3 ms·

> The Falcon 9 B uses 29,600 gallons, equivalent to 112,184 Kg of kerosene per launch.4 For each kilogram of kerosene burned, 3 Kg of CO2 goes into the air.5

> The Falcon 9 B uses 29,600 gallons, equivalent to 112,184 Kg of kerosene per launch.4 For each kilogram of kerosene burned, 3 Kg of CO2 goes into the air.5 112,184 Kg x 3 Kg CO2 = 336,552 Kg That means 336,552 kilograms of CO2 go into the atmosphere every time Falcon 9 is launched. Source: https://8billiontrees.com/carbon-offsets-credits/carbon-footprint-of-space-travel/#:~:text=The%20Falcon%209%20B%20uses,Kg%20of%20kerosene%20per%20launch.&text=For%20each%20kilogram%20of%20kerosene,2%20goes%20into%20the%20air.&text=That%20means%20336%2C552%20kilograms%20of,time%20Falcon%209%20is%20launched https://8billiontrees.com/carbon-offsets-credits/carbon-foot...

mdeeks 3y ago
I wasn’t sure if that was a lot. It sounds like a lot. But the linked article says it is the equivalent of the pollution of 73 cars in a year per launch. That actually doesn’t sound too bad?
wilg 3y ago
This is about as much as a normal flight from LA to Sydney. Unfortunately there is no real way to do rocketry without burning fuel. We will have to offset it with carbon capture.
- avmich 3y ago
  Theoretically, hydrogen or ammonia burning don't produce CO2, among relatively popular rocket fuels. In practice, methane could make less CO2 than kerosene. Also, rockets are still relatively small part of aviation regarding exhaust, though with SpaceX efforts the rockets part will grow.
  - wilg 3y ago
    SpaceX's next-generation rocket uses methane, at least.
    - throwaway5959 3y ago
      Which they can also manufacturer and refuel I imagine on site, which is neat.
- rbanffy 3y ago
  > Unfortunately there is no real way to do rocketry without burning fuel True, but NASA uses hydrolox for the SLS (apart from the uber-polluting SRBs). At least it doesn't dump CO2 in the high atmosphere.
  - nickik 3y ago
    Where do you think hydrogen comes from?
jryle70 3y ago
One of the commenters on the article put it in perspective: 144 Falcon launches is less than the emissions of just the flights that take off from O'Hare in a single day. 1) Fully fueled Falcon 9 uses about 180,000kg of RP-1 2) 144 flights totals 24,920,000kg 3) O'Hare has about 1000 flights a day (about 900 domestic, 100 international) 4) 737 holds about 20,000kg of fuel (The 747 can hold 160,000kg) 5) 90/10 split gives a total of 34,000,000kg
- bmitc 3y ago
  It isn't an accurate comparison. For one, rockets dump their pollutants into the upper atmosphere, unlike cars and airplanes.
- throwaway5959 3y ago
  CO2 doesn’t cancel out. It’s just stacking in our atmosphere.
manuelmoreale 3y ago
Relevant video that goes quite deep into the topic if you’re actually concerned about rocket pollution: https://youtube.com/watch?v=C4VHfmiwuv4 https://youtube.com/watch?v=C4VHfmiwuv4
DarmokJalad1701 3y ago
How much of that is actually burned in the atmosphere? The rocket gets past 10 km (troposphere) in about a minute, 50km (height of stratosphere) in a little over two minutes and is over the Karman line by the three minute mark. The total burn time may be 9-10 minutes (or maybe a bit more, if there is a circularization burn). So it's not like that entire fuel load is getting burned at sea level. Majority of the CO2 is going into the vacuum of space - which is a pretty good place for fossil fuel CO2 to go to.

mdeeks 3y ago

I wasn’t sure if that was a lot. It sounds like a lot. But the linked article says it is the equivalent of the pollution of 73 cars in a year per launch. That actually doesn’t sound too bad?

wilg 3y ago

This is about as much as a normal flight from LA to Sydney. Unfortunately there is no real way to do rocketry without burning fuel. We will have to offset it with carbon capture.

avmich 3y ago
Theoretically, hydrogen or ammonia burning don't produce CO2, among relatively popular rocket fuels. In practice, methane could make less CO2 than kerosene. Also, rockets are still relatively small part of aviation regarding exhaust, though with SpaceX efforts the rockets part will grow.
- wilg 3y ago
  SpaceX's next-generation rocket uses methane, at least.
  - throwaway5959 3y ago
    Which they can also manufacturer and refuel I imagine on site, which is neat.
rbanffy 3y ago
> Unfortunately there is no real way to do rocketry without burning fuel True, but NASA uses hydrolox for the SLS (apart from the uber-polluting SRBs). At least it doesn't dump CO2 in the high atmosphere.
- nickik 3y ago
  Where do you think hydrogen comes from?

jryle70 3y ago

One of the commenters on the article put it in perspective: 144 Falcon launches is less than the emissions of just the flights that take off from O'Hare in a single day. 1) Fully fueled Falcon 9 uses about 180,000kg of RP-1 2) 144 flights totals 24,920,000kg 3) O'Hare has about 1000 flights a day (about 900 domestic, 100 international) 4) 737 holds about 20,000kg of fuel (The 747 can hold 160,000kg) 5) 90/10 split gives a total of 34,000,000kg

bmitc 3y ago
It isn't an accurate comparison. For one, rockets dump their pollutants into the upper atmosphere, unlike cars and airplanes.
throwaway5959 3y ago
CO2 doesn’t cancel out. It’s just stacking in our atmosphere.

manuelmoreale 3y ago

Relevant video that goes quite deep into the topic if you’re actually concerned about rocket pollution: https://youtube.com/watch?v=C4VHfmiwuv4 https://youtube.com/watch?v=C4VHfmiwuv4

DarmokJalad1701 3y ago

How much of that is actually burned in the atmosphere? The rocket gets past 10 km (troposphere) in about a minute, 50km (height of stratosphere) in a little over two minutes and is over the Karman line by the three minute mark. The total burn time may be 9-10 minutes (or maybe a bit more, if there is a circularization burn). So it's not like that entire fuel load is getting burned at sea level. Majority of the CO2 is going into the vacuum of space - which is a pretty good place for fossil fuel CO2 to go to.