Tell me why I shouldn't be concerned about thousands of starships launching from Earth and emitting multiple megatons of Carbon Dioxide in the fragile upper atmosphere? Some studies indicate emissions here are significantly more impactful, and can also damage the Ozone layer as well.
Any answers shouldn't consist of "well it's a fraction of what the aviation industry emits" because _the entire point_ of Starship is to scale-up to aviation-like operations.
Yes, because the "charge forward and worry about the consequences later" mantra has proven so historically successful over the past 100 years when it comes to environmental stewardship. CFC's, HFC's, PFAS, leaded fuel, and abundant plastic waste are proof we definitely know what we're doing when it comes to ensuring we don't pollute our planet or ourselves, right? The science on this remains novel precisely because the idea of launching hundreds of rockets a day was inconceivable even 10 years ago.
You want more specifics, I take it?
* It's been well known for decades that high-altitude supersonic flight damages the ozone layer significantly faster than conventional aircraft. New Scientist, 1997 [1]
* More recently, concerning reentries of spacecraft: Atmospheric impacts of the space industry require oversight, Nature, 2022 [2]
Our upper atmosphere is fragile and contains the bulk of the ozone layer that protects us all from skin cancer and being bathed in brutal ultraviolet radiation. You willing to risk it because "space is cool"?
So pretty much just vague references to some studies? Your second reference link is literally just the title of a study and you cite nothing directly from it.
For the first study, you have conveniently focused on "supersonic flight" as the issue which is not the fundamental issue cited in the article (link isn't working for me, btw, I had to google it find it myself). The fundamental issue is in aircraft fuel and the sulphur based impurities it carries. Starship burns Methane and LOX. In general, these fuels (fuel and oxidizer) are typically kept as pure as possible and are unlikely to contain much more than trace sulphur impurities as there removal is a standard and well followed practice.
So for full clarity, your argument as presented here is completely without merit and it looks like your first study was intentionally presented in a way to obfuscate its extremely tenuous link to the issue at hand.
As an aside, you're also quite focused on your mood affiliation with the topic, doing things like asserting the motivation of those you reply to without any evidence (eg 'You willing to risk it because "space is cool"?'). This won't help you think clearly about a topic.
A wholly reductionist comment that misstates my opinions. Believe it or not I think there’s an optimal space between the environmental conservatism I’m espousing and charging forward into an unregulated and environmentally destructive bliss that doesn’t result in being opposed to any form of new development ever.
Because you should consider the upside when you mention the downsides. 1000 Starships launching a year can mean exoplanet imaging, drilling on Europa, interstellar probes, an actual Mars colony, asteroid mining, brilliant pebbles, O'Neil cylinders, L1 solar shields, space junk removal and so on. Not all at the same but each of these is a project that is potentially feasible with enough mass in orbit. I'm not saying you have to like or care about any of them but you should consider what you actually gain for all that emitted CO2.
I agree space is cool. But why do you think the "space is cool" mantra is more important than ensuring that for the 8 billion humans that call this planet home—we have somewhere sustainable and safe to live?
Your asteroid mining for profit is arguably meaningless if we have no ozone layer.
So Starship+Superheavy have about 4.6kt of propellant which should mean about 1kt of methane. That's about 2.5kt CO2 per flight which yields 2.5mt CO2 annually for 1000 launches. The US releases around 4.4Gt CO2 annually so you end up with around 0.05% of US emissions. I actually thought it would be more so I hope I didn't miss an order of magnitude somewhere. Quick search says US airliners release less than about 200mt annually so you're looking at less than 2.5% of that.
Annually about 850 million people fly in the US so if you imagine a Starship flight having 100 passengers then in some weird way flying with Starship is maNe about 200 times more CO2 intensive than flying with a plane.
Now high-altidude effects would increase the greenhouse effect of these emissions by some factor I don't know. At the same time a large amount of fuel is actually burned by the booster at below airliner altitudes. Another mitigating effect is that some of this methane could be produced renewably.
