[eastof]

I am an environmentalist. The line is that SpaceX is operating a fundamentally unsustainable business. The appropriate level of resistance is that which prevents them from conducting any launches at all. Launching rockets is quite literally the last possible thing we need to achieve a sustainable and equitable future for our planet.

Before you call my opinion fringe/extreme, go ahead and speak to some low-income folks at your local dive bar. You'll most likely find that 90+% of them are vehemently opposed to space missions in general, and especially SpaceX given the absurdity of traveling to Mars when we have so many low-hanging problems to fix here on Earth.

[maxdo]

It's such a bold statement. Building a colony on Mars, in such a harsh environment, is not possible without extreme sustainability. The entire colony's existence will rely on being sustainable.

You don't have free air; you need to find a way to reuse it, or you'll die.

You can't simply source water from a river; if you don't find a way to reuse the same water multiple times, you'll die.

You can't just eat vegetables and rely on cows that graze on open land; if you don't figure out a way to produce food without using vast expanses of land, you'll perish.

You can't just build a house from a few sticks from the nearest forest or rely on minimal heating from drilled gas or oil. If you don't find a way to protect against radiation and heat your home efficiently, you'll die.

You can't rely solely on oil for energy; if you can't move between structures, sooner or later, you'll die.

Mars represents a global rethinking of our entire way of living, pivoting to a sustainability-only approach.

In many cases, the sustainable approach is also cheaper. After all, reusing resources tends to be more economical. Consider solar energy as an example. It's booming not just because of its environmental benefits, but because it's cost-effective.

And why are we building solar panels? Because NASA needed it before for space exploration.

So when I hear, "Let's not focus on space; let's fix Earth," I can't help but think of a Luddite who's inadvertently advocating for our planet to remain in its current, unsustainable state.

[AtlasBarfed]

Politics is the art of the possible.

"Lets fix Earth". The issue is the small wee number (what, almost 8 billion) of humans on the Earth and getting them to cooperate. So far, notsomuch, and the beloved economic structure to every Hacker News, capitalism, does not have practical structures to accomodate conservation, environmentalism, restraint, or valuation of nature.

Capitalism essentially is a structure that maximizes resource use. The entire ruling elite was determined by the winners of capitalism, and their psychology is not of rational restraint, respect of the world, respect of others, or even respect for their children.

Capitalism has a side game of converging to maximal sociopathy for the individual (greed is good, selfish is good per microeconomics, that is the definition of a rational consumer) while not overly crashing the whole system, except maybe after the next quarter's earnings report.

Capitalism and the "economics intelligentsia" have no workable theory for transitioning our current economic structure to a different one. The notion of an "externality" (note that the verbiage directly places concerns of environmentalism and long term survival as a phenomenon outside/external to the functioning of economics) has only existed in a widespread fashion in the last decades, and really only begrudgingly to address the impending reality of global warming. Thus, there is no real development of economic (and certainly no practical political ones) to transition to some restrained model.

The current economic plan: let it get so bad that the actual supply/demand curves of markets are "disrupted" enough. This probably means war, famine, displacement of billions, loss of arable and livable land, etc.

The fact the elite have increased their wealth share shows that since the rise of widespread science on sustainability, the power structure has doubled down on sociopathy, selfishness, denialism, and procrastination.

This is not good. The only positive trend is the miraculous fact that EV drivetrains and solar/wind turned out to be cheaper than ICE/fossil fuels once sufficient infrastructure and research had been performed.

But nothing, absolutely nothing, stops habitat destruction, soil erosion, squandering of water resources, pollution, and mass extinctions.

Happy days!

[thaumaturgy]

I would also call myself an environmentalist, yet statements like this are the major reason I've been reluctant to identify as such loudly or often. Misguided environmentalists have for a long time been steadfastly opposed to nuclear energy for example, and I have not.

The on-the-ground reality is that concern for and protection of the natural environment are relatively recent practices and must be balanced against the continued technological and sociological progress of humanity. Otherwise, the answer is easily that the best thing for "the environment" is the complete extinction of humans. While some people may want to give that a serious treatment, I've always wondered why those people don't volunteer to go first.

Likewise, poorer societies produce less pollution than wealthier ones, so environmentalists willing to forego any kind of human progress in favor of protecting the environment should at least consider migrating altogether to countries without telecommunications infrastructure.

We don't yet know what all of the benefits and costs will arise from a lower barrier to space exploration. But, humans exist all over this planet right now because exploration is part of our nature. Rejecting space exploration out of hand is to reject our very nature -- a curious argument, from a naturalist.

[justinclift]

> The on-the-ground reality is that concern for and protection of the natural environment are relatively recent practices ...

What do you call "relatively recent"?

