UKH

Can't think of anything more pointless than this - environmental & ecological damage in one not so neat bundle.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-57547885

Space tourism?

Artificial grass?

From the US Navy perspective getting an idea of how their shiny new supercarrier would handle nearby explosions is rather useful. Especially since they are building several more like it.

It would be kinda embarrassing if they found out the shafts or something got knocked out of alignment and it would come to a grinding halt and become an easy target.

Modelling can only get you so far.

Internet forums?

Oh, come on! I can think of many things much more pointless. Sometimes, whole swaths of a population do something pointless.

Seems a sensible thing to do if you want to make sure your ships are up to the job.

Heligoland explosion?

Golf?

Jetskis?

Bitcoin?

Not really that pointless, as Mondit said - it's real-world testing.

My Dad used to work for the MOD and his department did lots of destruction testing on equipment, albeit on a rather smaller scale. It's very useful to know exactly what happens if, for example, your "something" gets a direct hit from a rifle round, because you can determine how to protect it, if necessary. I've seen a few of the test videos.

A blunted knife 

Chris Grayling?

Fireworks?

Reminds me of somebody who used to work for a conservation organisation talking about rules of war being 'insane' regarding how people are allowed to kill one another, I don't entirely agree, but in the bigger picture it's kinda nuts. 

It makes sense, to test that, but war itself isn't so great. More concerning regarding pollution might be the number of sunken WW2 warships which are waiting to release their contained oil into the different oceans. Norway has been gradually addressing the issue before it becomes a problem, but many countries haven't been so much, in addressing issues as they arise. Proportionally speaking, I understand that not a lot has leaked out yet, but they're all around the world pretty much, and eventually it'll all leak out as the ships degrade unless something is done.

Why the three dislikes? Space tourism is utterly shameful.

If you think that's bad don't watch the footage of what they got up to at Bikini Atoll.

It kinda is, one can read in New Scientist about the following decade being crunch time during which we need to act to lessen climate change, and those who can pay who'd like to visit space can have the carbon footprint of an oil slick (figuratively speaking).

Leaf blowers 

Scrub the OP, and the other suggestions. Leaf blowers...now there's pointless!

I didn't give you a dislike but I'd say space tourism is extremely useful for mankind's future development. 

Yes, the tourism its self seems a bit wasteful but the technological development done to get us to that stage by the likes of Virgin, Amazon and Space X is crucial to our future of being able to move from a single planet based species to a space fairing civilisation. Which if we want to keep expanding is something we'll have to do, we are already killing our planet by containing ourselves on it but with space infrastructure, like huge solar collectors, mining on the moon or asteroids and space habitation we not only have a backup option but we have the ability to persevere earth as the green natural habitat we want it to be. 

To start any of that we need cheap ways of getting to space and the development of reusable rockets by these firms is a big step on getting that and all that it can bring in the next century or two.    

If we can't look after this planet properly should we really be allowed to have another one?

I think expanding into space will help us look after this planet, we won't need to use our planet's resources for fuel or raw materials anymore for a start. We can essentially outsource all the destructive activities to lifeless rocks like the moon, asteroids or even one day Mars while we make the earth into a utopia. One day we might even start terraforming Mars for large scale habitation, but to do that we'd need the technology which could also transform earth back to an ecological paradise. 

The problem I have with sc-fi fantasies like terraforming Mars is that it lost its atmosphere due to having lost its magnetosphere due to it being a dead planet so has no protection from the Sun.

The more people that see the earth as the oasis that it is, the better.

Have a read of this:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/everydayastronaut.com/rocket-pollution/amp/

The writing is less than stellar (sorry...) but it seems a genuine attempt from somebody who is broadly pro-space to examine the cons of rocket launches

Then consider the SpaceX super heavy: 4800t of propellant producing 2600 tonnes of CO2 to and 2200 tons of water vapour (also of course a very effective climate change agent) as well as 1.7 tonnes of NOX (which is  300 times more effective than CO2), to lift not more than 200 tons of payload. 

Put into context this means that a single launch of the super heavy is equivalent to putting an extra 2500 cars on the road in Europe for an entire year. 

With the environmental footprint of each flight into space, I'm wondering if it should be the more people 'understand' the earth as the oasis that it is, the better? 

The context was about people finding inner peace, but my Forest Schools teach shared some information along the lines that if children can get out and interact with nature in the formative years up to the age of 6 (circa), they feel as if they are a part of the natural world, which hopeful makes them wanting to look after it when they're older more likely, presumably people would do if it's a source of peace and solace. 

Have you seen the show? A totally pointless show that is strangely addictive!

I think it's important that at least the leaders have opportunity to view the earth like this.

A SpaceX Falcon 9 launch (itself) creates 350 tonnes of CO2 and can put 7 people in orbit. 50 tonnes per passenger.

Put our clown leader in an multi-coloured RAF Voyager A330 tanker all by himself and fly him to a climate summit, that's >50 tonnes CO2 and he probably won't listen anyway.

For perspective, it's about 3 tonnes per person to commercially fly from the UK to DisneyWorld (or Yosemite) and drive around for a couple of weeks. Space is carbon indulgent, but if a CEO of major firm changes his perspective and starts understanding that the environment is important, then 50 tonnes is peanuts. It's 10 amazon vans for year. 

There is a point: being an annoying tw@t to your neighbours

Solar powered torches?

It was a DW German public service documentary where I saw about it, and learned about Norway, but there's info from New Scientist about it as well.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727761-600-why-wartime-wrecks-are-...

Edit: The threat posed by oil in sunken WW2 ships and tankers, that is.