So what is the accurate summary of the environmental impact of rocket launches? 10 times more than B747? 100 times? How would it look compared to aviation?
> rocket launches are incredibly disruptive to the local ecosystems of the launch sites.
Not according to FAA when they issued license for SpaceX's launches at KSC - [0]
[0] - https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/space/environmental/...
Here's a couple of articles.
https://research.noaa.gov/2022/06/21/projected-increase-in-s...
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/09/science/rocket-pollution-...
What's more, and this is touched some in the articles, deorbiting satellites so routinely is dumping toxic metals and plastics into the upper atmosphere at increasing rates. We're literally turning the atmosphere into a burn skyfill.
> Not according to FAA when they issued license for SpaceX's launches at KSC
The FAA is not an environmental or even scientific agency. Additionally, the FAA has revealed itself to be a captured regulator in several instances. There's no question that it is susceptible to political and monetary pressures.
Well the goal of SpaceX is to launch as many rockets as technically possible. Even if SpaceX could only reach the same impact as the rest of the aviation sector, that would be infinitely too much. The aviation sector is already a problem.
> A single 747 burns more fuel in a year than all the Starlink launches in the past five years.
is not an accurate summary of the environmental impact of rocket launches.
Also, rocket launches are incredibly disruptive to the local ecosystems of the launch sites.