The ‘burn up as expected’ plan for satellite retirement isn’t going to fly for long with the amount of crap we keep putting up there. Throwing that shit in a bonfire on the ground is unacceptable, why is it okay at altitude?
A single vaporized space station part isn’t even a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of air pollution we emit. Why not work to reduce air pollution from Earth if that is a concern (which it is)? For fuck sake we’re still burning coal at record rates.
Do the math on the rocket equation and let me know how much RP1 it takes to get all that mass up high enough that it can burn up when it falls. Then let’s put all those drops in a bucket and see where we are at the end of the day.
And I thought the whole argument for space exploration was that we can do 2 things at once? Can’t we cut emissions and not add to the bucket? Just because the world’s going to shit does that mean we have to make it shittier? And are they the same thing? Tail pipe emissions and rocket exhaust emissions? I’d be happy to read a paper stating that they are.
And I thought the whole argument for space exploration was that we can do 2 things at once? Can’t we cut emissions and not add to the bucket?
Fun fact: The Space Shuttle, which was in part used to build the ISS, mainly burned liquid hydrogen and oxygen, unlike the SpaceX rockets which burn what is essentially highly refined kerosene. There are still emissions associated with liquid hydrogen rockets, namely the flame burns hot enough to form nitrogen oxides from the nitrogen gas in the atmosphere as well as other side reactions, which are pollutants as well as greenhouse gases, but those are produced by hydrocarbon flames as well.
But that’s not the same as the air pollution from vaporized materials on re-entry, where things burn up in the atmosphere. That currently can’t be avoided with our current space faring technology. That is also the air pollution this article (and my previous comment) talks about, not the actual rocket emissions, which considering the minute amount of material which we’ve actually managed to get into space, it’s a drop in the bucket. I don’t have data, but I have a hunch that considering the relative frequencies of the two events, house fires around the world probably release far more pollutants into the air than all the vaporized space junk, not to mention all the waste incinerators with inadequate exhaust filtering.
I also don’t have data. My hunch says hand waving away inherent problems by excusing them as ‘a drop in the bucket’ will lead to serious consequences sooner than later. I like space travel, I like rocket science, but I think the industry needs to think beyond the launch fever if we want to leave a habitible planet behind when we become a ‘space fairing civilization’
That’s an annoyingly alarmist/clickbait title compared to “ISS batteries reenter atmosphere and burn up as expected” or something
And here I was expecting “hunk of junk” to refer to one of the Russian modules
Thank you for saving me the click.
The ‘burn up as expected’ plan for satellite retirement isn’t going to fly for long with the amount of crap we keep putting up there. Throwing that shit in a bonfire on the ground is unacceptable, why is it okay at altitude?
Honestly this is the better outcome compared to letting it drift in orbit and contribute to the rapidly growing cloud of space junk around our planet.
Yes, way better to add it to the rapidly growing cloud of air pollution around our planet.
A single vaporized space station part isn’t even a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of air pollution we emit. Why not work to reduce air pollution from Earth if that is a concern (which it is)? For fuck sake we’re still burning coal at record rates.
Do the math on the rocket equation and let me know how much RP1 it takes to get all that mass up high enough that it can burn up when it falls. Then let’s put all those drops in a bucket and see where we are at the end of the day.
And I thought the whole argument for space exploration was that we can do 2 things at once? Can’t we cut emissions and not add to the bucket? Just because the world’s going to shit does that mean we have to make it shittier? And are they the same thing? Tail pipe emissions and rocket exhaust emissions? I’d be happy to read a paper stating that they are.
Fun fact: The Space Shuttle, which was in part used to build the ISS, mainly burned liquid hydrogen and oxygen, unlike the SpaceX rockets which burn what is essentially highly refined kerosene. There are still emissions associated with liquid hydrogen rockets, namely the flame burns hot enough to form nitrogen oxides from the nitrogen gas in the atmosphere as well as other side reactions, which are pollutants as well as greenhouse gases, but those are produced by hydrocarbon flames as well.
But that’s not the same as the air pollution from vaporized materials on re-entry, where things burn up in the atmosphere. That currently can’t be avoided with our current space faring technology. That is also the air pollution this article (and my previous comment) talks about, not the actual rocket emissions, which considering the minute amount of material which we’ve actually managed to get into space, it’s a drop in the bucket. I don’t have data, but I have a hunch that considering the relative frequencies of the two events, house fires around the world probably release far more pollutants into the air than all the vaporized space junk, not to mention all the waste incinerators with inadequate exhaust filtering.
I also don’t have data. My hunch says hand waving away inherent problems by excusing them as ‘a drop in the bucket’ will lead to serious consequences sooner than later. I like space travel, I like rocket science, but I think the industry needs to think beyond the launch fever if we want to leave a habitible planet behind when we become a ‘space fairing civilization’