4 ms·
A few things to bear in mind here. The payload of a rocket is far less of that of a 747, so you aren't remotely comparing like-with-like. Unlike planes rockets
by KnightOfWords 8y ago
A few things to bear in mind here. The payload of a rocket is far less of that of a 747, so you aren't remotely comparing like-with-like. Unlike planes rockets aren't typically reused, the energy cost of manufacturing is considerable. (SpaceX's reusable first stages are impressive, but there is a fuel and payload cost.) Finally, taking a flight is about the highest carbon-emitting activity we do - one transatlantic trip is roughly equivalent to driving a car for a year.
- TeMPOraL 8y agoAgreed. Thank you for adding this, to paint a fuller picture. Space industry definitely isn't emissions-free, but right now it doesn't even register. We might have a problem in the future, but there's hope in switching to cleaner fuels planetside and eventually sourcing fuel for space operations from space. As it is today, in my opinion space industry has very good value proposition in terms of utility/carbon emitted.
- Retric 8y agoCharge wise they are closer than you might think. The 747’s net cargo of passengers plus luggage probability amounts to around 300-400 lb per passenger. 22,800 / 400 ~= 57 passanger equivalent to 22,800 / 300 ~= 76 passanger equivalents. Further people take much longer trips than your benchmark getting them even closer.
- jandrese 8y ago> 300-400 lb per passenger Maybe less if you're not talking about Americans. Even counting 40lb of luggage those are pretty porky passengers. :)
- Retric 8y agoI was thinking luggage for long haul flights + clothing + carry on was extremely heavy. But, your right the average is probably far below that.
- jandrese 8y agoI was going by the max for a checked piece of luggage. The carryon will add some to that (20lbs?) but it's still a pretty generous weight allowance.