You can just search for it. The general answer is that it is not good, and it's getting worse. The comparison to aviation, once again, is not really needed. Aviation is extremely polluting and damaging to the environment (not just poluttants but also disease and invasive seed spreading). There's nonquestion about that. But it isn't related to rocket launches anymore than other pollution.

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.

Are you trying to say there's more sattelites falling from the sky than meteorites burning in the atmosphere? That's almost certinly not true.

How are meteorites remotely relevant to what's being discussed?

> How would it look compared to aviation?

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.