is sending gear/people into space bad for the planet ?

[xtreemchaos]

lastnight I had some friends over and got into a debate about the above, my friend thought because I'm into astronomy I would know, where I havnt the foggyist, I started thinking about the gases that propel rockets into space and realized I know nothing "so whats new" so I said id ask the guys and girls on SLG to see if I could get a better insight.

id love to hear your views, my feelings is it must have some impact but its better than spending money on WMDs and wars that is deff bad for our planet and all life here, and the data we learn from the space program is priceless, just the moon landings and hubble + rosetta is payback enough for me . thanks for reading . charl.

ps can you tell its cloudy ...

[michaelmorris]

A rocket launch is going to put a whole heap of CO2, NOx and particulates into the atmosphere.  A liquid hydrogen fuel is far less damaging giving a main by product of water.   However,there are other emissions from these rockets and the energy needed to build a rocket and produce the hydrogen is large.  So yep, a rock launch is not exactly an environment-friendly activity.   However, I feel one needs to look at the bigger picture.  Most things we do in a modern industrialised society are damaging to the Earth's ecosystems. It's all a matter looking at the cost-benefit sum.

• Earth observation satellites help us monitor environmental change.
• It can be argued that satellite communications mean we can more easily keep in touch using the  telephone, e mail and skype, therefore cutting down on emissions from travelling to meetings.  However, the counter argument is that we now order so much stuff over the internet that the fuel miles per item bought has probably risen considerably. 
• There is an argument that pictures of the Earth taken from Apollo 8 gave the environmental movement a big boost.

 

[xtreemchaos]

thanks Michael, great info there mate, deff along the lines of my point I was trying to say lastnight , the other part of the argument was how much cash is it to put a 1Kg into space , I said at a wild guess $5000, everybody thought it was just too low, most thought $20,000 , I faintly remember it on a documentary but that could of been years ago. thanks for your input.  charl.

[cotterless45]

We were discussing aspects of the closed system of the climate . It makes sense ,that whatever we expell ,has been on Earth in one form of another. There has been ( hopefully ) ,no great import or export of carbon for example.

The balance between such amounts and the climate will settle , whatever the outcome for us. The thirst for knowledge and understanding must be one of our most powerful drives. Where this takes us , we can't possibly know. I think it would be wrong to not continue to explore the boundaries of knowledge,

Nick.

[Alien 13]

I am perhaps one of the few who believe mankind makes little or no impact on the environment, the Earth has pretty much the same amount of oxygen/carbon/iron etc as it always had its just combined differently and can be split again with a bit of effort, hydrogen though is a problem because it leaks into space.

Alan

[Stu]

1 minute ago, Alien 13 said:

I am perhaps one of the few who believe mankind makes little or no impact on the environment, the Earth has pretty much the same amount of oxygen/carbon/iron etc as it always had its just combined differently and can be split again with a bit of effort, hydrogen though is a problem because it leaks into space.

Alan

I guess the point is not so much how much of any of these elements there are overall, but how much is held captured 'safely' vs how much is up/being put up in the atmosphere causing damaging effects or at least changing the equilibrium.

[brantuk]

I reckon we can pretty much do all the things mentioned above without launching rockets into space to float satellites. The billions of cash saved could be used to care for the sick, elderly, poor, and help the undeveloped world to become educated, eradicate poverty, and save lives. Exciting as the space age is, I always felt it should be more a question of priorities.

(Plus whatever environmental damage is done by rocket launches can be retarded at least)

[Erla]

Up to date there was a total of 5038 rocket launches (according to google). I have strong suspicion all the cars produce more pollution in a day than all the space missions in history. Simple calculation, anybody? 

[Alien 13]

5 minutes ago, Erla said:

Up to date there was a total of 5038 rocket launches (according to google). I have strong suspicion all the cars produce more pollution in a day than all the space missions in history. Simple calculation, anybody? 

Would also be interesting to see the percentage added by aircraft.

Alan

[Chris]

I think rockets into space must be a drop in the ocean ecologically compared to all the other things us 7 billion humans do every single day.

[Chris]

25 minutes ago, Stu said:

I guess the point is not so much how much of any of these elements there are overall, but how much is held captured 'safely' vs how much is up/being put up in the atmosphere causing damaging effects or at least changing the equilibrium.

Exactly!

[Alien 13]

29 minutes ago, Stu said:

I guess the point is not so much how much of any of these elements there are overall, but how much is held captured 'safely' vs how much is up/being put up in the atmosphere causing damaging effects or at least changing the equilibrium.

Most if not all reactions are reversible, more CO2 would be good for plant life too. 

Alan

[CraigT82]

44 minutes ago, Alien 13 said:

Most if not all reactions are reversible, more CO2 would be good for plant life too. 

Alan

Yup excellent for plant life... As once atmospheric CO2 gets past tipping point, causes global chaos (through climate change, sea level rise, mass movement of people, disease, war then nuclear war) and wipes out the human race or at least reduces human population down to the millions... Plant life will thrive!  But don't worry, Elon Musk will save us all by colonising Mars

[Alien 13]

2 minutes ago, CraigT82 said:

Yup excellent for plant life... As once atmospheric CO2 gets past tipping point, causes global chaos (through climate change, sea level rise, mass movement of people, disease, war then nuclear war) and wipes out the human race or at least reduces human population down to the millions... Plant life will thrive!  But don't worry, Elon Musk will save us all by colonising Mars

There is an easy fix, this is the 21st century, we dont need cars and certainly dont need air travel, we have boats if people must go elsewhere  

Alan

 

[Dave In Vermont]

The 'Solid Rocket Boosters' used contained Ammonium Perchlorate as the stuff to power them. I don't know if this muck is even made anymore - but it sure was during the Space-Shuttle missions.

