

How can travel by rocket even be considered in today's world? Are Falcon launches carbon neutral?

[maccam94]

No, but it might be comparable or better than airplanes.

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/10/07/musks-suborbital-flight...

And for the moment, flights are nowhere near numerous enough to have any effect on CO2 levels.