[colonCapitalDee]

GPS has generated over $1.4 trillion in value in the US alone since it was opened up to the public in the 80's [1]. Millions of people use satellite TV and radio. Commercial imaging satellites are used for mapping, weather forecasting, wildfire detection, and scientific research. SpaceX's own Starlink system has revolutionized satellite internet for regions too remote or underdeveloped to be served by traditional internet providers. And who knows what we'll be doing in 50 years! Imagine if we are able to use rockets for point-to-point travel on Earth, or we figure out how to mine asteroids, or if the economics of space-based manufacturing work out.

Also, abusing environmental regulation to set space policy is just straight up a bad idea. It's fine if you think we shouldn't be investing in space, but don't try and force that belief on the rest of us in an undemocratic manner. It's very NIMBY-esque

[1] https://www.space.commerce.gov/doc-study-on-economic-benefit...

[AtlasBarfed]

NIMBYism has no answer for the department of defense.

SpaceX and the super heavy payloads are a massive massive massive strategic advantage for the defense department. Imagine:

You want a functionally operational combined arms battalion deployed within two hours to the middle of Siberia? And then regularly supplied? Forget about having expensive foreign bases. You can deploy boots on the ground forces within hours.

Starship is a cheap platform for 100-150 tons of ... whatever ... deployed ... whereever ... whenever. To say nothing of orbital battle platforms or other stuff, simply the rapid deployment alone makes SpaceX absolutely critical to US "defense".

I can imagine the US DoD taking renewed interest in those midwestern remote ICBM sites as ready launch sites for rapid deployment forces. That's right, launch from Kansas, land whereever in hours. Australia? Africa? Antarctica? Sure.

Imagine fighting a conventional war and local general thinks they have a US affiliated fighting force pinned down. Suddenly, a combined arms battalion appears right behind his lines. The mobility Starship would provide the US military at very palatable costs is a battlefield revolution.

[mcpackieh]

I don't buy it, for several reasons. In no particular order:

1) 100-150 tons is the estimated payload to LEO, not back down to the ground. For Starship to land (on Earth) it will need to be mostly if not entirely empty.

2) Even if Starship could get that much payload down to the ground, how do you unload vehicles from an upright Starship? A built in crane maybe, but it sounds like a recipe for disaster.

3) Once you land a Starship somewhere remote, how do you get it back? It can't fly back (from Earth). It's too big to realistically airlift unless maybe you have a very large runway nearby for something like a supped up Super Guppy / Airbus Beluga. Do you plan on just leaving this cutting edge hardware in Siberia?

4) Missile defense systems could easily shoot down a Starship landing near enemy territory.

5) Why is this needed? Wars tend to have weeks of warning, at least for those who need to plan them. This is plenty of time for military planners to get their assets prepared to be deployed from nearby military bases or navy ships, both of which America has in spades around the world. American military logistics are already so excellent, there doesn't seem to be much margin for improvement.

[deadbeeves]

Nah, that's never going to happen. Rockets are inherently dangerous. Loading tons of people onto one is gambling with a 1 in 20 chance (possibly higher) that all of them die. Even if nothing goes wrong with the rocket per se, how do you land it somewhere where you don't already have infrastructure, or worse still, in a hot zone? On the best days landing a rocket is a delicate and error-prone procedure, can you imagine if there's someone actively trying to stop you?

>Suddenly, a combined arms battalion appears right behind his lines.

That "suddenly" is pretty funny. Can you imagine trying to sneak up on someone from aboard the loudest vehicle in the world as you're trying to gently guide it to the ground to avoid exploding? If the enemy has SAMs or artillery, your rocket and everyone in it is toast. Even if you successfully land, you better hope you've used all your fuel before the enemy has a chance to start shooting small arms. Even if a mostly empty rocket can't explode, it can still easily be engulfed in flames.

[feoren]

You don't think satellites have been a godsend for environmental conservation?

Would banning space development in the U.S. help us actually fix any of those low-hanging problems?

> go ahead and speak to some low-income folks at your local dive bar.

Are low-income folks at a local dive bar particularly knowledgeable about the subtle tradeoffs involved in effective government regulation?

[robertlagrant]

> Are low-income folks at a local dive bar particularly knowledgeable about the subtle tradeoffs involved in effective government regulation?

If they were, they'd be high income. Or be about to be.

[fooqux]

> Before you call my opinion fringe/extreme, go ahead and speak to some low-income folks at your local dive bar.

Sorry, I don't mean to be gatekeepery here, but "low income folk at my local bar" is the last demographic I would seek the opinion of on anything scientific or of broader scope than car maintenance.

Anecdotally, my experience is that many of these people love conspiracy theories, and applying "common sense" to global problems like climate change. For example, I've heard these people say that because we got snow in October climate change is a hoax.

[wolverine876]

Whatever you think of other people's technical opinions, their opinions on the use of common resources, including land, environment, and money, are as valid as yours.

It's easy to rationalize writing off others - for politics, education, etc. - but I find they have insights that I lack, and I learn a lot by listening (and do bad things when I ignore them). Also, they don't go away, and then you're shocked and outraged when the vote doesn't go your way.

