It isn't Easy Being Green and Getting to LEO 322
MWTJ writes "The BBC has a story about the environmental impact of the space shuttle. One of the things that started the modern environmentalist movement were pictures of the Earth from space, so we could see the beauty of the planet as never before. We could also see environmental destruction from space. But what is the impact of the space program on our planet? The story talks about the switch to Freon-free insulation, the use of clean-burning hydrogen/LOX fuel, and other factors. What else could be done to get to space with minimal harm to the planet?"
Not much, that's how much. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Not much, that's how much. (Score:2)
Even with the US Shuttle program grounded, there are still lots of other launches. Especially abroad, like in Russia and by Europe. And now with China in the space race, Japan and Korea will be shooting for the titles shortly. India, everyone else who wants to perfect ballistic missile tech, impress their citizens and neighbors, and claim some of the exploitable space beyond their skyscrapers. That's a lot of launches.
Re:Not much, that's how much. (Score:2)
Um.. sorry.. (Score:2)
We should worry more about vinyl siding production for houses, cars, etc. Seriously, this is like optimizing the property page rendering code for blurring an image and not optimizing the blur. It'll be faster, but not by much. Hit the big-ticket pollution items before you belabor the horrors of the rarely occurring ones.
Being "a lot of launches" doesn't mean that it contributes to the m
Re:Um.. sorry.. (Score:2)
Re:Sarcasm (Score:2)
Re:Not much, that's how much. (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing is, a launch doesn't happen only every 3 or 4 years. Besides the space shuttle there are lots of military and commercial satellite launches courtesy of NASA, the US Air Force, the European Space Agency, the Russian Federal Space Agency and other new members of the club, like the People's Republic of China.
Tons of fumes and other chemicals are expended for successful launches but it's even worse when something goes wrong and rockets fall to the ground in pieces or are lost in the ocean. For a
Re:Not much, that's how much. (Score:2)
I'm not sure how recent that is, given that later in the same undated page I see:
That seems to hint at something pre-Columbia. In any case, aside from some
Pretty much right (Score:2)
Re:Not much, that's how much. (Score:3, Interesting)
Liquid Hydrogen is a bit difficult to prepare and store for use in commercial spaceflight, however. Anyone know how completely propane burns in a r
Re:Not much, that's how much. (Score:3, Informative)
Mass Driver (Score:2)
Re:Mass Driver (Score:2)
Re:Mass Driver (Score:2, Insightful)
Forget that. Taking off using a mass driver would be like using a railgun as your engine. Great, you take off but you blow a crater the size of Providence, RI in the Earth below by the time you reach orbit.
Re:Mass Driver (Score:2)
The thing is, you're thinking I meant having some type of mass driver on the spacecraft, right? Other way around - the spacecraft would be the bullet, as it were. No explosion, except perhaps the ice being vaporized on exit from the mouth of the rail. I've been rereading Heinlein's "Moon is a Harsh Mistress" this past weekend, so I did some reading up on mass drivers on wikipedia - check it out; interesting stuff.
Re:Mass Driver (Score:2)
Complaining about someone's
There's always the obvious: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:There's always the obvious: (Score:2, Funny)
but you just know that some asshole is going to hit all the buttons, and then it'll take a month to get to orbit.
Re:There's always the obvious: (Score:2)
1.) We know of no method to make the multi-kilometer long nanotubes necessary for the space elevator. We are not even close--we need a multi-order of magnitude breakthrough to make this happen.
2.) We just aren't looking for microgram lab quantities here. We would need to scale the synthesis of these mega-nanotubes to industrial levels to generate the thousands of t
CFC insulation == less polution from explosions? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:CFC insulation == less polution from explosions (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, as long as we can convince ourselves that they are crazy, we can pretend we aren't in the process of destroying the very environment that keeps us alive. Then we don't have to deal with the problems we caused! Yay!
Seriously, let's hope that you (and other people like you) can get their heads out of their asses before it's too late.
Re:CFC insulation == less polution from explosions (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:CFC insulation == less polution from explosions (Score:2)
This may just piss you off more, but there actually are valid points you may find "out there".
In fact, that's how science works. Quacks, the lot of em.
See ya later, I'm off to go hug a tree.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:CFC insulation == less polution from explosions (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:CFC insulation == less polution from explosions (Score:2)
Re:CFC insulation == less polution from explosions (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:CFC insulation == less polution from explosions (Score:2)
Well if they had unlimited time and money I am sure they could. The problem is they pretty much have to use "off the shelf" foam for the shuttle insulation. I have heard that the CFC foam is part of the problem with the shedding foam.
