How environmentally friendly is SpaceX's Starship?

[Admin]

SpaceX's Starship uses greener propellant than other rockets, but its environmental footprint could still be substantial if plans for hundreds of launches per year come to pass, experts warn.

How environmentally friendly is SpaceX's Starship? : Read more

 

[Mike from CT]

Does anyone really care about Starships environmental footprint? Im more interested in success and exploration, Starship is a game changer for space exploration.

Also curious why reusability isn’t discussed.

Overall a very poor article.

 

[24launch]

I was holding off on commenting.

Unfortunately Ms Pultarova has what appears to me to be an extreme dislike for Musk, SpaceX and Starlink based on her previous articles with similar critical viewpoints, especially of Starlink.

I have yet to see an article of hers with genuine concern about Amazon's planned constellation of thousands of satellites launched by initially all 100% throwaway rockets (hopefully eventually reusable with BO's New Glenn). Nor acknowledgement that Starlink, unlike Amazon, have been actively working with astronomers and the Int'l Dark Sky association to try to mitigate not only the reflectivity but the radio frequency impact of the Starlink satellites on astronomy. Amazon has thus far declined any such dialog.

And then there's China who are planning their own network of thousands of satellites.

I do agree there needs to be open dialog about such things, but pure opinion and hyperbole like, "environmentally conscious observers wondered whether the stainless-steel vehicle, perhaps containing hundreds of kilograms of residual fuel, could endanger marine life."

and even just subtitling the article as:

"Starship, because it's the biggest rocket ever built, is also one of the dirtiest."

really belong over on a doomsayer site like The Conversation and not here on a Space & Astronomy enthusiast site.

My US$0.02 for what it's worth.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Seems like a lot of speculation on the potential for negative effects, without any speculation on the potential for positive effects. So, the article comes across as overtly biased.

For instance, the manufacture of reusable launch vehicles have a reduced carbon emission effect compared to throw-away vehicles. And refueling in space with affordable launches might be used to refuel and even update the satellites that the article decries for being deorbited and burning up in the upper atmosphere. And, about those particulates that will remain in the upper atmosphere "essentially forever", how does that compare to the proposals to intentionally put particulates into our upper atmosphere to cool the planet? Similarly, the water vapor that the article calls a "green house gas" may be a solid in the cold up there, providing reflective clouds that could also cool the Earth.

Those are speculations, too. But, why don't they get similar amounts of "ink" from this author?

 

[bleibold]

These environmental terrorists just won't give up.

 

[Cdr. Shepard]

Ms. Pultarova spends most of her time, writing not for LiveScience, Nature, Ars Technica, etc., but for SPACE.com, explaining why SpaceX shouldn't go into space, build things that might go into space, or, if already in space, reenter the atmosphere from it.

Does she have a counterproposal, other than Elon disbanding all of his ventures and retiring from the public eye?

The lecturing from certain overtly political and activist corners of journoworld (and from an incorrectly perceived position upon the moral high ground) is growing tiresome.

 

[JAS]

A few points for your consideration:
1) For those interested, Everyday Astronaut does a good more in-depth review of rocket pollution issues at the following link:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4VHfmiwuv4

2) I believe Musk plans to develop a non-fossil-fuel Methane source using the Sabatier Process for Star Ship. This would in essence make the fuel cycle a closed loop, sourcing CO2 from the atmosphere.
3) The dropping of metals into the ocean is just a short term effect with Star Ship development. Shortly, the prototypes will start making it home intact since the goal for Star Ship is 100% reuse.
4) While the number of satellites going to orbit is rising significantly, the size of them is dropping on average due to technology, and the fact that so many of them are being used in low (short duration) orbits.
5) The composition of satellites is changing also, with reductions in toxins, and with materials more compatible with safer destruction in the atmosphere. Lots of room for improvement still.
6) Satellites living in high orbits such as geo-stationary orbits are typically not brought down into the atmosphere, but instead are parked in a graveyard orbit. I imagine at a future date some smart cookie will build an orbital reclamation factory to reclaim all that valuable material sitting out there waiting to be 'picked up'.

