Old rockets, like the space shuttle main engine, used to burn hydrogen and oxygen, producing water. Instead, SpaceX rockets burn methane. Each of these Starship rockets produces over 3000 tons of carbon dioxide, assuming it doesn't just explode and release the methane instead.
Reposted from
Kendra "Gloom is My Beat" Pierre-Louis
People asking about starship's carbon footprint, I don't do space but here's reporting from folks who do: "Starship, because it's the biggest rocket ever built, is also one of the dirtiest."
Comments
I think most people assume that, because SpaceX is working towards making rockets reusable, this somehow makes space travel "sustainable".
Clearly, not the case. At all.
Currently using fossil fuels but the goal is to make the methane.
Oh, and if it explodes then the methane burned and was not released.
I'm not sure that particularly improves the eco credentials.
But I'm a big fan of Musk building something capable of taking humans to Mars. Preferably soon, and preferably with him on board.
But definitely needs sustainability eventually.
Oh, and explosions are never efficient enough for complete combustion to occur.
So it's more of a FART powered rocket?
I would not want to breathe it in....
Lots of HAP when it explodes and it is 500,000 pounds
Metals it metals out
The Saturn V managed to take people to the Moon on Oxygen and Kerosene in the 1st stage and Hydrogen and Oxygen in the upper stages
Also some of the CH4 probably burned in the explosion so the actual CH4 release to the atmosphere would be less.
For cattle, I averaged the high and low limits from this statistic from the EPA. https://www.epa.gov/snep/agriculture-and-aquaculture-food-thought
Also liquid methane is more dense than gaseous methane
Amazing accomplishment but as usual NASA never had the funding they needed to really make it work.
They have to ship oil and natural gas and then process it into fuel.
A rocket should use the most efficient fuel available.
H2/O2 fuel just obscures it's net carbon impact.
Musk is a moron, but the engineers aren't.
However that does not stop this idiotic race to build the biggest flaming dick out there from being pretty fucking futile because hey, earth is burning up just like the flaming dicks.
1. H² is very efficient when burning but since it is very small it leaks very easily and is generally a pain to work with. It also is not very dense requiring really large tanks. Kerosene on the other hand can be stored at room temperature
2. Methane can be synthesized from CO² and Water which supposedly is in preparation for landing on moon and mars where Water and CO² can be extracted from regolith, ice and air.
A big part of why hydrogen is not used is the difficulty that cant be understated that comes with working with this stuff.