3 ms·
I've gotten the memo, thanks, I've devoted a good amount of time to this stuff, and yes, some things are useful enough that they're worth emitting their relativ
by ericd 3y ago
I've gotten the memo, thanks, I've devoted a good amount of time to this stuff, and yes, some things are useful enough that they're worth emitting their relatively insignificant amounts of CO2 for. Obviously, it's the wrong direction on CO2, but we don't have an alternative for lifting stuff into space, yet. And even if they got to 10,000 Falcon 9 launches per year (they're at ~80, so >100x), it would add something like 0.02% of our current global emissions.
wrt direct vs. indirect emissions, rockets are incredibly thin cans full of fuel that immediately gets burnt. The direct emissions will almost certainly dominate the embodied carbon from manufacturing, especially when they're launched >10 times. Once you start including the infrastructure, it's less clear, but it's a close-enough estimate for setting the context in an internet comment. Is the value we get from an astronaut doing work in space worth the carbon footprint of a few American families for a year? I think so, I get the sense that you don't agree. That's fine.
- palata 3y ago> Is the value we get from an astronaut doing work in space worth the carbon footprint of a few American families for a year? I think so, I get the sense that you don't agree. That's fine. You make it sound like we get a lot of value from astronauts surviving in space, and that the CO2 footprint of the space business is almost nothing. I disagree with both. They don't really make any useful work (that could not be done by robots) other than surviving there, and the carbon footprint of the space business is going to grow much bigger (if those companies are successful) than what you seem to believe. > it's less clear, but it's a close-enough estimate for setting the context in an internet comment It surely is convenient to ignore them :-)