In reference to global warming, isnt it true that NASA 's rocket launches deplete most of the ozone layer??

Question

If so, then why isnt more being done to protect our environment??

Answer 1

1. Ozone depletion and global warming are separate phenomena. There is next to no connection between them apart from the fact that they both involve the atmosphere. Ozone depletion is mostly caused by Freon, a refrigerant developed in the 1920s or 1930s to replace the toxic and inflammable ammonia. Until the 1970s it was also used as a propellant in aerosol cans because it was non-toxic and non-flammable. Ozone depletion only affects the upper portion of the atmosphere. It's effect on ozone is catalytic rather than reactive so a little goes a very long way. While Freon is a good greenhouse gas it is present in very small and diminishing amounts and contributes very little to any greenhouse effect.

2. Global warming is thought to be caused in part by accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - throughout all levels of the atmosphere. Anyone who tells you that carbon dioxide is not accumulating is LYING. I have personally measured increase in CO2 from 320ppm in 1976 to 345ppm in about 1988. Even the 320 was up from 300 measured (by others) in the middle 1960s. Recent measurements say 360ppm. That is a 20% increase in about 40 years.

3. The effect on the atmosphere of rocket launches pales beside that of thousands of aircraft clawing their way into the sky at every large and middling airport from Atlanta to Zanzibar, every day of every year. That's not to mention cars, trucks, ships, trains and power stations. Your local shopping mall probably does more damage than NASA ever did.

4. What is the fuel used in the space shuttle main tank? Hydrogen. What is the oxidant? Oxygen. Product - water. Not regarded as an environmental contaminant in most places.

Answer 2

You disregarded to cite the area of the article that confirms that there is very much of variability interior the ozone layer, Dana. "Dr Paul Fraser is from CSIRO's Marine and Atmospheric analyze branch. He says at the same time as scientists trust the hollow is shrinking, its length does decision from 12 months to 12 months. "the most important motive force of the 12 months-to-12 months variability interior the ozone hollow are stratospheric temperatures, and this became an quite warmth 12 months interior the stratosphere," he reported. "once you've a warmth stratosphere, the tactics that damage ozone at the same time with the CFCs (chloro fluoro carbon) are a lot less powerful, and so that you finally end up with a fairly small ozone hollow. "So the 12 months to 12 months variability is determined by the temperature adjustments, yet they're superimposed on a lengthy-time period vogue and we predict of it really is heading interior the right route in the route of eventual ozone restore, yet it really is going to take a lengthy time period." He says the very shown truth that CFCs (ozone depleting elements) were phased out has helped the problem." i'm no longer arguing that CFC's influence ozone concentrations. CFC's can damage very much of ozone for the duration of its lifetime. yet, there continues to be very much of variability in ozone in the course of the 12 months. that there's a particular quantity of variability isn't the first piece of training that human beings have a tendency to put up.

Answer 3

Rocket fuel is not the same as car fuel. Rocket fuel, in the case of the Shuttle's main engines is liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. When these combust they create water, and several other hydrogen/oxygen compounds. The shuttles solid rocket use a mixture of aluminum powder, ammonium perchlorate, polymers, and a few other things. The combustion of these yields many compounds, and only some are considered ODC's (O-zone depleting chemicals).

NASA does all it can to protect the environment and still continue to explore space. Rocket fuel burns relatively clean compared to gasoline or other petroleum based fuels.

To give you an example of NASA's environmental commitment:

I work for a NASA contractor. We use many solvents and chemicals in the development of our rockets. Some of these are ODC's. Over the past 10 years, we have almost completely phased out the use of all ODC's used in our processes, and we will continue to do so for the sake of the environment. NASA and its contractors are just as committed, if not more committed, to environmental concerns as anyone.

If you want to worry about the environment, turn your eyes to the military... whose jets, hum-V's, missiles, and waste does more to pollute the enviornment than NASA could ever do. And that's just government... look around at people. Companies like mine are kept in check by the EPA. People aren't.

Answer 4

The primary source of ozone layer depletion is CFCs, chemicals that used to be found in aerosol cans and air conditioners, but since we're not using those chemicals any more (in the US), the ozone hole is beginning to slowly repair itself.

Ozone layer depletion isn't directly related to global warming. The primary factor in global warming is an increase in carbon dioxide (CO_2) in the air, caused by things like burning fossil fuels and deforestation, both of which are caused by humans.

Answer 5

Rocket engine exhaust contains chemical compounds that react with ozone in the stratosphere. A new measurement program suggests that current space transportation activities only minimally affect Earth's protective ozone layer.

Answer 6

Yeah, have no doubt the ammount of fule it takes to get into space isn't good for the environment.

But honestly, it's a drop in the bucket and it's for a good reason. Before you start picking NASA appart, stop driving down to the 7/11 to get a slushi.

And god forbid anyone be concerned with the environment, let's all mock him! (sarcasm) If you don't care, fine. Why don't you sign your name here so, when the planet's unhabitable and we have to relocate in a couple hundred years, we know who's lineage to leave here to rot?

Answer 7

Do you have any statistics to support this, or did you make that up? I highly doubt that rocket launch pollution is any more than a fraction of the total. Cars, planes and power plants would likely be a much larger source of pollution.

Answer 8

That thing pumps out pollution at a rate of over a million cars in a one week period in about 20 minutes

Answer 9

No it's not true.

The environment is fine.... Relax Mr. Gore.

Answer 10

>No.<