space the final frontier?

Question

Am i the only one concerned about space flights. What happens to our atmosphere everytime a space rocket or shuttle goes into space.
We are being told time and time again about global warming can anyone tell me just how much is caused by rockets leaving our earth, and shuttles coming back

Answer 1

The answer is that spacecraft contribute so small a fraction to global warming it isn't signifigant. Here's some figures to show you why:

Last year (2006) there were a total of 68 rockets launchend into space world wide. The Shuttle flights (three) are the largest vehicles used currently. They use about 3.6 million pounds of fuel each. However, MOST of that is not emitted as Co2. Rocket fuels generally are among the cleanest fuels used.

But--for the sake of arguement, lets assume all of that was CO2 and that all the rockets were as large as the shuttle. That woudl add up to less than 250, 000 tons of CO2. But--the US burns enough fossil fuel each year to releas about 7 BILLION tons of CO2 into the atmosphere--28,000 times as much.

As forre-entries, while they generate heat, they don't release any CO2 into the atmosphere. and the problem isn't heat released--its that the CO2 is trapping that heat. But the heat released on reentry is far less than what the sun delivers to every square mile of the Earth's surface every year--in other words, not enough to matter--and far, far, less than evey a few hundred cars generate.

And--despite what many people seem to think, for that tiny amount of heat/CO2--we get enormous benefits. Weather satellites, Communications satellites, GPS technology, satellite TV and radio. Ohtther benefits less well known--much of our land-use and agricultural planning (and hence economic production) depends on satellites. And that's not even counting the technologiclal gains space travel provides (past examples include modern computer systems technology, fuel cells, solar energy, medical diagnostic technology, and composite materials like those used inthe new Boing 787.

Take that last. Aircraft generate hundreds of times the CO2 of the space launches. Those new materiels in the 787 cut that fuel use by 20%. That means that that one gain from space travel will soon cut the worldwide CO2 emissions by many times the amount generated by rockets going into space.

And--bear this in mind. We CAN'T bring CO2 emissions to zero--nor do we need to. We do need to cut them drastically--by at least 60%--perhaps more--in the next 50 years. But things like the space program--that have a high payoff ad that give us new technology that "pays for" the CO2 released--are exactly the places we need to invest more heavily in. The processes that continue to emit CO2 need to be just that sort of thing. Wher we need to look for reductions are the "waste" areas--inefficient cars and other devices, switching to alternatives when its feasible, etc. Keep what CO2 emissions we do allw for things where its really needed.

Answer 2

The answer from Crabby Blindguy (above) puts it nicely into perspective. The impact in terms of greenhouse gas emissions from space flight really is just a very tiny proportion of the total amount.

I know some people share a concern that the rockets and shuttles are knocking holes in the atmosphere. But this isn't something that people need worry about. A rocket flying into space pushes air out of the way as it travels just as we do when driving a car or walking down the street. As soon as the rocket moves on air rushes back in to fill the void and in this respect it's not causing any damage.

Answer 3

In the big picture a rocket taking off is a grain of sand on a beach and makes very little differents, the return flight is zero other commercial and none necessary military flight are another matter, you must realise that less than 10% of the planets population are doing anything about global warming, because they are what are classed as developing countries.

Answer 4

Take a look at what a current commercial airliner puts out and multiply that by over 20,000 flights per day. It's a scarry number. Aviation and the environment are on a collision course. The number of airline flights worldwide is growing and expected to skyrocket over the coming decades. Aircraft emissions pollute the air and threaten by 2050 to become one of the largest contributors to global warming, British scientists have concluded. Much remains unknown about climate change and the role aviation plays, though climate scientists express particular concern about jet emissions in the upper atmosphere, where the warming effect from some pollutants is amplified. Now, aviation is believed to be less a factor in the Earth's warming than power plants or vehicular traffic. But its emissions are considerable. On a New York-to-Denver flight, a commercial jet would generate 840 to 1,660 pounds of carbon dioxide per passenger. That's about what an SUV generates in a month. With the projected explosion in worldwide travel, air pollution from aviation is a growing concern among scientists, and it's drawing increased scrutiny from governments, particularly in Europe.

Answer 5

Shuttle flights are government funded activities performed by scientists. One of the goals is to install and maintain satellites that prove global warming. Therefore, any damage caused is acceptable. Same concept as Al Gore flying a private jet to Live Earth.

Answer 6

the respond from Crabby Blindguy (above) places it good into perspective. The influence in terms of greenhouse gas emissions from living house flight somewhat is barely an extremely tiny share of the finished volume. i comprehend some women folk and adult males human beings share a undertaking that the rockets and shuttles are knocking holes in the ambience. even though it is not despite that folk desire complication approximately. A rocket flying into living house pushes air out of the appropriate way with the aid of fact it travels purely as we do while using a motor vehicle or walking down the line. as quickly with the aid of fact the rocket strikes on air rushes returned in to fill the void and in this comprehend it somewhat is now no longer inflicting any harm.

Answer 7

Overall, not much. I would say about as much as any other international flight. It just the fuel is used in the first minutes instead of over 14 hours.

The landing is done by gliding, so no fuel is used. Thats why the shuttle has those big wings. Wings are not needed in space, they are needed for the gliding landing.

Answer 8

I have thought about this and I am of the same mind as you.

If an aeroplane is so bad for the environment then a rocket has to be a whole lot worse. Consider the power it takes to get one up and you cant begin to calculate the difference!

I think its bound to have a marked effect and I would be interested to know how many of them actually go up each year.

Answer 9

I would like a rocket a day sent to the Sun to dispose of all the enriched uranium waste, since that is the only place we could despose of the worst global pollutant, in 2050 it will not be Co2. thats the problem but radio activity polluting our water supply

Answer 10

Space rockets use a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen as fuel so the only waste their engines produce is water