 

[Helio]

Per the article...."According to Andrew Wilson, assistant professor in environmental management at Glasgow Caledonian University in Scotland, one Starship launch produces 76,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (a measure combining different types of greenhouse gases in one unit). "

Is it possible that 4,600 metric tonnes of propellant can produce 76,000 metric tonnes of CO2? Call me dubious.

 

[Ken Fabian]

It will be important to continue to study and monitor atmospheric and ocean impacts of space launches, failures, returns, end of life burn up in atmosphere, especially if there are going to be a lot more of them.

Like every other industry rocket manufacturers/operators need to become zero emissions. Mostly it should come from a massive build of low/zero emissions energy, ie manufacturing and fuel production will draw on low emissions energy because that is what grids and energy supply companies are providing. I still expect industries doing things specifically based on combustion, like rocketry to face additional challenges but manufactured fuels made using electricity from a zero emissions grid seems reasonable, or possibly biofuels.

Being small isn't good enough reason to make an exception; every other "small" industry wants to be exempted too, lots of them, too many of them. But those too are going to reduce in emissions energy as more primary energy is low emissions.

Being important might exempt rocket launches if some overriding need can be demonstrated but I think ultimately should still be balanced with some kind of genuine negative emissions. Military need will rate important enough like it or not, but ISS, Moon and Mars aren't that kind of important. But there is no technical barrier to becoming a zero emissions industry.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Is it possible that 4,600 metric tonnes of propellant can produce 76,000 metric tonnes of CO2? Call me dubious.

Helio, I am not going to try to verify or falsify the assertion. I am just offering a few relevant thoughts.

First, a ton of carbon composed of atoms with isotopic mass 12, each combined with 2 atoms of oxygen with atomic mass 16, means that ton of carbon makes (12 + 2 x 16)/12 = 3.7 tons of carbon dioxide.

Similarly, a ton of hydrogen oxidized to water produces ( 2 x 1 + 16)/ (2 x 1) = 9 tons of water, and the activists are probably including the water as a "greenhouse gas".

Finally, there is some methane leakage, and that is probably simply given a multiplier of 20 for its ratio of effects compared to carbon dioxide.

So, a ton of methane can make a lot of tons of "greenhouse gases". The ratio of "greenhouse gases" to fuel in the statement is 16.5. So that does seem like it might be a "stretch."

 

[Helio]

Interesting.

Lunar fuel production is looking a little better.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Making rocket fuel on the Moon is another matter.

From what we know at the moment, there does not seem to be much carbon on the lunar surface. So, "rocket fuel" made there will probably be water that is separated into hydrogen and oxygen by something like electrolysis using solar energy as the power source. So, it would fuel rockets that use liquid hydrogen, such as the Centaur second stage currently used on the Atlas and Vulcan launch vehicles. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centaur_(rocket_stage) )

So, we have been using that technology since the 1960s, but, as Wikipedia says, liquid hydrogen "has significant handling difficulties." It needs to be a lot colder than liquid oxygen or liquid methane, and it has weird properties like climbing the sides of the tanks. It is also quite good at leaking through the tiniest openings, including pores in metallic walls.

The initial Centaur launches created some spectacular explosions during launches. And re-ignition of the engines did not always work, initially. So, making hydrogen propellant and using it on the Moon has some substantial risks.

But, "cold" on the Moon may be more easily done than here on Earth. And it is one of the most efficient rocket propellants. The exhaust gas is pure water, but being non-polluting probably has no value on the Moon.

So, if we really do find enough water on the Moon to expend it as rocket propellant, then our trips beyond will actually be done using solar energy, but first transformed into chemical energy.

 

[Questioner]

Envisioning atmospheric carbon skimmers so it can be exported to the moon.
Capture it then solar heat it in a transparent balloons might reduce the escape velocity...

Gotta feed a carbon hungry lunar economy.

Is there anyway of moving/lifting (ionized?) CO2 using a charged wire?

 

[Helio]

Making rocket fuel on the Moon is another matter.

