4 ms·

What’s the environmental cost of a space launch?

bell-cot 5y ago
That's kinda like asking the environmental cost of driving 100 miles. Are you thinking of a big, dirty solid-fueled rocket, or an oxidizer-rich CH4/O2 rocket, or what?
- gfykvfyxgc 5y ago
  Thinking of the number of rockets required to facilitate a “moon rush”.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - bell-cot 5y ago
    "Moon rush" is far more a media hype phrase than an actual number of rockets launched, or tons of cargo landed, or lunar census. And I'd bet that all the earth-bound activity involved in a "moon rush" - even one that actually resulted in a more-than-one-digit lunar census, long-term - would have a vastly larger environmental footprint than the rocket launches themselves.
mh7 5y ago
Net negative. Gets us on the path to more worlds.
- gfykvfyxgc 5y ago
  Can you explain more please? I don’t see the logic.
  - erulabs 5y ago
    If human beings can expand to other worlds, or live in space easily, or even just access enough resources to stabilize at 10B human beings with zero poverty - then we can turn the Earth into an Eden - so conceptually nothing could be more environmentally beneficial. At least that’s how the optimistic vision goes.
    - gfykvfyxgc 5y ago
      Yeah sounds very optimistic. The nearest star is incomprehensibly far away. It would take tens of thousands of years at least to get there assuming that was even possible. I don’t see anything positive about living in space or on Mars. What would be so great about living on such a hostile world?
      - kitsunesoba 5y ago
        Space and the surface of Mars are hostile currently and will be early on, but that will gradually improve along with infrastructure. Mars will be easier to improve quality of life on, but space stations or other spacecraft could be made quite nice as well with access to resources like those in the asteroid belt. If nobody gets through those early rough stages, it can never get better. So from that perspective, the sooner that ball gets rolling the better.
        xvilka 5y ago
        Mars offers no protection and not exactly rich on resources. I think, Venus sky cities[1] have bigger potential. There is a drove of resources plus free energy from Sun. [1] https://bigthink.com/hard-science/how-to-colonize-venus/ https://bigthink.com/hard-science/how-to-colonize-venus/
        kitsunesoba 5y ago
        I think Venus will eventually be very interesting, but the lack of access to its surface means that all mineable materials will need to be imported, which is a big problem. For getting started on long term self sufficiency in space (which should be a goal, if we’re taking crewed spacefaring seriously) we can’t really do much better than Mars. Once there’s more infrastructure in place for in-space manufacturing other destinations become a lot more practical.
- bumby 5y ago
  I mean, wouldn’t the same argument imply that it’s more net-negative to spend the same amount reducing carbon on earth directly? I’m all for space exploration but found these types of arguments specious
junon 5y ago
This is pretty easily google-able stuff. Here's the Mars 2020 mission environmental impact report, for example. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Mars2020_Section4.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Mars2020_Sect...
garmaine 5y ago
A small factor more than aircraft in the short term. Zero in the medium term when launch companies vertically integrate propellant production based on renewables. A net positive once we start relying on non-terrestrial resources instead of poising our planet to extract metals and power.
- gpm 5y ago
  Ignoring the positive externalities, there is still some environment cost when using synthetic CH4. You're still taking water from the ground and moving it into the upper atmosphere (CO2 + ground H2O -> CH4 + O2 -> CO2 + atmospheric H2O) - which contributes to the greenhouse effect. It's not worth worrying about, given all the other more impactful ways we can move the needle on global warming, but it's not actually zero.
trailingComma 5y ago
Low enough. Earth is ultimately just another time-limited spaceship that will eventually loose the ability to support any kind of life due to the natural lifecycle of our sun. Over a long enough time span not expanding off-world is a death sentence for all life on this planet. It's acceptable to do some small amount of damage to it as part of securing a future for our species (and all the other species we will carry with us) that is not dependant on a single, vulnerable and time-limited ball of rock. A moon base is a step towards that.
- zapataband1 5y ago
  These business space missions are using 60 year old propulsion technology and it's pretty easy to figure out the math that shows that a fuel tank the size of the planet cannot take you to any other habitable planet. Scientists -know- that the best way to learn about space and the universe at this point is to build huge telescopes. For profit companies will not save us.
  - trailingComma 5y ago
    No amount of telescopes will provide the off-world low-g manufacturing capabilities necessary to build the logistics we need. The moon is both low-g and has wonderful built-in radiation shielding (one of our biggest current blockers) via the simple process of going underground. I don't think you or I are qualified to make absolute statements about the involvement of for-profit companies in that.
    - zapataband1 5y ago
      You have not explained your plan on getting off of this planet but you're talking to me about logistics on the moon? No we don't need logistics on the moon. We don't need Elon musks dumb vanity missions to mars. No, we as a society do not need to continue pouring our scarce resources so that scifi-cultists and some rich white assholes can pretend like they can get out of here alive. A rat done bit my sister Nell. (with Whitey on the moon) Her face and arms began to swell. (and Whitey's on the moon) I can't pay no doctor bill. (but Whitey's on the moon) Ten years from now I'll be payin' still. (while Whitey's on the moon)

