Comment by anonymous_user9
5 days ago
> Are SpaceX rockets a loser for society?
That remains to be seen. By giving Musk the prominence to set up DOGE and destroy USAID, they've indirectly led to the deaths of almost a million people.
By launching starlink, they're also increasing the amount of aluminum in the upper atmosphere, which may have catastrophic effects on the ozone layer.
Do government non-profit spacecraft not use aluminum?
SpaceX rockets also are re-usable, which is environmentally better. They also cost about 10% of what non-profit rockets cost to launch.
> they've indirectly led to the deaths of almost a million people.
DOGE is a non-profit entity. Besides, why can't other non-profit governments pick up the aid?
To your last point, because DOGE shut down programs in a such a way as to make that impossible, to the point they chose to let food rot, let medicines go bad, and stranded Americans overseas working on the projects without a way home.
It's still a non-profit.
3 replies →
The problem is the amount of aluminum. Government non-profit spacecraft do not use very much aluminum, because they don't launch thousands of LEO satellites per year. By building the first megaconstellation and kicking off competition, SpaceX is exposing humanity to different risks, namely ozone depletion and new mechanisms of climate change:
[1] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024GL10...
[2] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024JD04...
> DOGE is a non-profit entity
You seem to be saying that non-profit entities are incapable of killing people? Or that it's fine if non-profit entities do kill people?
> Besides, why can't other non-profit governments pick up the aid?
I think you're being obtuse. An analogy: "Sure I turned off the circuit breaker that was powering the life support machines, but why couldn't someone else bring in a UPS and plug them in to that?"
Government non-profits also have little to no ability to create a starlink system.