Pollution from rocket launches and burning satellites could cause the next environmental emergency

[Admin]

The growing number of rocket launches and satellites burning up in Earth's atmosphere could trigger the world's next big environmental emergency.

Pollution from rocket launches and burning satellites could cause the next environmental emergency : Read more

 

[Unclear Engineer]

The article talks about only undesirable results of emissions from rocket launches and satellite reentries. But, considering that some have advocated purposely injecting particulates into the upper levels of the atmosphere to reduce global warming, I am left wondering if there are any beneficial results of the emissions that are the subject of this article.

 

[maggotbrain]

The article talks about only undesirable results of emissions from rocket launches and satellite reentries. But, considering that some have advocated purposely injecting particulates into the upper levels of the atmosphere to reduce global warming, I am left wondering if there are any beneficial results of the emissions that are the subject of this article.

What do you think some of these beneficial results could be?

 

[Unclear Engineer]

What do you think some of these beneficial results could be?

Not saying that these potential results are true, but since you asked the question, I'll speculate a little, which seems to be what the article does, too.

First, as I previously mentioned, the particles might provide a bit of "shade" or "reflectivity" that could help decrease "global warming". We have all read about proposals to intentionally inject large amounts of particulates into the upper atmosphere for that purpose, and we have also all read that the particles injected into the atmosphere by nuclear war would cause a 'nuclear winter', plus the effect of the asteroid strike that killed the dinosaurs supposedly caused a years long decrease in temperature and even light for photosynthesis due to the particulates ejected high into the atmosphere. Yet, nobody has mentioned any cooling effect from particulates resulting from satellite burnup in the atmosphere. Why not speculate about that, too?

And, what are the effects of UV + aluminum oxide (or other constituents of satellite ashes) on atmospheric CO2 concentrations? Other metal are used to catalyze CO2 reactions with UV. Are any of the products beneficial?

I am not going to waste any more of my time posing questions that may or may not have been investigated. All I intended to do is point out that the article seems to be assuming that any effect would have to be bad, and proposes a bunch of speculative mechanisms for being bad. Then it says we may have only 5 years to protect ourselves from whatever bad things will happen, whatever they might be. It just doesn't see like a balanced perspective.

 

[Meteoric Marmot]

The soot issue can be solved simply by requiring that all rockets use liquid hydrogen and oxygen for their propulsion. That then leaves the issue of what all that water vapour and ice crystals will do to the climate.

As for buildup of pollutants from re-entries, that too is solvable by requiring all satellites and rocket stages to have enough propellant to put themselves in a parking orbit that's high enough to not re-enter the atmosphere for at least a century. That would allow space tech enough time to figure out a permanent solution.

This won't happen because it would cost too much and humans have proven time and again that we value corporate profits more than human life.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I don't think there is a soot problem with liquid methane and oxygen, which is much easier to deal with than liquid hydrogen. And, the newer rockets seem to be going to liquid methane for fuel.

 

[Meteoric Marmot]

I don't think there is a soot problem with liquid methane and oxygen, which is much easier to deal with than liquid hydrogen. And, the newer rockets seem to be going to liquid methane for fuel.

There is a soot problem any time you burn a hydrocarbon and you can't guarantee 100% clean combustion. Methane is cleaner than more complex hydrocarbons, but soot is still a potential problem.

 

[Helio]

Yet, nobody has mentioned any cooling effect from particulates resulting from satellite burnup in the atmosphere. Why not speculate about that, too?

Agreed. Isn’t aluminum oxide white, thus offering some greater reflection?

 

[Meteoric Marmot]

Agreed. Isn’t aluminum oxide white, thus offering some greater reflection?

Alumina is Al2O3 and its optical properties depend on which crystal structure it forms. One crystal structure is clear and forms emerald, ruby, topaz, etc. depending on impurities.

Clear crystals (e.g. table salt) look white but aren't. I suspect that alumina would be largely reflective, but that's a guess. They might just pass most of the light and refract it in various directions.

However, regardless of the pollutants' effects on global warming, the specific concerns mentioned in the article are ozone depletion. What the mechanism is for this depletion isn't stated, which is rather poor reporting.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

"Rather poor reporting" was my issue from the beginning. Not only did the article merely speculate that there would be negative effects without providing any actual analysis, it completely ignored any potentials for beneficial effects. It was all speculation, and speculation with a bias.

Regarding always having soot from burning hydrocarbons. it is pretty hard to get soot from burning methane. People do in in their homes on a daily basis in kitchens and don't accumulate soot from it. And given that rockets are designed to be as efficient as possible, which means as complete combustion as possible, I doubt that methane powered rockets are more soot producing than kitchen stoves.

So, the post about "there must be some soot" also seems biased. The switch from kerosene is likely much cleaner with the new methane powered rockets. And, that is what I said. Trying to imply that there is still a soot problem seems biased, especially when the original accusation was so speculative to begin with.

"The sky is falling" is wearing thin as a journalistic and activist attention getting tactic. Show me "a piece of the sky", please. Otherwise, these things get put into the "Chicken Little" file.