Calculating Environmental Damage From Space Tourism Rockets

MithrandirAgain writes "A new study from several scientists at the Aerospace Corporation claims spaceships that rely on rubber-based fuel could help cause climate change. The fuel apparently expels a black carbon soot into the stratosphere when burned with nitrous oxide, which could be contributing to global climate changes, like shrinking the icecaps. However, the authors are careful about their work being an end-all study and are 'inviting others to take a look.' Virgin Galactic, whose SpaceShipTwo just made its first solo flight (and uses the type of fuel discussed in the study), is listening to the scientists' concerns. CEO George Whitesides said, 'I think we and others in the industry welcome the opportunity to talk about all of these issues.' SpaceShipTwo does use a hybrid engine 'because of its significantly lower environmental impact than other designs,' and Whitesides stresses, 'I think as we look at this more, we'll find the impact will be far smaller than that set out in the paper. In any case, I welcome the conversation.'"

Comments

Pure Nonsense

[Azghoul]

Give me a break.

Just guessing here, but I'd bet good money that granola crunching campers "cause" more global warming burning their frigging campfires.

How about the impact of plain tourism first?

[khchung]

The fuel apparently expels a black carbon soot into the stratosphere when burned with nitrous oxide, which could be contributing to global climate changes, like shrinking the icecaps.

Give me a break. The environmental damage contributed by plain tourism itself (e.g. flights/cruise ships/train/buses, not to mention hotels, theme parks, etc) would be orders of magnitude more than anything *space* tourism can do for the foreseeable decade or two.

Let me guess, a more "environmental friendly" engine is available from those scientists' company/sponsor?