My takeaway: Satellite launches are undoing the recovery of the ozone layer that should be happening now that CFCs are banned. And this study doesn't even take into account metal deposition from reentries, which might be even worse!

When I teach climate change in my astro classes, I always give the recovery of the ozone layer as an example of how countries can work together to fix a giant problem (Montreal Protocol). I guess satellite companies are now destroying that too.

@sundogplanets Only one solution: build satellites _outside_ the atmosphere!

(This is a joke, but I am almost sure that someone will make that suggestion at some point.)

@jexner @sundogplanets You know, if we're brainstorming out-of-the-box solutions, why not consider a space elevator? 🚀🌍 Imagine a giant tether stretching from Earth into space, allowing us to send satellites and payloads up without the need for traditional rocket launches. It's like taking the stairs instead of the elevator—well, actually, it is the elevator!

Not only could this reduce the number of rocket launches, but it might also help protect our precious ozone layer from further harm. Plus, think of the views! 🌌
🌟 https://youtu.be/V0ju74IqW0A

Hey @cy

I like your revolutionary pessimism—and I really hope you like my evolutionary tech optimism too.

I understand your skepticism around space elevators, especially concerns about their accessibility and the materials needed for their construction.

Comparing Space Elevators to nuclear fusion is an interesting analogy, but it overlooks a key distinction: nuclear fusion is already completely feasible; the challenge lies in engineering a sustained fusion reaction. The feasibility of CNTs for space elevators is grounded in our current understanding of physical reality. Throughout history, many innovations have followed this pattern—from Leonardo da Vinci's observations of bird flight to the Wright brothers' first powered flight. These advancements were not just "great on paper"; they were feasible based on the physical principles knowen in their time. I see the incredible progress humanity has made and that this trend will continue into the future, with societal and technological progress working hand in hand.

The idea that a space elevator would be "only for the rich" and used primarily to deploy spy satellites is overly pessimistic. I know the world isn't perfect, but it's getting better. The device you're using to communicate here probably has superior computational power compared to the entire Apollo program. And obviously, you could afford the device—even if only half a century ago, the effort and resources of the richest nation on Earth were necessary. Don't you see the progress? I agree that the distribution of wealth should be more equitable, but from there to overlook that even if the arc of justice bends slowly, it still bends toward justice. The rich are not a universal "got you," as you seem to infer. Society is a complex system, just like the economy; complex systems are usually not understood by a single solution.

Let's consider the broader vision and potential democratizing effect of this technology. The industrial revolution brought many hardships but ultimately also made the abolition movement possible. Technological development may not be sufficient but is a necessary condition for social progress. The universe is a vast and abundant place, easily making scarcity obsolete if explored and accessed in a reasonable and ethical manner. Space elevators promise to drastically reduce the cost of sending payloads and people to orbit—potentially by factors of 50 to 100 compared to rockets. This cost reduction could make space access affordable for a much wider range of users, including researchers, educators, small businesses, NGOs, and developing nations.

Enabling large-scale infrastructure projects in space could be a big step toward a post-scarcity, utopian future for all of humanity, with abundant energy and resources. Solar power satellites that provide clean energy to Earth and abundant resources through asteroid mining would benefit all of humanity. The historical pattern of technological advancement shows that what starts as expensive and exclusive often becomes accessible over time.

We can imagine and work toward a future where technology serves the many, not just the few.