Rockets And Ocean Pollution: What's The Real Damage?

Rocket launches are an integral part of the 21st-century world, but they also contribute to air pollution. The extent of pollution caused by rockets depends on the type of fuel used and the emissions generated during the launch. While the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere from rocket launches is relatively small compared to other polluting activities, the impact of rocket emissions on the Earth's climate and ozone layer is a growing concern. The production of rocket fuel and the re-entry of space debris also contribute to pollution. As the demand for space tourism and satellite services increases, the number of rocket launches is expected to rise, leading to a potential surge in rocket emissions.

The impact of rocket fuel production

Liquid hydrogen, for example, is a common fuel choice, but it is important to note that it is not naturally occurring and must be produced. The production process often involves the use of natural gas, which releases carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. Additionally, the process of cooling air to obtain liquid oxygen, another fuel component, requires a significant amount of electrical power, which can have environmental implications depending on the energy source.

Unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH), also known as "devil's venom," has been used as rocket fuel in the past, particularly in Soviet and Russian space programs. While UDMH has advantageous properties, such as not requiring a source of ignition and being stable at room temperature, it is highly carcinogenic and has caused severe ecological damage, including poisoning the soil in the Kazakh Steppe for decades. This example highlights the potential long-term consequences of rocket fuel production and the importance of considering fuel toxicity and environmental impact.

The production of solid rocket motors (SRMs) used in heavy-lift rockets, such as NASA's space shuttles, has also raised environmental concerns. The burning of aluminum and ammonia in SRMs results in the release of reactive chemicals like hydrochloric acid and aluminum oxide. These substances can mix with water used to cool the launch pad and rocket, affecting the surrounding environment, including soil and water quality, and damaging vegetation.

Additionally, the increased frequency of rocket launches and the projected growth in the space industry are expected to contribute to a surge in rocket engine emissions. While the impact on the global climate and ozone layer may vary depending on factors such as fuel type and launch location, emissions released at higher altitudes can have longer-lasting effects on the environment, including the ocean ecosystem.

In summary, the impact of rocket fuel production on the environment, including the ocean, is multifaceted and depends on various factors. The choice of fuel, the production processes, and the frequency of launches all play a role in determining the overall ecological footprint. While some fuels may have less measurable impacts, it is crucial to consider the long-term consequences and potential risks to the ocean and other natural habitats.

Climate change and ozone layer depletion

The Earth's atmospheric ozone has two major effects on the Earth's temperature balance. Firstly, it absorbs solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation, leading to the heating of the stratosphere. Secondly, it also traps heat in the troposphere by absorbing infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface. The ozone hole is an annual thin spot that forms in the stratospheric ozone layer over Antarctica in mid-September and October. When intact, the ozone layer blocks UV light, but when the ozone hole forms, more UV light than usual reaches the surface of the Earth. This has severe consequences for human and animal life, as well as plants and microbes. Long-term exposure to UV radiation causes skin cancer, eye diseases, and other health problems.

Ozone depletion is not a primary cause of climate change, but there is a physical science connection between the two phenomena. Ozone depletion in the stratosphere has had a negative radiative forcing impact, but anthropogenic increases in the tropospheric abundance more than offset this. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other halocarbons, which have caused ozone depletion, are strong greenhouse gases. The warming influence of the addition of these gases to the atmosphere has been greater than the net effect of anthropogenic changes in the amount of ozone.

The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol, which amended it, are considered successes in reducing ozone depletion. The Montreal Protocol, which was adopted in 1987 and entered into force in 1989, is considered one of the world's most successful environmental treaties. Thanks to the agreement, there has been a substantial reduction in ODSs emissions over the last two decades, and evidence suggests that the ozone layer is healing and may recover by the middle of this century. The Antarctic ozone hole is expected to close by the 2060s. Scientists have noted that ozone protection efforts have slowed climate change by avoiding an estimated 135 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions from 1990 to 2010.

Rocket launches are an integral part of the 21st-century world, but they do contribute to pollution and the acceleration of climate change. The fuel used by rockets produces emissions, and the production of this fuel also generates pollution. For example, liquid hydrogen, which was used to fuel Bezos's rocket, is made from natural gas and releases CO2 during production. The global space industry is experiencing a surge in the number of rockets launched, and this increase in rocket launches will lead to a proportional increase in rocket engine emissions. These emissions contain gases and particles that can affect the Earth's climate and ozone layer.

