5d ago

Space rule

You're viewing a single thread.

53 comments

Also just ignore the part where their carbon emissions just surpassed several countries yearly output combined with that one launch
- I hate rich fucks as much as anybody, but this particular vehicle uses liquid hydrogen and oxygen for propellant, so no direct carbon emissions from the fuel.
  The spacex superheavy is the biggest rocket stage around and has somewhere around 1.7 million kg of methane in it at launch. That results in about 4.7 million kg (4675t) of CO2 when it's burned. That's the same as the yearly emissions of 338 average americans, or 962 people at the global average.
  Rockets are big, flashy and make a lot of smoke, but the numbers really don't amount to much when compared to the sheer scale of more mundane economic activities.
  
  I can guarantee that that hydrogen was not produced sustainably
  
  To copy paste an earlier reply of mine:
  I was talking about the direct emissions of launching a rocket. The indirect emissions are obviously vastly larger and might as well include everything in the wider economy that enables stuff like this. Just maintaining the necessary industrial capacity is already a huge strain on the planet. That's what I'm after with these comments. The rich fucker joyride is a largely inconsequential yet overtly visible result of a bloated system hiding in plain sight. The aerospace sector as a whole is just the tip of the iceberg of a global industrial society in ecological overshoot.
  
  That you for stating the obvious and completely missing the point.
  "oh ye technically we didn't cause extreme mass emissions just now"
  is not an excuse for extreme mass emissions. Until someone figures out how to get sustainable hydrogen production to work for a scale useful for more than a few cars this is simply not a sustainable approach. And from what I understand, it likely won't anytime soon
  
  Sorry, I suppose I'm a bit too used to idiots going off about the smoke plume caused by the rocket carrying an Earth observation satellite or such. When there's anything to be gained, the costs of the endeavour should be measured up to that. Here there's no gain for anybody (unless one of those fuckers onboard has enough braincells to be able to appreciate the overview effect enough to affect their future behaviour for the better), so it's a net negative no matter how much the cost for the planet is. My intent was not to excuse anything about this.
  
  ergo "direct"
  
  So each launch is 2x the faeroe islands annual CO2 output
  
  Yes, the comment I replied to is technically right in that there are some tiny countries out there. Or they would be, if the rocket in question would've been a vastly larger rocket that burned a carbon containing fuel. The New Shepard tourist joyride is tiny for a rocket and its exhaust is water vapour.
  
  Where did they get all the hydrogen? How did they make the rocket. While it may not emit much carbon on launch day, it will have taken a shit load to produce it.
  
  I was talking about the direct emissions of launching a rocket. The indirect emissions are obviously vastly larger and might as well include everything in the wider economy that enables stuff like this. Just maintaining the necessary industrial capacity is already a huge strain on the planet. That's what I'm after with these comments. The rich fucker joyride is a largely inconsequential yet overtly visible result of a bloated system hiding in plain sight. The aerospace sector as a whole is just the tip of the iceberg of a global industrial society in ecological overshoot.
  
  Hydrogen is usually produced from natural gas with all the carbon being released as CO². So just the direct cost of making the fuel is already terrible.
  
  So hydrogen creation is carbon neutral, didn't know that! /s
  
  Although I doubt it, hydrogen can be produced using renewables.
  It's still going to be significantly "greener" than using methane as a propellant, though.

53 comments