That's kinda like asking the environmental cost of driving 100 miles. Are you thinking of a big, dirty solid-fueled rocket, or an oxidizer-rich CH4/O2 rocket, or what?

gfykvfyxgc 5y ago
Thinking of the number of rockets required to facilitate a “moon rush”.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bell-cot 5y ago
  "Moon rush" is far more a media hype phrase than an actual number of rockets launched, or tons of cargo landed, or lunar census. And I'd bet that all the earth-bound activity involved in a "moon rush" - even one that actually resulted in a more-than-one-digit lunar census, long-term - would have a vastly larger environmental footprint than the rocket launches themselves.

mh7 5y ago

Net negative. Gets us on the path to more worlds.

gfykvfyxgc 5y ago
Can you explain more please? I don’t see the logic.
- erulabs 5y ago
  If human beings can expand to other worlds, or live in space easily, or even just access enough resources to stabilize at 10B human beings with zero poverty - then we can turn the Earth into an Eden - so conceptually nothing could be more environmentally beneficial. At least that’s how the optimistic vision goes.
  - gfykvfyxgc 5y ago
    Yeah sounds very optimistic. The nearest star is incomprehensibly far away. It would take tens of thousands of years at least to get there assuming that was even possible. I don’t see anything positive about living in space or on Mars. What would be so great about living on such a hostile world?
    - kitsunesoba 5y ago
      Space and the surface of Mars are hostile currently and will be early on, but that will gradually improve along with infrastructure. Mars will be easier to improve quality of life on, but space stations or other spacecraft could be made quite nice as well with access to resources like those in the asteroid belt. If nobody gets through those early rough stages, it can never get better. So from that perspective, the sooner that ball gets rolling the better.
      - xvilka 5y ago
        Mars offers no protection and not exactly rich on resources. I think, Venus sky cities[1] have bigger potential. There is a drove of resources plus free energy from Sun. [1] https://bigthink.com/hard-science/how-to-colonize-venus/ https://bigthink.com/hard-science/how-to-colonize-venus/
        kitsunesoba 5y ago
        I think Venus will eventually be very interesting, but the lack of access to its surface means that all mineable materials will need to be imported, which is a big problem. For getting started on long term self sufficiency in space (which should be a goal, if we’re taking crewed spacefaring seriously) we can’t really do much better than Mars. Once there’s more infrastructure in place for in-space manufacturing other destinations become a lot more practical.
bumby 5y ago
I mean, wouldn’t the same argument imply that it’s more net-negative to spend the same amount reducing carbon on earth directly? I’m all for space exploration but found these types of arguments specious

junon 5y ago

This is pretty easily google-able stuff. Here's the Mars 2020 mission environmental impact report, for example. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Mars2020_Section4.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Mars2020_Sect...

garmaine 5y ago

A small factor more than aircraft in the short term. Zero in the medium term when launch companies vertically integrate propellant production based on renewables. A net positive once we start relying on non-terrestrial resources instead of poising our planet to extract metals and power.

gpm 5y ago
Ignoring the positive externalities, there is still some environment cost when using synthetic CH4. You're still taking water from the ground and moving it into the upper atmosphere (CO2 + ground H2O -> CH4 + O2 -> CO2 + atmospheric H2O) - which contributes to the greenhouse effect. It's not worth worrying about, given all the other more impactful ways we can move the needle on global warming, but it's not actually zero.

trailingComma 5y ago

Low enough. Earth is ultimately just another time-limited spaceship that will eventually loose the ability to support any kind of life due to the natural lifecycle of our sun. Over a long enough time span not expanding off-world is a death sentence for all life on this planet. It's acceptable to do some small amount of damage to it as part of securing a future for our species (and all the other species we will carry with us) that is not dependant on a single, vulnerable and time-limited ball of rock. A moon base is a step towards that.

zapataband1 5y ago
These business space missions are using 60 year old propulsion technology and it's pretty easy to figure out the math that shows that a fuel tank the size of the planet cannot take you to any other habitable planet. Scientists -know- that the best way to learn about space and the universe at this point is to build huge telescopes. For profit companies will not save us.
- trailingComma 5y ago
  No amount of telescopes will provide the off-world low-g manufacturing capabilities necessary to build the logistics we need. The moon is both low-g and has wonderful built-in radiation shielding (one of our biggest current blockers) via the simple process of going underground. I don't think you or I are qualified to make absolute statements about the involvement of for-profit companies in that.
  - zapataband1 5y ago
    You have not explained your plan on getting off of this planet but you're talking to me about logistics on the moon? No we don't need logistics on the moon. We don't need Elon musks dumb vanity missions to mars. No, we as a society do not need to continue pouring our scarce resources so that scifi-cultists and some rich white assholes can pretend like they can get out of here alive. A rat done bit my sister Nell. (with Whitey on the moon) Her face and arms began to swell. (and Whitey's on the moon) I can't pay no doctor bill. (but Whitey's on the moon) Ten years from now I'll be payin' still. (while Whitey's on the moon)