However, the impact of rocket emissions on the global climate and ozone layer is disputed. Some sources claim that the quantities of gas emissions from rockets, even at increased launch rates, do not significantly affect the global climate or ozone layer. In comparison, the percentage of fossil fuels burned by the space industry is only about 1% of that burned by conventional aviation. Additionally, the number of commercial rocket launches per year, currently around 70, is much lower than the number of aircraft launches. Nevertheless, at least three scientific research papers have been published this year on the impact of rocket emissions on the atmosphere, temperatures, and the ozone layer.

Pollutants in the upper atmosphere

The impact of rocket emissions on the atmosphere has been understudied, but the results of recent research suggest that it could have a significant impact on the Earth's climate. The number of rocket launches has been increasing, and with it, the amount of pollution. The pollution caused by rocket emissions can seem insignificant compared to other challenges, and the benefits of the space industry. However, the percentage of fossil fuels burned by the space industry is only about 1% of that burned by conventional aviation.

Rocket engines emit pollutants all the way from the Earth's surface to the mesosphere, and this pollution lasts longer than earthbound sources. The pollutants include the main climate-warming gas carbon dioxide, and black carbon or soot, which can affect Earth's climate and ozone layer. The warming efficiency of space tourism (soot) emissions is about 500 times greater than surface and aircraft sources of soot. The greatest impact of a decade of emissions on ozone occurs in the upper stratosphere in the northern high latitudes.

The impact of rocket emissions on the upper atmosphere is influenced by the type of fuel used. For example, the fuel UDMH (unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine) used by many rockets that blasted off from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, turned a large area of the Kazakh Steppe grassland into an ecological disaster zone. It was highly carcinogenic to humans and poisoned the soil for decades to come.

Hydrogen and oxygen fuel, on the other hand, produce only water vapour and incidental NOx production as emissions. However, there may be CO2 emissions associated with how the hydrogen fuel was produced. Similarly, liquid hydrogen is usually made from natural gas and releases CO2, while liquid oxygen requires a lot of electrical power for cooling air.

The environmental impact of space tourism

Rocket launches emit gases and particles that can affect Earth's climate and ozone layer. The emissions contain black carbon, or soot, which lasts longer in the atmosphere than earthbound sources of pollution. A 2022 study found that space tourism produces black carbon particles that are almost 500 times more efficient at warming the atmosphere than all surface and airline sources of soot combined. These particles remain in the atmosphere for four to five years, absorbing solar radiation and preventing it from reaching Earth. The increase in rocket launches is projected to expose people in the Northern Hemisphere to increased harmful UV radiation, as the ozone layer is depleted.

The impact of rocket launches on the environment is not limited to the launch itself. The production of rocket fuel and the creation of the rocket also contribute to the overall environmental impact. For example, liquid hydrogen, a common rocket fuel, is made from natural gas and releases CO2 during production.

The growth in demand for space tourism is expected to continue, with the industry preparing for a surge unlike any seen before. This will inevitably lead to an increase in rocket launches, and therefore, an increase in emissions. However, it is important to note that the aviation industry, with which space flight is often compared, is responsible for far more emissions. Innovations in launch technologies are also occurring rapidly, and it is difficult to make long-term predictions about their environmental impact.

Solid vs. liquid rocket fuel

There are two main types of rockets: liquid-fuel and solid-fuel. Liquid-fuel rockets consist of a fuel and an oxidizer (usually oxygen) in a liquid state. They are combined in a combustion chamber and ignited. The fuel flow can be controlled, and the amount of thrust produced can be regulated; the engine can also be turned on and off as needed.

Liquid-fuel rockets are more complicated and expensive to build. They require more specialized knowledge and equipment, which can be difficult to obtain in some parts of the world. They are, however, more reliable and safer to use because they can be shut down once started. They can also generate more power, making them better for larger payloads.

Solid-fuel rockets, on the other hand, consist of a fuel and oxidizer that are pre-mixed in a solid state. Once ignited, the resulting thrust cannot be regulated or stopped. Solid rockets are typically cheaper and easier to build than liquid rockets. They can be stored for long periods and used at a moment's notice, whereas liquids generally need to be fueled prior to launch.

Solid rockets are much less practical for most rocketry applications due to their lack of throttle control. However, with solid rockets, you can plan ahead and tailor your grain geometry to achieve your desired thrust profile. This gives you a surprising amount of control if you put the effort in.

The choice between a liquid or solid propellant rocket ultimately depends on the specific needs of the application. Neither type of rocket is inherently better than the other.

Frequently asked questions