What it comes down it is this. Are the CFCs in the shuttles foam harmful? The truth is probably not. The heat of reentry probably destorys them long before they can get
Re:CFC insulation == less polution from explosions (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:CFC insulation == less polution from explosions (Score:2)
Keep space green (Score:2)
What can be more green than trees in space? Just make sure they are crewed by Ents.
Re:Keep space green (Score:2)
Informative! I did mean Ents, as I mangled a Tolkien reference into the "tree" topic. I had somehow forgotten entirely about those ergs "used to drive Treeships through space."
Burning Hippies! (Score:3)
A drop in the ocean? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't imagine that the costs of upgrading a $1.7 billion shuttle to make NASA's once-in-a-blue-moon launches more earth-friendly will be reasonable for taxpayers. Environmentalists looking for something to complain about should have no trouble finding a better outlet for their ire in corporate America than at NASA.
Re:A drop in the ocean? (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:A drop in the ocean? (Score:3, Informative)
[sigh]
The 'enviromentally friendly' foam is only used as acreage foam. The hand sprayed and shaped foam (used for both the bipod ramp that damaged Columbia and for the PAL ramp on the recent STS-114 launch) is still the old 'unfriendly' foam. The switch to a new foam had nothing to do with accident.
Re:A drop in the ocean? (Score:2)
the payback has probably benefited the environment (Score:3, Informative)
If you took the derivatives of all we have learned and developed from the space race I would say overall the planet is much better for it. Space flight requires all sorts of inventiveness and efficiency. These techniques and ideas spin off eventually into the consumer world to benefit everyone.
Re:A drop in the ocean? (Score:2)
Re:Why the space shuttle? (Score:2)
External tank = 51,000 cubic feet x 12 launches per year (optimistic)
~= 6e5 cubic feet of fuel / year
my car = 10 gallon fillup x 52 fills
~= 70 cubic feet
So a shuttle ~= 9000 cars
Preposterous (Score:5, Insightful)
As stated in the comments to the article on the bottom of the page, underground fires and about a bazillion other natural sources have more of an environmental impact than the shuttle. If anything, industries and the world's large polluters ought to learn from the efficiency of NASA wiht regard to abusing/respecting the environment.
Re:Preposterous (Score:2)
Maybe the cost was one space shuttle??
Re:Preposterous (Score:4, Informative)
OV-103 Discovery
OV-104 Atlantis
OV-105 Endeavour
A total of five space-ready orbiters were built. The missing two are:
OV-102 Columbia
OV-099 Challenger
(I leave it to a fellow geek to tell me why Challenger's number looks wrong).
OV-101 was Enterprise which was built for approach and landing tests only. A conversion to space-readiness was considered, but in the end was never done.
Re:Preposterous (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Preposterous (Score:2)
There was no OV-100.
Re:Preposterous (Score:4, Informative)
Enterprise, after being displayed at the 1984 Paris Air Show, and other places, and being used for miscellaneous tests, was put into storage in Washington, D.C.
Only recently was room available to place it on public display, and that only because a new building was built to house it and other items.
Re:Preposterous (Score:3, Informative)
[sigh]
The 'enviromentally friendly' foam is only used as acreage foam. The hand sprayed and shaped foam (used for both the bipod ramp that damaged Columbia and for the PAL ramp on the recent STS-114 launch)
Re:Preposterous (Score:2)
Re:Preposterous (Score:3, Informative)
Volume I also talks briefly about this issue (describing with pictures which areas of foam on the shuttle tank are what formulation) on pages 51 and 129.
In specific answer to your comment, the
Environmentally friendly? (Score:2)
So is the hydrogen/LOX fuel commercially produced in an environmentally friendly manner? How about the new insulation?
Re:Environmentally friendly? (Score:2)
The cleaning is needed because some of what gets refined out of the oil is sulfer,
Two Words: (Score:2)
Re:Two Words: (Score:2)
For crying out loud (Score:4, Interesting)
Why is it we never actually care about the environment except at times that it's stupid to do so? Oh noes, think what nuclear power could do to the environment under extreme and unlikely circumstances that can be totally avoided with a modicum of competent regulation! We'd better avoid that and stick with the huge belching coal plants built in the 1970s and grandfathered in from the time before emission controls, that's sooo much more ecologically friendly.
Re:For crying out loud (Score:2)
If you're feeding that to your cows, no wonder we have problems... ;-)
Re:Oh no! Nuclear power and propulsion fears! (Score:3, Informative)
AIAA (Score:2)
PDF of the article: http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimage
Start by going into space. (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Get to space.
