3 ms·

The total emissions a launch is responsible for is not limited to the weight of the fully fuelled rocket. You've also got to include the emissions needed to ex

The total emissions a launch is responsible for is not limited to the weight of the fully fuelled rocket. You've also got to include the emissions needed to extract/purify/cool/pump all that fuel/oxidiser (and any other consumables like nitrogen), a percentage of the construction emissions cost for the 1st stage, pre-flight refurb emissions, the whole of the 2nd stage, and some percentage of the Dragon capsule (including alterations made to it). Then you add all of the emissions of the ground operations needed for this flight including 1st stage recovery (and also any flight/boat diversions required from 3rd parties because of the exclusion zone). I'm also assuming that the altitude you emit certain things at (e.g. aluminium vapourising in the atmosphere) changes their impact vs at ground level. Personally, I think this mission is more worthwhile space tourism than Bezos who's pretending a high-altitude rocket flight that doesn't reach orbit is 'going to space'... at least they're testing new spacesuits on this mission.

dotnet00 2y ago
If we're looking at its emissions with all those downstream requirements involved too, the point of comparison would be all the emissions involved in everything that the average American relies on, which is certainly not just 16 tons.
- garblegarble 2y ago
  Yes, that seems worthwhile to do - I was just replying to the notion that the direct emissions of the rocket during launch is the limit of emissions. SpaceX is also highly integrated, so I do think the construction and ground operations cost (for everything SpaceX did that would not have happened had this mission not launched) are worthwhile including. My feeling is that the scale of rocketry isn't large enough that 28k tons of emissions makes a difference vs, say, the much greater number of private helicopter & jet flights (or single-use plastics, or growing & watering crops in a desert, or any of the crazier things we do as a species)

dotnet00 2y ago

If we're looking at its emissions with all those downstream requirements involved too, the point of comparison would be all the emissions involved in everything that the average American relies on, which is certainly not just 16 tons.

garblegarble 2y ago
Yes, that seems worthwhile to do - I was just replying to the notion that the direct emissions of the rocket during launch is the limit of emissions. SpaceX is also highly integrated, so I do think the construction and ground operations cost (for everything SpaceX did that would not have happened had this mission not launched) are worthwhile including. My feeling is that the scale of rocketry isn't large enough that 28k tons of emissions makes a difference vs, say, the much greater number of private helicopter & jet flights (or single-use plastics, or growing & watering crops in a desert, or any of the crazier things we do as a species)