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?"

Comments

For crying out loud

[Anonymous Coward]

We do a shuttle launch once every, what, four months even under the optimal conditions that never happen? And the city of Houston, Texas alone is pumping out how much greenhouse gas every day just from the cars alone?

Why is it we never actually care about the environment except at times that it's stupid to do so? Oh noes, think what nuclear power could do to the environment under extreme and unlikely circumstances that can be totally avoided with a modicum of competent regulation! We'd better avoid that and stick with the huge belching coal plants built in the 1970s and grandfathered in from the time before emission controls, that's sooo much more ecologically friendly.

Start by going into space.

[Tackhead]

> What else could be done to get to space with minimal harm to the planet?

1) Get to space.

As long as you're stuck on this step, you're going to have to have an entire planet's worth of heavy industries, energy generation, and resource extraction being performed on the surface of said planet.

Arguing about the "greenness" of space exploration is like someone having a heart attack deciding not to call an ambulance because being a passenger in a vehicle that's going faster than the posted speed limits in city streets is a health hazard.

What's your timescale?

[delibes]

If you want to reduce the impact of placing objects into orbit, then reduce the energy demands of getting up there.

A space elevator (always popular on /.) would be about the cheapest way up in theory provided you write of the energy cost of building the damn thing over a long lifetime.

Still, I think the posts and articles about the environmental impact of the Shuttle are mostly crap. Cars that do 40mpg instead of 20mpg on an urban-cycle would have much more positive impact on the environment. Using the heat from power station cooling systems to heat offices/factories in local areas would do more. Recycling your plastic, glass bottles, cans, and paper would do more.

Nasty as the perchlorate SRBs are, they're worth the inconvenience if NASA can use them to build (say) a 100 ton heavy launcher to replace the Shuttle.

pay no attention to the man behind the curtain

[SuperBanana]

Professor George Fraser, director of Leicester University's Space Research Centre says this exhaust gas, made from the combination of hydrogen and oxygen, consists of water vapour and as such does not harm the atmosphere, making the use of Nasa's main shuttle engines fairly environmentally safe.

I'm sorry, but this is the same argument used with why we need to be driving hydrogen cars, and it irritates the shit out of me.

Skipping over the solid rocket boosters as cheerfully as the article summary did- perhaps Professor Fraser would care to explain to us where all the hydrogen and oxygen came from?

If you do the math in terms of the energy produced, and realize that both distillation-by-refridgeration and electrolysis are hugely inefficient, you start to realize the amount of energy required to make all that hydrogen and oxygen is incredible. Chemical methods involve pretty toxic chemicals, so you're not getting out of it that way. Guess how most of our (United States) electricity is supplied? That's right- coal. Which generates huge amounts of carbon soot, carbon dioxide, and radioactive particulate.

I noticed that they also skipped quite nicely over hydrazine, used in the thrusters...

Go for Maximum Efficiency

[VernonNemitz]

Electromagnetic launchers are practical NOW. "Just accelerate the space cargo in a vacuum tube until escape velocity is achieved, while climbing a high mountain." Only one key technology has been needed, and it got invented just a couple years ago. At the END of that vacuum tube, a means is needed to keep the atmosphere from rushing in while still letting the cargo exit. The plasma valve is the answer to that problem.

Go nuclear

[Elgreco1]

http://www.nuclearspace.com/a_liberty_ship.htm It is simple, no nuclear materials comes out of the exausts. All you do is super heat some material to rediculous levels and your done. Any activity has a negative impact, but then the biggest human contibutor to radioactivity in the atmosphear is burning coal. As for accidents, you need about 1000 accidents to release as much nuclear materails as those above ground attomic tests. Oh, and make them BIG ...

Re:CFC insulation == less polution from explosions

[justasecond]

Parent is actually correct. Damage to the shuttle due to foam coming off increased by a factor of 11 (!) after changing to the new enviro-wacko friendly formulation. See for example this.