As long as you're stuck on this step, you're going to have to have an entire planet's worth of heavy industries, energy generation, and resource extraction being performed on the surface of said planet.
Arguing about the "greenness" of space exploration is like someone having a heart attack deciding not to call an ambulance because being a passenger in a vehicle that's going faster than the posted speed limits in city streets is a health hazard.
Re:Start by going into space. (Score:2)
Re:Start by going into space. (Score:3, Interesting)
The earth, however, is something special, and should be protected much more than it is now. The earth has myriad forms of life, and varied ecologies. Space is mostly lifeless rocks. If we could easily dump all our pollution on some lifeless planetoid, I'd be all for it.
What's your timescale? (Score:5, Interesting)
A space elevator (always popular on /.) would be about the cheapest way up in theory provided you write of the energy cost of building the damn thing over a long lifetime.
Still, I think the posts and articles about the environmental impact of the Shuttle are mostly crap. Cars that do 40mpg instead of 20mpg on an urban-cycle would have much more positive impact on the environment. Using the heat from power station cooling systems to heat offices/factories in local areas would do more. Recycling your plastic, glass bottles, cans, and paper would do more.
Nasty as the perchlorate SRBs are, they're worth the inconvenience if NASA can use them to build (say) a 100 ton heavy launcher to replace the Shuttle.
Re:What's your anti-timescale? (Score:2)
Even the strongest *individual* SWNT tubes tested thusfar were around 60GPa, and our best nanotube epoxies and ropes are perhaps 1-2GPa. Most space elevator designs call for >100GPa to be realistic.
There are lines that can be investigated, of course, that may *eventually* yield strong enough materials (for example, pressure-induced interlinking and extremely uniform, single-type CNTs). But don't hold your breath.
Um yeah, (Score:5, Insightful)
The path to hell is paved with good intentions..
Re:Um yeah, (Score:2)
It doesn't matter yet (Score:2)
But we'd better sort out something a bit 'greener' before we are all blasting off for 2 weeks holiday on the sea of tranquility
Stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
pay no attention to the man behind the curtain (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sorry, but this is the same argument used with why we need to be driving hydrogen cars, and it irritates the shit out of me.
Skipping over the solid rocket boosters as cheerfully as the article summary did- perhaps Professor Fraser would care to explain to us where all the hydrogen and oxygen came from?
If you do the math in terms of the energy produced, and realize that both distillation-by-refridgeration and electrolysis are hugely inefficient, you start to realize the amount of energy required to make all that hydrogen and oxygen is incredible. Chemical methods involve pretty toxic chemicals, so you're not getting out of it that way. Guess how most of our (United States) electricity is supplied? That's right- coal. Which generates huge amounts of carbon soot, carbon dioxide, and radioactive particulate.
I noticed that they also skipped quite nicely over hydrazine [wikipedia.org], used in the thrusters...
Re:pay no attention to the man behind the curtain (Score:2)
Re:pay no attention to the man behind the curtain (Score:2)
Heellloo nitrogen combustion in the exhaust stream!
That said, it really isn't a big deal currently (due mostly to low launch numbers) and we are moving away from the toxic fuels... which brings me tooooo:
I love space etc etc. NASA fucked up (ha, there's a new one) when they decided to continue to use the SRBs for the next gen launcher. Probably costs as much to transport them from Utah to Florida than it would to fuel u
Re:pay no attention to the man behind the curtain (Score:2)
Re:pay no attention to the man behind the curtain (Score:2)
Your other two options are way overpriced. Not that I don't wish it were the case that they weren't... but they currently ar
Re:pay no attention to the man behind the curtain (Score:2)
Unfortunately, it is impossible to capture all of the solar energy that falls on Earth and convert it to power. Today, the best solar cells that you can purchase are
Re:pay no attention to the man behind the curtain (Score:2)
I wouldn't expect cheap oil again, but I wouldn't expect anything radical.
Re:pay no attention to the man behind the curtain (Score:2)
I know! (Score:2)
New launch site (Score:2)
So you're proposing that space launches be made from near Andrews AFB from now on?
Disruptive technology (Score:2)
However it is generally acknowledged that the organisational imperatives of NASA are too conservative to disseminate or even use the new technology to reduce its environmental impact.