They released lots of Chlorine Dioxide and Chlorine Oxide into our atmosphere, which eats the Ozone Layer better than anything else!

The Russians, on the other hand, had always used only Oxygen & Hydrogen, which only releases water-vapor. No CO2 whatsoever. I think that's all the US is using now - but I wouldn't swear to it (but maybe at it).

Death to NH4ClO4 -

Dave

[CraigT82]

3 hours ago, xtreemchaos said:

thanks Michael, great info there mate, deff along the lines of my point I was trying to say lastnight , the other part of the argument was how much cash is it to put a 1Kg into space , I said at a wild guess $5000, everybody thought it was just too low, most thought $20,000 , I faintly remember it on a documentary but that could of been years ago. thanks for your input.  charl.

Falcon 9 can put a payload of 22,800kg into low earth orbit and costs $62m per launch... So a paltry $2,719 per kg! 

Putting 1kg into geosynchronous orbit however costs a meaty $7,469.

[johnfosteruk]

2 hours ago, Erla said:

Up to date there was a total of 5038 rocket launches (according to google). I have strong suspicion all the cars produce more pollution in a day than all the space missions in history. Simple calculation, anybody? 

That's exactly what I was thinking

[StuartJPP]

If it wasn't for the advances of the past (either good or bad) we would not be where we are today.

We seem to believe that we would be in the same state of advancement if we did everything "right" and didn't do things the way we did.

If we didn't do things the way we did, people certainly wouldn't be posting messages on a forum whining about how bad things are, that is for sure because it almost certainly wouldn't exist.

 

[davehawkins]

I think I'm right in saying that it was satellite images that first alerted us to the holes in the ozone layer at the poles (especially the south pole) leading to a ban in the use of CFC gas.

What about the masses of scrap metal orbiting the planet potentially hampering future space programmes.

[barkis]

Maybe we should worry a bit about Methane. Much more potent than CO2
Certainly a bad Greenhouse gas, How many Cows are there over the world 
pumping this into the atmosphere. 
I don't think we can consider grounding Rockets, and I'm sure other propulsion methods will
come before many more years elapse. Man's destiny must be out there,  Earth won't support life  indefinitely,
so Man needs to reach out, probably beyond the Solar System, because an expanding Sun will devour  the Inner planets. 
and the outer giants and moons will be in perpetual darkness. Not for a long time yet though, but the thinking must 
go on if survival of the human race is to be possible. Nothing like making plans very early .

[Dave In Vermont]

Some of the more 'progressive' dairies are now keeping their Cows in an enclosed area - some form of airtight roof at least. The Cow's 'vapor' rises and is trapped - where it can be moved into storage and purification equipment. I already know why this looks no good either -

However, using the CH4 (methane) as fuel - involving burning (oxidizing) - would just convert the CH4 into CO2. Back to square one. But methane can be used for other things rather than delighting pyromaniacs. For instance, it can be used as a refrigerant (in liquid form). I'm sure many other uses can be found which won't create a significant carbon-footprint.

Off to burn down a McDonald's.....

Dave

 

 

[MarsG76]

Is the sacrifice of this planet for further space exploration worth it? Especially when there is a high probability that a second earth will no be found or still be unreachable before the resources of earth are expired/depleted.

[cuivenion]

10 hours ago, brantuk said:

I reckon we can pretty much do all the things mentioned above without launching rockets into space to float satellites. The billions of cash saved could be used to care for the sick, elderly, poor, and help the undeveloped world to become educated, eradicate poverty, and save lives. Exciting as the space age is, I always felt it should be more a question of priorities.

(Plus whatever environmental damage is done by rocket launches can be retarded at least)

I would have to say that politics and greed are a more a barrier to the above than space exploration. The world already has the resources to do it, we just don't.

[brantuk]

3 minutes ago, cuivenion said:

I would have to say that politics and greed are a more a barrier to the above than space exploration. The world already has the resources to do it we just don't.

Couldn't agree more. If we stopped space exploration the money saved would only go into the pockets of the corrupt, greedy, and warmongers amongst us. It would still never make it to the needy, nor be used to promote proper advancement for everyone.

Conversely,even if we could solve all the logistical problems and get to another planet and colonise it - I'm pretty sure it would still be the preserve of the rich. I can't see them shipping boat loads of poor people into space other than for dodgy, ill fated  trials lol. All a bit fruitless imho.

 

[cuivenion]

20 minutes ago, brantuk said:

Couldn't agree more. If we stopped space exploration the money saved would only go into the pockets of the corrupt, greedy, and warmongers amongst us. It would still never make it to the needy, nor be used to promote proper advancement for everyone.

Conversely,even if we could solve all the logistical problems and get to another planet and colonise it - I'm pretty sure it would still be the preserve of the rich. I can't see them shipping boat loads of poor people into space other than for dodgy, ill fated  trials lol. All a bit fruitless imho.

 

Well that just depressed the hell out of me. Doomed either way.?