Am i correct?

[scipt]

Some guy wrote this on the BBC website<br /><br />Given the urgency of global warming - and that each launch of the space shuttle produces more CO2 emissions than the entire car exhaust output of the US in a whole year - launches into space should be done only when absolutely necessary.<br /><br />http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6268313.stm<br />Adrian, Glasgow<br /><br /><br />I responded by saying he was incorrect. That the main exhaust of the shuttle is produced from burning Hyrdogen and Oxygen. The SRB's use Ammonium Perchlorate and Aluminium (not hydrocarbons), and that while energy was needed to produce the fuels it was not equal to the US output of car exhaust per annum. I stated it isn't even a half a percent. Am i correct?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bpcooper]

SRBs put out a lot of chlorine, which is damaging to the ozone layer, and extensive research has been done on the topic including having AF research planes fly through the exhaust plumes after several shuttle and Titan IV launches (search srb exhaust studies; there is one section of the LA AFB site that has a lot of information)....but not carbon dioxide, no. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-Ben</p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

One of the more interesting consequences of Shuttle launches is noctilucent clouds -- the environmental impact of which is not really known. The water vapor produced by the SSMEs condences in the high atmosphere and produces these otherwise rare clouds. Now, water *is* a greenhouse gas (and an oft-overlooked one), and water clouds definitely contribute to localized warming. (They insulate, basically.) So it's plausible that the Shuttle contributes to global warming in a totally unique way, being by far the largest of the operational cryogenic rockets in the world. But that's about all I can give the article; the factoids do not sound correct. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[rybanis]

Indeed, I have heard the same thing about shuttle exaust. I would think the effect would be highly localized though, and would eventually dissipate (I hope).<br /><br />If anyone wants to talk about polluting boosters, talk about Proton. They can't go near the pad for hours after one of those launches. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">Now, water *is* a greenhouse gas (and an oft-overlooked one), and water clouds definitely contribute to localized warming.</font><br /><br />Short term localised warming. Once the clouds dissipate that heat will radiate away. The water vapour will also raise the planets albedo, so it's not all bad. <br />

 

[tomnackid]

Total BS pure and simple. The mass of propellant in an SRB (the only engine that even has hydrocarbons on the shuttle system) is 499,000 kg. Of that mass most is ammonium perchlorate (no carbon). Only 12% is the hydrocarbon binder. The US on average burns 1.51 BILLION liters of gasoline EVERY DAY. Do the math! One shuttle launch is barely a drop in the bucket.

 

[josh_simonson]

The SSME does burn LOX/LH2, so doesn't directly create CO2, however the H2 is made by reforming natural gas, which does produce CO2, and then needs to be cooled electrically, which also produces CO2, and the LOX also requires (carbon derived) energy to produce and refridgerate. However, the amount of hydrocarbon consumed is on the order of the volume of the ET, which is smaller than the size of one of the many holding tanks at the local refinery, of which there are thousands of refineries in the US producing year-round.<br /><br />So the LH2 effectively 'hides' the carbon emissions (just like if we built hydrogen powered cars now), but the person stating that it produces as much CO2 as all the cars in the US in a year, per launch, has his head so far up his @$$ it came back out his neck...

 

[oscar1]

"...should be done only when absolutely necessary."<br /><br />Before we would steep to that level, we should then first abolish Formula I racing, and any other racing that causes CO2 emissions for that matter. Oh, and fireworks of course!

 

[docm]

Of course IRL (Indy cars) long ago switched to methanol and now burns a 90/10 blend of methanol and ethanol <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>