I haven't heard about Ozone depletion from spaceflight except for the case of reentering Aluminum burning up. Well this wouldn't be an issue with Starship flights.
So you know overall, let's just give it a lot of conservative margin and imagine we are looking at about 10% of the US airline or 0.2% of total US greenhouse impact. That is on the scale of a whole new industry, yes, but if you can imagine a world which has attained a sustainable rquilibirum surely you can also imagine one which has a bit of margin left? And this is only for the US!
What do you gain? Three of the points I mentioned have potential direct benefit for people.on earth: asteroid mining, L1 solar shield and brilliant pebbles.
Asteroid mining "for profit" also means that the economy profits, unless you believe that capitalism doesn't work. I read that less than 200t platinum are produced annually. Say your asteroid mining crashes that economy. I found some figure of 20kt of CO2 for each ton, so 4mt in total. That is more than your 1000 launches emit! Now my calculations are of course wrong but it seems plausible that the orders of magnitude could match. So you should definetly consider that your asteroid mining operations might stop other mining operations from happening which reduces your greenhouse impact.
Then you have the solar shield. It is certainly possible, although of course difficult and has some risk. But it's good to have a backup plan, no?
Thank you. I don’t know how right or wrong your calculations are but thanks for putting the numbers together. It would be greatly reassuring to see that something similar or a proper environmental impact study has been done for a massive project like starship and shared with the public. It will also be cool to see if more efficient way of propulsion fuel could be discovered for these launches. Progress can be mindful and sustainable.
Why isn't SpaceX doing that then? Why isn't any airline doing that then? Oh look, it's cheaper to use refined natural gas from a well. That's why. In the absence of either properly priced externalities, the market will always choose the cheapest option—Sabatier-generated Methane is not remotely comparable in price to fossil nat gas.
Mentioning theoretical solutions doesn't help if they will never be used practically.
Aircraft use hydrocarbons which require similarly intensive chemical processes to create the fuels from the same constituent ingredients as the Sabatier reaction.
Satellites are significantly more metal-rich than meteors—also it's clear with Starship and multiple large (10,000+) satellite constellations that the total deorbited mass annually is only going to grow.
(2) Jeff Bezos is not a 'little player', he goes out of his way to invite comparison (in a positive sense) between SpaceX and Blue Origin.
(3) I'm super happy that SpaceX exists and I sincerely hope that Blue Origin will shape up and starts to put stuff in orbit rather than to play the 'space tourism' angle. It seems rather frivolous to start off with manned space flight when you normally speaking cut your teeth - and derisk your design - using many useful unmanned launches until you get it all to work reliably and safely. Going 'up and down' does not seem all that impressive, even though of course it is plenty complicated but it is all relative to what others are doing.
(4) I can't stand hype. And to me Blue Origin is hyping for all it is worth. For now they're Armadillo Space on steroids time will tell how they will fare. Until then these test flights test stuff that matters but not nearly at the level that Blue Origin makes it out to be.
Finally, to avoid stepping on sensitive toes: nothing in this comment is meant as disparaging to employees of Blue Origin, SpaceX, Rocket Lab, ULA, Ariane Space or any other group of people that are working to get mass of this planet, the more the merrier regardless of how much a project works out or not I wished I was younger and had more of a physics background so I could contribute. So I'm relegated to watching this development and it is the most excited I've been since I was 4 years old and saw the first man on the moon. I don't think I've missed a launch in the last year or two.
>If that's your takeaway then I think there isn't much point starting a debate with you but on the off chance that that is what you are looking for:
You may not know this, but the user you're responding to has historically been one of the more prominent SpaceX fanboys on the internet. (Formerly most active mod of /r/SpaceX)
Nobody's questioning whether you supported SpaceX then. But don't let your past cheerleading of the now-frontrunner preclude you from supporting the promising newcomers now. Space is big enough for many players.
>(2) Jeff Bezos is not a 'little player', he goes out of his way to invite comparison (in a positive sense) between SpaceX and Blue Origin.
