That isn't at all what your sources state. Did you read them?
One states the entire space industry uses less than 1% of the fuel of aviation, and the other says it uses 0.1% of the fuel with a BC index of 100. This would mean 10x more global space flights would be equivalent to current aviation.

Yes, this is the downside to using hydrocarbon fuels. But like I said, there aren't really any suitable alternatives. Arguably the cleanest fuel would be hydrogen, but the density is low and it's extremely difficult to store. Aviation suffers from a similar problem.

One of these articles only mentions ozone in the context of the space shuttle, which used solid fuel boosters. The other confirms what I said- kerolox and liquid methane rockets burn relatively cleanly and have minimal impact on the ozone layer. You would struggle to find cleaner alternatives.

SpaceX rockets use RP-1 and CH4 for fuels. Burning these doesn't have a very significant effect on the ozone layer.

I have the same problem. Only been here a few days, but it doesn't feel like the "show less of this" button actually does anything.

NixOS. The stability, reproducability, and package availability have been worth the slightly higher upfront cost.