From what we know at the moment, there does not seem to be much carbon on the lunar surface. So, "rocket fuel" made there will probably be water that is separated into hydrogen and oxygen by something like electrolysis using solar energy as the power source. So, it would fuel rockets that use liquid hydrogen, such as the Centaur second stage currently used on the Atlas and Vulcan launch vehicles. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centaur_(rocket_stage) )

Yes. There is likely a lot of ware ice on the Moon.

So, we have been using that technology since the 1960s, but, as Wikipedia says, liquid hydrogen "has significant handling difficulties." It needs to be a lot colder than liquid oxygen or liquid methane, and it has weird properties like climbing the sides of the tanks. It is also quite good at leaking through the tiniest openings, including pores in metallic walls.

Cold comes free there. Perhaps low gravity helps the fuel flow idiosyncrasies.

The initial Centaur launches created some spectacular explosions during launches. And re-ignition of the engines did not always work, initially. So, making hydrogen propellant and using it on the Moon has some substantial risks.

But, "cold" on the Moon may be more easily done than here on Earth. And it is one of the most efficient rocket propellants. The exhaust gas is pure water, but being non-polluting probably has no value on the Moon.

Perhaps a portion of the water exhaust could be captured.

 

[PlanetMan]

Does anyone really care about Starships environmental footprint? Im more interested in success and exploration, Starship is a game changer for space exploration.

Also curious why reusability isn’t discussed.

Overall a very poor article.

Mike....how can you be so naively ignorant as to say this? We (as in all people and animals on the planet) have to live with the consequences of pollution. Are you happy for instance that smokers are not permitted to smoke on planes, in restaurants and bars much anymore? I know I prefer not dealing with them when I'm in a confined space. So why not take a moment to consider what today's era of space exploration and rocket launch frequency is or may do to effect life here on the planet (within the confines of our atmosphere)??? So I feel you need to determine just what success is before you spew your ignorance on your family and neighbors (that being all other living life on the planet)

 

[PlanetMan]

I was holding off on commenting.

Unfortunately Ms Pultarova has what appears to me to be an extreme dislike for Musk, SpaceX and Starlink based on her previous articles with similar critical viewpoints, especially of Starlink.

I have yet to see an article of hers with genuine concern about Amazon's planned constellation of thousands of satellites launched by initially all 100% throwaway rockets (hopefully eventually reusable with BO's New Glenn). Nor acknowledgement that Starlink, unlike Amazon, have been actively working with astronomers and the Int'l Dark Sky association to try to mitigate not only the reflectivity but the radio frequency impact of the Starlink satellites on astronomy. Amazon has thus far declined any such dialog.

And then there's China who are planning their own network of thousands of satellites.

I do agree there needs to be open dialog about such things, but pure opinion and hyperbole like, "environmentally conscious observers wondered whether the stainless-steel vehicle, perhaps containing hundreds of kilograms of residual fuel, could endanger marine life."

and even just subtitling the article as:

"Starship, because it's the biggest rocket ever built, is also one of the dirtiest."

really belong over on a doomsayer site like The Conversation and not here on a Space & Astronomy enthusiast site.

My US$0.02 for what it's worth.

However, Do you not have any concerns whatsoever with the environmental impacts of launching rockets into space? Cars and busses etc have exhaust systems built into them, coal plants also (now) have systems to attempt to clean or mitigate their exhaust and thereby their impacts on our environment (here on earth....a place that we as living creatures live and exist)....so tell me 24launch...should we not have any care or concern as to the effects of space launches on our air, climate, environment or atmosphere? Leaving a new-ish industry unchecked and free to exploit our environment would be beyond naive...it would be blindly ignorant. And life on this planet would have its priorities over that of a few private corporations seeking more wealth without any care of the consequences.

 

[PlanetMan]

These environmental terrorists just won't give up.

Wow...so you don't understand what projectionism is? Calling an environmentalist a terrorist is simply so insane. In your mind someone with concerns for our planet and atmosphere is a terrorist because they voice a care and concern for how others (let's call them profiteers) may impact our life here on earth by compounding pollutive activities without any checks and balances on the system. Do you think that is fair to the people, plants or animals on Earth?
And what about the climate? Do you think a rocket the size of Starship is free of pollutants and causes no harm or effects on air, water or atmospheric health? Be real?
I don't mind if we have a space program....however, I feel we should only have one if we are mindful and protective of LIFE, here on Planet Earth having some protection against impacts known and not known yet to be ignored for profit sake.