Good. If SpaceX is his role model, he's sure to set his sights high.
>(3) I'm super happy that SpaceX exists and I sincerely hope that Blue Origin will shape up and starts to put stuff in orbit rather than to play the 'space tourism' angle. It seems rather frivolous to start off with manned space flight when you normally speaking cut your teeth - and derisk your design - using many useful unmanned launches until you get it all to work reliably and safely. Going 'up and down' does not seem all that impressive, even though of course it is plenty complicated but it is all relative to what others are doing.
Blue Origin just completed an absolutely massive rocket factory in KSC's Exploration Park. Their (ambitious, oxygen-rich staged combustion methalox) orbital-class rocket engine will complete testing this year, bound for use both on their own SHLV-class orbital New Glenn as well as ULA's Vulcan in 2020. Meanwhile, with New Shepard they've perfected their hydrogen BE-3 (to be modified for vacuum work as the BE-3U) and will soon gain experience with flying crew. That's more meaningful than you let on — crew capsule development is a very long process. Dragon started development in 2004, 15 years before it will fly crew. New Glenn will start with dozens of unmanned payloads — crewed flights aren't expected until 7-8 years down the line. (And they'll presumably still need to develop their own orbital capsule.)
>(4) I can't stand hype. And to me Blue Origin is hyping for all it is worth.
SpaceX is built on hype. Hype precedes accomplishment, by nature.
>For now they're Armadillo Space on steroids time will tell how they will fare. Until then these test flights test stuff that matters but not nearly at the level that Blue Origin makes it out to be.
You say that as if it's a bad thing. Armadillo is one of the most profoundly impactful companies in all of spaceflight history — there's a direct line from Carmack's VTVL work to SpaceX's booster landings. Nobody disputes that Blue Origin is many years behind SpaceX, and their "top-down" approach can be criticized and contrasted with SpaceX's "bottom-up" approach, but their accomplishments so far should not be understated — they are at least as impressive as SpaceX's Grasshopper and F9R work. And they're low single-digit years away from leapfrogging every competitor besides SpaceX into low-cost partially-reusable heavy-lift flight.
This last bit is what is so exciting! I think they may even come out ahead on re-usability. And I'm not a BFR fan frankly - the whole going around earth on a rocket - blah. Automated planes or something first please!
It is if you are a programmer. Must everything be locked down and controlled by a corporation for our safety? Are you aware of any issues this has caused on Android?
Possibly inadvisable, but you can disable SIP in High Sierra by using `csrutil` from the recovery OS (kind of moot, admittedly, as you'll need to be in recovery to trash the files that the author has mentioned, but you can at least make this setting permanent if you're willing to live with SIP disabled).
> And with Clover bootloader, it's even easier than it's ever been
And it's about to start getting far more difficult too. In my opinion, we've reached "peak hackintosh". Now with additional features which run on ARM chips and custom hardware complementing macOS more and more, it's going to become increasingly untenable to replicate the full experience going forward.
TouchID & TouchBar with BridgeOS on the MacBooks was the first step. Hey Siri on the iMac Pro is the next rung up. How long until we see FaceID on the Mac, or much further down the road, macOS running on ARM?
My current Macbook has TouchID. It's just about the most useless thing they could do to a programmer's keyboard. The keyboard action sucks too. I wanted to go with the most recent release though, so I kept it.
::message typed from a glorious clicky-clicky keyboard with well broken-in MX blues::
There's two JS libraries using the term "ristretto", we've all heard of mocha. "espresso" seems to be a disused node.js tooling library, similarly, "flat white" is a disused CMS, "latte" is a failed CoffeeScript competitor. "Americano" seems to be a slightly more used tooling repository.
I guess the less than inspiring names "short black" and "long black" are available? :)
Any answers shouldn't consist of "well it's a fraction of what the aviation industry emits" because _the entire point_ of Starship is to scale-up to aviation-like operations.