Slashdot Mirror
It isn't Easy Being Green and Getting to LEO
MWTJ writes "The BBC has a story about the environmental impact of the space shuttle. One of the things that started the modern environmentalist movement were pictures of the Earth from space, so we could see the beauty of the planet as never before. We could also see environmental destruction from space. But what is the impact of the space program on our planet? The story talks about the switch to Freon-free insulation, the use of clean-burning hydrogen/LOX fuel, and other factors. What else could be done to get to space with minimal harm to the planet?"
Maybe if they used CFC-based insulation that was stronger, like they used to, they'd have fewer explosions therefore less polutants entering the atmosphere and fewer dead astronauts? Just my vote.
While the effort is admirable, getting too bent out of shape over the space shuttle's emissions is a little myopic. Weighed against all of the benefits and advancements we've gleaned from the space program, I'd say the environmental impact is pretty negligible. The article itself suggests that the damage to wildlife from hydrochloric acid deposits is "minimal and manageable".
I can't imagine that the costs of upgrading a $1.7 billion shuttle to make NASA's once-in-a-blue-moon launches more earth-friendly will be reasonable for taxpayers. Environmentalists looking for something to complain about should have no trouble finding a better outlet for their ire in corporate America than at NASA.
domain combinatorics
i couldn't agree more. considering the millions of cars polluting EVERY DAY and the almost unimaginable number of factories spewing pollutants into the air, i think we need to address the big-time polluters before we worry about the occasional space shuttle.
(\(\
(^.^)
(")")
Saving sig aborted.
Reason: Your subject looks too much like ascii art
Put this in perspective, people. There are TWO space shuttles still in service, and even though they have a CFC exemption, and it was the breaking off of a piece of that insulation that caused the Colombia disaster, they STILL use non-fluorocarbon (non-freon based) foam for insulation on the shuttles.
As stated in the comments to the article on the bottom of the page, underground fires and about a bazillion other natural sources have more of an environmental impact than the shuttle. If anything, industries and the world's large polluters ought to learn from the efficiency of NASA wiht regard to abusing/respecting the environment.
and then as has happened in other fields - Western bleeding hearts set out to save the world via job-killing regulations at home, and then other countries (who could give a rat's ass about the environment) eat our lunch with cheaper products/services, ala China.
The path to hell is paved with good intentions..
Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
Sure it makes sense to worry about such things if you are making 100K+ cars, but a few space vehicles that already have to deal with some serious mechaqnical stresses? Dumb.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Logic be DAMNED! It's all about the *cause* that matters with envirowacos. No go back to rubbing two sticks togeather. Better yet, dont breed! Humans are viri to the planet.
God damn that felt good. And yes, I was making fun of those tree huggers.
Life is not for the lazy.
The thing is, a launch doesn't happen only every 3 or 4 years. Besides the space shuttle there are lots of military and commercial satellite launches courtesy of NASA, the US Air Force, the European Space Agency, the Russian Federal Space Agency and other new members of the club, like the People's Republic of China.
Tons of fumes and other chemicals are expended for successful launches but it's even worse when something goes wrong and rockets fall to the ground in pieces or are lost in the ocean. For a recent example, there was the Ariane 5 rocket that self-destructed soon after launch right over a populated area:
http://www.seds.org/spaceviews/960615/pol.htmlQuantum mechanics: the dreams that stuff is made of.
Though, that won't work for manned craft, and you need to keep in mind how much power one would use operating one.
Forget that. Taking off using a mass driver would be like using a railgun as your engine. Great, you take off but you blow a crater the size of Providence, RI in the Earth below by the time you reach orbit.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
The BBC itself probably impacts the environment to a greater degree than the Shuttle. Think of all the fossil energy used to generate the power needed to watch TV and radio while they are on, to generate those signals, the environmental impact of the staff, the transport requirements for the staff, etc.
Now, let's not propagate urban legends farther than they need to go. Yes, they had problems with the insulation when they first started using the non-freon stuff. It had nothing to do with the Columbia disaster, however -- all the problems were solved back around 1997 or so. It also had nothing to do with freon or lack thereof, it was just a different enough material that they needed to make some changes.
