3 ms·

Making rockets reusable uses more fuel but requires more raw materials to be mined, refined, and fabricated into parts. It's a tradeoff. The chief argument for

Making rockets reusable uses more fuel but requires more raw materials to be mined, refined, and fabricated into parts. It's a tradeoff. The chief argument for reuse is cost, not emissions.

noxer 5y ago
"More fuel" is irrelevant its about pollution. You can never make parts without using a fix amount of resources and energy and if they are used they will end up as waste which is pollution too. Fuel however is just energy in a specific form. If the fuel is created with electric energy and it all comes form coal then it pollution is high but there is a clear path to reduce it down the line. There is no such path with rockets parts that have to be fabricated again and again and again. Cost is the reason why it is feasible. But it still reduces pollution. The additional fuel used to land the rocket causes way way less pollution than creating a new one for every launch. Embodied energy (gray energy) is often significantly underestimated. Just transporting the raw material from all around the world to make a final product uses immense amour of energy and very often its in the form of oil. Also down the line the additional fuel to land can be created with low pollution energy so pollution is reduced even further.
- totalZero 5y ago
  Unless you quantify the marginal energy cost of carrying additional fuel payload and recovering a component, convert it to an environmental impact quantity, and compare it to the environmental impact of marginal construction, you shouldn't make claims that sound correct in your head but are not backed up by anything. There's a tradeoff and we don't know which one has greater negative externalities. Not all cost of marginal production is allocated to energy and materials.
  - noxer 5y ago
    In this universe there is no way trashing the booster instead of land it would have less environmental impact. No we dont need a 20 page paper to make that claim. Basic understanding of economics and common sense is all it takes. Only small things or things that have very title environmental impact could ever challenge that. So unless you use boosters that grow on trees, is not even a debate.

Making rockets reusable uses more fuel but requires more raw materials to be mined, refined, and fabricated into parts. It's a tradeoff. The chief argument for reuse is cost, not emissions.

noxer 5y ago

"More fuel" is irrelevant its about pollution. You can never make parts without using a fix amount of resources and energy and if they are used they will end up as waste which is pollution too. Fuel however is just energy in a specific form. If the fuel is created with electric energy and it all comes form coal then it pollution is high but there is a clear path to reduce it down the line. There is no such path with rockets parts that have to be fabricated again and again and again. Cost is the reason why it is feasible. But it still reduces pollution. The additional fuel used to land the rocket causes way way less pollution than creating a new one for every launch. Embodied energy (gray energy) is often significantly underestimated. Just transporting the raw material from all around the world to make a final product uses immense amour of energy and very often its in the form of oil. Also down the line the additional fuel to land can be created with low pollution energy so pollution is reduced even further.

totalZero 5y ago
Unless you quantify the marginal energy cost of carrying additional fuel payload and recovering a component, convert it to an environmental impact quantity, and compare it to the environmental impact of marginal construction, you shouldn't make claims that sound correct in your head but are not backed up by anything. There's a tradeoff and we don't know which one has greater negative externalities. Not all cost of marginal production is allocated to energy and materials.
- noxer 5y ago
  In this universe there is no way trashing the booster instead of land it would have less environmental impact. No we dont need a 20 page paper to make that claim. Basic understanding of economics and common sense is all it takes. Only small things or things that have very title environmental impact could ever challenge that. So unless you use boosters that grow on trees, is not even a debate.