How environmentally friendly is SpaceX's Starship?

[Unclear Engineer]

All I did was explain the usage of the term "green" in the context that it was being used.

The rest of your post is just assigning to me concepts that I did not argue for.

I do understand that it is going to be hard if not impossible to get all of the current human population on Earth converted to "green" or "renewable" energy sources. That is why I have been posting for years that such a large human population is not sustainable in the long term, at least not at the level of comfort that most people in North America and Europe currently enjoy.

Regarding your thinking about the importance of CO2 levels in Earth's atmosphere, I do tend to agree that the people who are thinking we can turn Earth into another Venus are not correct. But, if you take a look at what the Earth was like in the past when CO2 levels were substantially higher than they are today, you will see that it will cause severe challenges to our current lifestyles, too. Our coastal cities would be flooded by sea levels about 300 feet higher than they are now, and our crop producing areas would be relocated, and perhaps reduced. I think that is where we are ultimately headed - a post ice age extended warm period. The issue is whether we can adapt as fast as it happens, and whether other species can adapt that fast, too. It won't be just a uniform temperature increase. Weather patterns will shift, and environmental chemistries will change, and species will die out.

However, climate modeling is still not so well understood that we can actually rule out another ice age in the not-so-distant future.

You can use the uncertainty as an excuse to not bother trying to minimize your impact on Earth's climate and ecosystems. But, at some point, you or your children will probably be faced with changed conditions that you don't like, and will probably look back on decisions being made now and wish we had been smarter at this time.

 

[George²]

Nothing in modern "alarmist" science is certain. There is a lot of bias. The difference between real science and alarmism is like between astronomy and astrology (and modern protestism with individuals sticking to the pavement and/or vandalizing private and public property).
As for whether we are many people, I don't think that is true. People are starving because of the unfair distribution of food, because of the system in which we live. People starve because food is directed to rich markets for profits, where there is gluttony and too much excess that is simply thrown away when its shelf life is over.

.
As for how much of the eventual climate change is due to human activity, I'm of the opinion that "green" technologies do more damage. For example, the modification of air currents by large wind farms, the extraction and use of many raw materials for the production of wind generators and photovoltaics. Construction of additional facilities for the recycling of spent photovoltaics, if investment is made for this at all.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Georgesquared, as far as I can tell, life has never been "fair" for everybody. Attempts to make it fair have not been very successful, for example peoples' revolutions leading to Marxist states with totalitarian rulers that do not distribute the wealth evenly.

So, yes, some more technologically advanced countries do take food resources, especially ocean fishery resources, from less advanced countries. But, some of those more advanced countries also export large amounts of food to countries that need it.

So, here's the question for consideration: Why is it that countries, or even local communities, do not simply raise their own food? Hint, the answerer is related to human population density distributions and carrying capacities of the local ecosystems.

But, we are getting away from the subject of this article, which is "how environmentally friendly is StarShip".

At this point in its development, it isn't any more friendly than Artemis. When it becomes reusable, it will have lower resource costs than Artemis, but will also have many more launches - so are we talking per-launch or comparing whole programs?

The real question comes down to whether the intended goals are worth the costs.

There are some who aspire to "feed all of the poor" and think that any space programs are a waste of resources, while there are others who aspire to "reach the stars" who think that the "poor" will always multiply faster than the food production can keep up, and that humans must advance science and technology to get ahead.

Personally, I think we need both types, but are low on long-term planners that should be working on how to do both.

 

[George²]

Yes, it's time to return to the Starship. In its current and future two versions, this system will not be sufficiently justified. Musk himself some time ago hinted nastily at what minimum parameters his engines should have, to achieve efficiency goals and for Starship to really help humanity begin to become an interplanetary civilization. Engine 1337(or pronouns "LeeT").

 

[ZZTOP]

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.

Which launched starships have been reused?