... that was directly resposible for killing the Columbia Astronauts and nearly killed the present set? Yep, gotta love putting the astronauts in sever risk to get rid of a couple pounds of freon. Stupidity reigns supreme when you deal with environmentalist.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
Yeah, as long as we can convince ourselves that they are crazy, we can pretend we aren't in the process of destroying the very environment that keeps us alive. Then we don't have to deal with the problems we caused! Yay!
Seriously, let's hope that you (and other people like you) can get their heads out of their asses before it's too late.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
I don't call greens envirowackos. I call them deluded. They cling to a belief of an 'ideal' cozy green gaia where none really exists: life on earth exists on the whims of forces so powerful we glimpse them but rarely: the recent earthquake activity in the Indian ocean that caused the tsunami (which some nuts blamed on global warming), once-in-a-century micrometeor strikes, etc. They look for micro-effects caused by man and miss out totally on the macro effects of solar cycles and aperiodic weather patterns.
Worse, they bully governments and industry into stasis, as increasing amounts of money have to be spent to come up to the green earth ideal, even as entire national industries become noncompetitive, causing flight of capital to the third world.
Also, people who call greens 'envirowackos' are not above name-calling themselves: they like words like 'republinazi' and so forth. Well, this one likes clean surroundings as much as the next man, but also believes that you can take cleanliness and lack of toxins too far. I have travelled in India (I have family there) and you know what? lots of Indians in urban centres survive with water levels so contaminated that according to every FDA rule I know of they should all be dying off (I drank bottled water, would've fallen sick in an instant given my immune system). And oddly enough , India (esp Indian cities) have much greater population growth than the US/EU -- even taking rural migration into account. The population also seems remarkably free of the dust/pollen allergies we see so much here. Perhaps species' adaptive capabilities deserve more credit than you give?
Don't get me wrong, clean air and water is important, but choking industry for a treaty based on starry eyed green politics and bad economics is not the way to do it.
Go somewhere random
The development of materials is always a stepwise process and involves not only the identification of the cool properties that you are seeking but also a clear understanding of the shortcomings of the material. And believe me a material as anisotropic as this material is bound to have some interesting ones. Recognize that only now has graphite composite technology reached the mainstream - 787 will be the first commercial aircraft with widespread composite primary structures. Many aircraft including advanced combat aircraft still use aluminum for primary structures.
Your simplification of the erection process suggests some rather sloppy thinking too. There is a significant energy difference between LEO (shuttle territory) and GEO. The largest rockets can place about 8 metric tons in GEO. That is in GEO- not in a transfer orbit. Shuttle has no lift capabilty to GEO at all. You must move the machines for hoisting materials and to integrate these structures into a load-bearing whole. That requires power and that means a lot of mass- that must be emplaced before you can begin hoisting. Before first fiber down you must stationkeep this system and implement a comm and control system. In any event this means you will have to place the largest geosync satellite ever launched and assemble it remotely from multiple pieces autonomously. This has never been done and represents a non-trivial task. I would estimate that you will have to place at least 50 metric tons at geosync. This will require at least a billion dollars in launch and integration costs as well as the development and testing of rendezvous and dock system as well as probably another half billion for the spacecraft themselves- and that is a very lowball estimate. It is much more likely to be three times that. This assumes that you can make fiber in megaton lots. Assuming it is on the order of high performance graphite/epoxy tows it will be $20-80 /lbm. Very likely it will be far more.
And just what does this get you? Well you are not really in a great location. You still have to use in-space propulsion stages to get anywhere of interest like the moon. Departing from the elevator is of course straightforward but you must consider the mechanics and threat from an arriving vehicle. They must circularize and match plane from an arbitrary lunar orbit for example. This does cost energy- especially plane changes which are highly energy intensive. This means that the stage is heavier and more complex. A stage coming from Mars may well find it better to just directly aerobrake instead of using the elevator.
In the end the elevator is useful but is not a panacea- you must have good rockets and aerobraking technology. SInce you must have those anyway the incremental benefit of the elevator is reduced. The cost of maintenance is also not yet defined- and could be very high. The consequences of objects passing slowly through the VanAllen belts could also be significant- rockets generally pass through them in minutes- even a fast elevator will place the cargo in the belts for hours at a time.
So give this some thought- there is more to a car than just the tires or engine- it all has to work together. Without an internally consistent architecture the design will be a disaster. I suspect that the elevator will not be economically viable unless there is a very high demand- well above what is envisioned until very late in the century. Consider the marginal cost effectiveness of the Chunnel.