 

[PlanetMan]

Seems like a lot of speculation on the potential for negative effects, without any speculation on the potential for positive effects. So, the article comes across as overtly biased.

For instance, the manufacture of reusable launch vehicles have a reduced carbon emission effect compared to throw-away vehicles. And refueling in space with affordable launches might be used to refuel and even update the satellites that the article decries for being deorbited and burning up in the upper atmosphere. And, about those particulates that will remain in the upper atmosphere "essentially forever", how does that compare to the proposals to intentionally put particulates into our upper atmosphere to cool the planet? Similarly, the water vapor that the article calls a "green house gas" may be a solid in the cold up there, providing reflective clouds that could also cool the Earth.

Those are speculations, too. But, why don't they get similar amounts of "ink" from this author?

Well....what is clear...Unclear, is that you don't know much. reusable vehicles do NOTHING to reduce the carbon emissions of a rocket launch. If for example a rocket is launched....it has a carbon footprint based on its efficiency to turn its fuel into energy that propels the vehicle and payload. if the rocket is a single use or has multiple use applications....each single launch has a carbon footprint. Conservation on the other hand speaks to the ability to conserve resources. So that "concept" is more of what you are wanting to speak of. So for instance....while it saves resources to re-use rocket components....that does not have a direct correlation to how efficient the rockets are in launch/travel terms.
Think of your use of water bottles. If I refill a bottle and use it two, three, four or a 1000 times....that saves resources. But it doesn't save water. I'm still drinking 1000 times the volume of water in the end and not conserving any water. What is conserved are the resources to make the bottles....or rockets and its other parts or components.
To wrap this up....the 3 R's of environmentalism are not the same as having a smaller carbon footprint....though there is a bit of overlap....in that it takes energy to obtain the resources needed to build the rocket and parts (or to make water bottles)
But carbon footprint technically is about the amount of CO2 created by burning fuels...or the emissions from the rocket.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Telling me that "{I] don't know much" is a non-starter when you fail to recognize that people have been talking about "carbon [emission] footprints" of manufacturing processes for decades, now.

The manufacturing processes of rockets does result in the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that is in addition to the amount released by burning the fuel. Reuse the rocket and you save the amount of carbon dioxide releases that went into making it because you don't have to make another one.

This concept is very much ingrained into thinking about how to reduce our carbon emissions. For instance, the manufacture of electric automobiles and their batteries requires processes that emit much more CO2 than the processes for manufacturing gasoline powered vehicles. It takes several years for the use of an electric vehicle to result in less total CO2 emissions than a gasoline powered car. And, if the it turns out that the resale of used EVs doesn't really happen like the resale of gasoline powered vehicles, so we need to make more EVs per unit time for the same amount of transportation, that really cuts into the advantage of EVs for CO2 emission reduction.

Yes, resource utilization is another parameter that we need to pay attention to. We can run out of gasoline to power cars and lithium to make solar cells. But, in the case of that water bottle in your misleading lecture, you fail to recognize that it does also require water to run the processes that make the water bottles.

So, depending on what the goal is, emissions or resource use may be the limiting parameter. And, clearly they are not completely independent parameters.

And, remember, StarShip and SuperHeavy are powered by methane fuel. Methane could become a "carbon neutral" fuel if enough of it can be produced biologically from CO2 already in the atmosphere. Methane is a normal product of a lot of biological processes. Making RP1 biologically would be much harder. (RP1 is the special kerosene fuel used in rockets like Falcon and Atlas.)

 

[ruiv7]

I was looking for that 76,000 metric tons of CO2 per launch. And according to a EPA Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator. It's equivalent to 18000 gasoline car running for a YEAR. Not green at all.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Not green if the methane comes out of natural gas wells. Green if the methane can be made biologically from air and farm waste.

Same for internal combustion engine automobiles. Not green if the gasoline comes from refining oil from wells and green if the gasoline is replaced by methanol or ethanol made from biological materials.