[ChadNauseam]

> Whatever you think of other people's technical opinions, their opinions on the use of common resources, including land, environment, and money, are as valid as yours.

The government treats them as being equally valid for the purposes of elections (as it should), but that doesn't mean "people at your local dive bar agree with me, therefore I'm right" is a compelling argument

[wolverine876]

That statement is not compelling unless you are making a claim about something within their expertise, such as their opinions.

[EricE]

Gatekeeping? Nice word to hide your blatant bigotry.

[ElectronCharge]

> Launching rockets is quite literally the last possible thing we need to achieve a sustainable and equitable future for our planet.

I can think of a long list of other things, starting with nuclear war, that are FAR bigger concerns.

Rarely have I seen such out of touch and vacuous opinions expressed with such surety… ;-)

[mkoubaa]

Good job making environmentalism sounds like nonsense. Sometimes I wonder if takes like these are planted by the coal industry so that real environmental concerns are taken less seriously. But that's enough conspiracy theories for today

[bostonsre]

What is the goal of environmentalism? Avoiding short term harm or fostering sustainability in the long term?

You don't think reaching out further into the universe will give more people the pale blue dot viewpoint and could cause more people to care more about earth when they realize how fragile and insignificant it is?

What about moving industry off the earth in the distant future? Wouldn't that be good for earth in the long run?

[redavni]

100% of people at dive bar's would hop on a rocket if a civilization ending asteroid was headed for the planet. Asteroids are also bad for the environment.

[dwringer]

> Before you call my opinion fringe/extreme, go ahead and speak to some low-income folks at your local dive bar.

Now ask them for their opinions on fossil fuels.

[politician]

Western environmentalists live blessed lives even as they seek to kick down the ladder for the people of the future in order to promote fiction over reality.

[kortilla]

Modern trope rendition of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitey_on_the_Moon

You’ll also find that 90+% don’t care about research into basic science at all, art preservation, art creation, environmental preservation, or even obscure medical research.

It’s a bad signal because it’s from a bunch of reactionary people.

[LightBug1]

But Elon needs to shake his willy around in public ... why would you seek to oppose that with your vague assertions about the hopes and dreams of ordinary folk here on earth?

[kiratp]

Those same people will microwave a meal for dinner and then make breakfast eggs on an anon-stick Teflon pan the next morning.

[georgeg23]

It's worse than that, SpaceX is a major military contractor which had been working with the Trump administration to stage weapons in low Earth orbit.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23733/spacex-exec-says...

Also see Starshield

[wolverine876]

Glancing at the article, doesn't it say something very hypothetical and prospective?

SpaceX Exec Says Company Would Launch A Weapon Into Space In ‘Defense Of This Country’

It might not be a hypothetical question for long now that Congress has asked the US military to develop anti-missile defenses in space.

[georgeg23]

Elon founded SpaceX with Michael D. Griffin and offered him the role of Chief Engineer but he declined. Griffin instead went to Washington to steer NASA funding to SpaceX, before they ever launched any rockets.

Griffin was Chief Architect of the Brilliant Pebbles 'missile defense using weapons in space' program and has been advocating for it his whole life. After NASA, Griffin started the Space Development Agency--what that article is talking about--and gave contracts to SpaceX. When Biden came in he deweaponized everything, and then the lines were clearly drawn between him and Musk.

Check out Michael D. Griffin and also Will Roper.

[justinclift]

Anti-missile defences don't really sound like a bad thing to have though?

[georgeg23]

It has plenty of flaws and would be net destabilizing. "Iron dome in Space" doesn't work when it comes to nuclear weapons. Heck even Iron Dome can't protect against large barrage of small rockets from Gaza. It would just make first-use of nukes more likely.

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/space-based-missile-defense...

[wolverine876]

There's a balance: If you have enough defense to give you first-strike capability (i.e., you could nuke the other side and could destroy their reponse), then it's destabilizing. Other nuclear powers will be very alarmed thinking that you could destroy them at any time.

But you also want to be able to destroy a few rogue missiles, such as from North Korea. If NK nukes Los Angeles, the argument that 'we must adhere 100% to the principle of no missile defense' would be unconvincing.

[vkou]

They break MAD, and there's a lot of people that justify the existence of XY,000 nuclear weapons with a yield of ~4,000 MT as 'It's fine, they'll never be used, they prevent war because of MAD.'

If MAD was what was preventing them from being used, and MAD is no longer a thing, it's no longer fine that we have them. Anybody pushing to destabilize that balance of terror is going to need a damn good and through review of that question.

[robertlagrant]

This seems a strange way to say "they'd be amazing because then we could safely decommission some of our nuclear weapons".

[mcpackieh]

Maybe, or maybe not. It's complicated.

But what's certain is that it's politically polarized. SDI has support from [some/most?] republicans but not from [most/any?] democrats.