However there is plenty of hope that the competitions that are open to speculative developers will both find disruptive technologies f
Go for Maximum Efficiency (Score:5, Interesting)
Also Go for Maximum Economy (Score:3, Interesting)
Due to high acceleration, electromagnetic launchers are probably not the best choice for launching humans or delicate equipment. Rockets are likely to be cheaper for this for the time being. In order to have a launcher which would be useful for human launches, the launcher would have to be very long, and thus very expensive. However, a launcher wh
Go nuclear (Score:3, Interesting)
Tether snatch (Score:2)
Some of the work on high-tensile fiber is headed there now.
Large clouds at liftoff are mostly water steam (Score:3, Interesting)
Watch launch footage carefully and you will be able to see that the clouds mentioned begin to appear at that point. While some of them are deflected exhaust from the aluminum perchlorate fuel used for the solid rocket boosters, most of the big clouds are actually water steam.
This can be confirmed by looking at footage of liquid-fuelled rocket launches. Liquid fuel doesn't produce those big visible trails the way solid fuel does -- the clouds are visible only at first and the rocket itself has no trail as long as it has no solid boosters. (The shuttle does indeed lose its trail after SRB separation, as do Deltas and Titans and others).
Easy: www.spaceelevator.com (Score:2)
Being more environmentally friendly than conventional rockets wasn't even mentioned as a space elevator advantage. And yes - we do now have the technology in place to build it, for less than the cost of a shuttle replacement.
All we need is somebody in power to sign off on the program and put this into high gear.
Environmental Impact of the BBC is Greater! (Score:2, Insightful)
Equilibrium of Matter (Score:2)
It's just like logging, so I'm sure all the environmentalists will agree with me on this one.
Have there been any NASA spinoffs since "Tang"? (Score:2)
Well, at least I've got my Tang and my pen that can write upside-down.
Re:Have there been any NASA spinoffs since "Tang"? (Score:2)
Perhaps the reason you don't see many spinoffs from the space program is that they are literally all around you. You can't see the forest for the trees, so to speak. Miniaturization is often quoted, and it is quite true. There are many other examples, many in medicine and industry.
I think [thespaceplace.com] there may be [seds.org] a few things [nasa.gov] you have [stanford.edu] overlooked [sbnt.jinr.ru] but [space.com]
Enviromental friendly space travel? (Score:2)
Would that be the Freon-free insulation ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Would that be the Freon-free insulation ... (Score:2)
Well, as there were chunks of foam breaking loose on basically *every* *other* STS mission before STS-114, including the ones the less enviromental-friendly foam was used, how exactly do you link the freon-free foam to the loss of Columbia?
Re:Would that be the Freon-free insulation ... (Score:3, Informative)
Waste of resources... (Score:2)
Space flight is so rare compared to airplane, automobiles, steel plants, etc. as to be almost insignificant.
Wouldn't it be better to worry about things that actually effect the enviornment?
what about environmental CONSTRUCTION? (Score:2)
The shuttle doesn't have the ability to monitor ground effects the way satellites do and the woman is the pilot. They're orbiting the earth every couple of hours or so.
Her comment wasn't scientific in any way, it was political and based on junk science.
If it were scientific, she would have commented on land reclamation, creation from various dredging operations and erosion control. Did she truly explain th
"Pollution"? We'll Show You Pollution! (Score:2)
One way trips (Score:2)
What we really need to find is the minimal long term cost track to establishing independently viable industrial societies off this planet.
The environmental cost to the only environment which actually matters, the earth's biosphere, of keeping returning space travellers alive for the rest of their days on earth will at some point exceed the cost to the earth of keeping them ali
Damn Tree huggers! (Score:2)
Huh? Is this chick for real? Scientists have been studying the atmosphere for decades, and yet have a _very_ small understanding of the dynamics of our Earth and especially it's atmosphere. I live in central Florida, if Earth Scientists knew more, I would not have been beat up by THREE MAJOR hurricanes
Project Orion (Score:3, Informative)
Orion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion [wikipedia.org]
The basic idea with the shuttle is right (Score:3, Interesting)
As I see it, the part that has the most impact on the environment and as well is the most critical part today are the solid fuel boosters.
One feature that could be used for the light shuttle is to have a launch vehicle that carries and accelerates the shuttle to a speed and altitude where the rockets can work best. By using ordinary jet engines for the first step you wouldn't need to carry the oxygen for the first stage, which is a major weight contribution.
This will of course require several different design issues to be solved, but since Burt Rutan [scaled.com] has done this (on a sub-orbital scale) it isn't impossible.
If the carrier would be able to go supersonic before the release of the shuttle it would be even better, but then there are a lot of issues to take into account like interfering shock waves occuring at separation. A lot of fun for those guys that like extreme calculations! :->