I am no expert at all in this field, but I think rocket fuels are often quite differently composed than plane fuels. If you just use liquid oxygen and hydrogen, your only reaction product will be water, which isn’t a strong greenhouse gas (despite being the dominant on by sheer amount). Of course there are also rocket fuels which blast out carbon products like there is no tomorrow.
I was very interested in space and learned a lot. The more I learned the more I realized this is just another case of capitalists destroying the planet for profit.
Yes, some rockets are hydrogen/oxygen. The space shuttle was. The Falcon 9 uses kerosene/oxygen (or RP1, rocket propellant 1 but it’s just refined kerosene) the new rocket, starship, uses methane/oxygen. They’ll tell you that methane burns really clean but the part they don’t tell you is how much “leaks” out. Rocket engines don’t just start, they have to ‘spin up’. The pumps have to be pumping and all the propellant has to be flowing before it’ll ignite. So a certain amount of raw propellant (oxygen and or methane or kerosene) will get ‘spent’ as in ‘thrown out the back’. Perhaps it’s not that terrible at launch, but during second stage ignition the rocket is way up there. How much comes out? Don’t know, they don’t say. You can watch the streams and see it happen for your self. The two stages separate and big puffs of ‘mist’ happen. Again, the mist is oxygen and or methane or kerosene (there are other gasses, like nitrogen and helium used for maneuvering but we’re talking about what comes out the back). Right there is enough for me to think it’s a bad idea and will end up fucking us over, and that’s just the obvious part. Now make a business model that says you’re going to launch these 5 times a day to deliver tons and tons of electronics into space that you plan on burning as a means of disposal. It’s almost as if Samsung had a recycling program where they just burned everything out back. Except that it’s at high altitude so it’s way worse. No planet B my ass.
4% of global warming to date. Flying will still be possible (and not uncommon) in a net zero world. Maybe americans will have to take the train to see their relatives, but they could just DACCS if they love TSA controls so much.
Like I said, it counts almost double. Aviation makes up 4% of the impact when 90% of the global population isn’t even flying in a year. Traveler numbers are tiny compared to other modes yet it causes a 4% chunk.
Aviation is outright terrible in its impact compared to rail, on corridors where both are an option. Of course, for many travels, only aviation is in option. That is a reality but doesn’t make aviation any better.
The reason why aviation emissions are so bad is not so much the amount but where exactly they are emitted.
Which gives me huge misgivings about the current space push.
I am no expert at all in this field, but I think rocket fuels are often quite differently composed than plane fuels. If you just use liquid oxygen and hydrogen, your only reaction product will be water, which isn’t a strong greenhouse gas (despite being the dominant on by sheer amount). Of course there are also rocket fuels which blast out carbon products like there is no tomorrow.
I was very interested in space and learned a lot. The more I learned the more I realized this is just another case of capitalists destroying the planet for profit.
Yes, some rockets are hydrogen/oxygen. The space shuttle was. The Falcon 9 uses kerosene/oxygen (or RP1, rocket propellant 1 but it’s just refined kerosene) the new rocket, starship, uses methane/oxygen. They’ll tell you that methane burns really clean but the part they don’t tell you is how much “leaks” out. Rocket engines don’t just start, they have to ‘spin up’. The pumps have to be pumping and all the propellant has to be flowing before it’ll ignite. So a certain amount of raw propellant (oxygen and or methane or kerosene) will get ‘spent’ as in ‘thrown out the back’. Perhaps it’s not that terrible at launch, but during second stage ignition the rocket is way up there. How much comes out? Don’t know, they don’t say. You can watch the streams and see it happen for your self. The two stages separate and big puffs of ‘mist’ happen. Again, the mist is oxygen and or methane or kerosene (there are other gasses, like nitrogen and helium used for maneuvering but we’re talking about what comes out the back). Right there is enough for me to think it’s a bad idea and will end up fucking us over, and that’s just the obvious part. Now make a business model that says you’re going to launch these 5 times a day to deliver tons and tons of electronics into space that you plan on burning as a means of disposal. It’s almost as if Samsung had a recycling program where they just burned everything out back. Except that it’s at high altitude so it’s way worse. No planet B my ass.
https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions
4% of global warming to date. Flying will still be possible (and not uncommon) in a net zero world. Maybe americans will have to take the train to see their relatives, but they could just DACCS if they love TSA controls so much.
Like I said, it counts almost double. Aviation makes up 4% of the impact when 90% of the global population isn’t even flying in a year. Traveler numbers are tiny compared to other modes yet it causes a 4% chunk.
Aviation is outright terrible in its impact compared to rail, on corridors where both are an option. Of course, for many travels, only aviation is in option. That is a reality but doesn’t make aviation any better.
Agreed on all points.