And, don't forget that even electric vehicles are "not green" until the electricity made to charge their batteries is made by green methods. And, even then, because EVs take so much more energy to mine the additional resources that go into them and turn them into automobile components, it actually takes several years of EV driving to break even on CO2 emissions when the charging is done with "renewable" electricity. Right now, most of our electricity production is not done with renewable energy sources.

So, right now, very little if anything that we can do is very "green". In the future, rockets powered by liquified methane can be made to be "green" more easily than rockets powered by kerosene (actually the special version of kerosene labeled RP1).

 

[ruiv7]

Compared to rest of human activity starship has a neglectable impact in environment at a planetary scale. At least they burn methane, which is better than having it in atmosphere compared to co2. I don't want to be very critical to space exploration, I follow with interest. The main point I want to refer is that using "Green" word or environment friendly to any rocket is simply ludicrous. And now Elon is endorsing a politician that doesn't care at all.

Without much research I'm almost sure, that natural methane sources, from livestock, farming are not an efficient energy extraction method, and most gets to atmosphere anyway. Why not from tundra? but again, it's likely harder, and most from remote places like Canada or Siberia, which are melting faster than usual due to decades of greenhouse effect (CO2+ CH4 and others gases...), releasing long time stored "natural" CH4 under glacier ice to the atmosphere. All due to long time buildup, and is still an accelerating process.

EV are far from being a solution or either green. The issue is really why each individual need a car at all. It's human nature, and that's like an utopia. Even if all poorest people in earth would have EV's the impact is still really neglectable at a planetary scale. It probably would be worst due to motor infrastructure needs. Still it gives good feelings to human brain like is doing is part. Yes. It helps, but not so much as one thinks, whatever production process and energy source it has.

But in conclusion, starship prototype looks more efficient in the way it uses an energy source to propel first stage. But I would not call it eco or green at all.

 

[George²]

Not green if the methane comes out of natural gas wells. Green if the methane can be made biologically from air and farm waste

What a fantastic "green' brain logic. The natural gas in wells in the past was vegetables and green at your criteria. But today it not green. Huh.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

What a fantastic "green' brain logic. The natural gas in wells in the past was vegetables and green at your criteria. But today it not green. Huh.

The term "green" is basically short for not putting additional CO2 into the atmosphere.

If carbon that is not in the atmosphere because it is in the form of methane, oil or coal that is buried in the ground is taken out of the ground and burned, it puts additional CO2 into the atmosphere. So, that is not called "green" or "renewable".

On the other hand, if some process, biological or technological, removes CO2 from the atmosphere in order to make a fuel, usually methane, methanol or ethanol, and then that fuel is burned and the carbon in it is returned to the atmosphere, the net effect on the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is zero. That is what is called "green" or "renewable" fuels.

So, the logic is science, not politics.

Arguing about whether it is necessary is where it gets political.

 

[George²]

The term "green" is basically short for not putting additional CO2 into the atmosphere.

If carbon that is not in the atmosphere because it is in the form of methane, oil or coal that is buried in the ground is taken out of the ground and burned, it puts additional CO2 into the atmosphere. So, that is not called "green" or "renewable".

On the other hand, if some process, biological or technological, removes CO2 from the atmosphere in order to make a fuel, usually methane, methanol or ethanol, and then that fuel is burned and the carbon in it is returned to the atmosphere, the net effect on the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is zero. That is what is called "green" or "renewable" fuels.

So, the logic is science, not politics.

Arguing about whether it is necessary is where it gets political.

Well, if we don't consider the rest, the production of "green" methane requires land to grow at least some of the plants, since not all of it can be obtained from crop residues from plants grown for food. Currently, people are already being harmed by some photovoltaic installations on agricultural land, and now land is being taken to produce "green" fuel. It is an obvious lie that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is critical, life in the past lived at levels that are many times higher than today. After all, planting, growing the plants, harvesting, transporting them to the processing facilities, and all the subsequent operations until the methane reaches the tanks of the vehicles also leave a large footprint. So? He was "green". you must be joking How many more people have to die of hunger so that you can fool yourself that you drive your car "green".