Spaceships And Pollution: What's The Deal?

The prospect of space tourism and exploration has sparked concerns about the environmental impact of spaceships and rockets. The space industry, led by billionaires like Elon Musk, Richard Branson, and Jeff Bezos, is set to grow rapidly, with companies like SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, and Blue Origin planning hundreds of launches and space flights annually. This raises questions about the pollution caused by spaceships and whether it contributes to global warming and ozone layer depletion. The propellants used by rockets contain pollutants such as carbon dioxide, chlorine, sulfuric compounds, and nitrogen oxides, which can lead to acid rain and harm marine life, trees, and other living organisms. The debris and space junk left in orbit also pose a significant problem, with the potential for collisions and the creation of more space debris. While some argue for the need to transition to green fuels and closed-loop fuel cycles, the exact implications of propellant emissions on the climate remain unclear, requiring further study.

Rocket fuel emissions

The rocket industry has been criticised for its contribution to air pollution. The most common rocket fuels are highly refined forms of kerosene, known as Rocket Propellant-1 (RP-1) or liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. RP-1 is popular because it is cheaper, stable at room temperature, and not dangerously explosive. However, it is also a fossil fuel and produces soot (black carbon) and carbon dioxide when burned. Soot is a significant contributor to global warming, with rocket soot estimated to contribute 3% of global warming caused by soot emissions.

Other common rocket fuels include methane, hydrogen, and solid rocket fuel. Solid rocket boosters are considered the dirtiest form of rocket propulsion, producing over 85% of the thrust of the rocket at takeoff. SpaceX's Starship runs on liquid natural gas, which is almost pure methane. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, estimated to be 80 times more warming than carbon dioxide over its lifetime. However, SpaceX plans to develop a non-fossil-fuel methane source using the Sabatier Process, which would make the fuel cycle a closed loop, sourcing CO2 from the atmosphere.

Several new rocket engines, including SpaceX's Raptor and the European Space Agency's Prometheus engine, have been designed to use gas as a fuel because it has a higher performance than other fuels, meaning the rocket can be smaller and produce less soot when launched. Its lower cost means the price of a rocket launch can be reduced, too. Several rocket start-ups are experimenting with sustainable alternatives to RP-1, such as bio-propane, a renewable biofuel created as a waste product from biodiesel production. Orbex's rocket is estimated to produce 90% fewer emissions than an RP-1-fuelled launch and less soot. Virgin Orbit is also looking into the use of sustainable rocket fuels.

The impact of rocket emissions is not just about how much they pollute but also where they pollute. Rocket launches, discarded satellites, and bathroom waste from the International Space Station burning up when re-entering Earth's atmosphere can cause pollution above 20 km altitude. This includes the release of nitrogen oxides, alumina particles, and chlorine, which deplete the ozone. Scientists have also found the stratosphere is peppered with particles containing metals vaporised from the re-entry of satellites and rocket boosters.

Overall, the percentage of fossil fuels burned by the space industry is only about 1% of that burned by conventional aviation. However, with the increasing frequency of rocket launches and the scaling up of companies like SpaceX, there is concern about the accumulation of effects on the environment.

Space debris

The accumulation of space debris poses significant risks and challenges. Firstly, the high speeds at which many of these objects travel, often reaching 18,000 miles per hour, make them extremely dangerous to other spacecraft and property in space and on Earth. The deliberate destruction of spacecraft, such as the Chinese Fengyun-1C in 2007, and accidental collisions, like the 2009 incident between an American and a Russian spacecraft, have significantly contributed to the space debris problem. These incidents alone increased the large orbital debris population in LEO by approximately 70%, elevating the risks of collisions for other spacecraft in this orbit.

The lack of international space laws and the high cost of removing space debris further complicate the issue. As of 2014, most proposed plans and technologies for addressing space debris were still theoretical, and there was no business case for debris reduction. Institutional factors, such as political, legal, economic, and cultural considerations, also hinder the cleanup of near-Earth space. Additionally, there is little commercial incentive to address the problem, as there is no cost assigned to polluters.

The impact of space debris extends beyond the physical risks to spacecraft and property. When space debris re-enters the Earth's atmosphere, it can burn up and contribute to air pollution. This process of vaporization is not fully understood, and the resulting dust production can contain various metals and pollutants that affect the Earth's atmosphere. The increasing number of rocket launches and atmospheric reentries contribute to this issue, with the proliferation of satellite "mega constellations" playing a significant role.

Addressing the issue of space debris requires a collaborative effort and innovative solutions. NASA's Orbital Debris Program, established in 1979, focuses on developing methods to create less orbital debris and designing equipment to track and remove existing debris. While space junk is not the responsibility of a single country, it is a challenge that requires the cooperation of all spacefaring nations.

Environmental impact of space tourism

The environmental impact of space tourism is a growing concern for scientists and researchers. While the industry is still in its infancy, with only a handful of companies offering space flights, the potential for future environmental damage is significant.

Space tourism has been criticised for its enormous carbon footprint. A Virgin Galactic flight, for example, generates emissions equivalent to a ten-hour transatlantic commercial flight. However, a commercial flight would carry hundreds of passengers, whereas the Virgin Galactic flight has a passenger limit of six, resulting in a per-person carbon emission of 4.5 tonnes—more than twice the recommended annual individual carbon budget according to the Paris Agreement. Furthermore, the soot particles emitted by rockets during launch are almost 500 times more efficient at holding heat in the atmosphere than all other sources of soot combined, according to a 2022 study by researchers from UCL, the University of Cambridge, and MIT. These black carbon particles can remain in the upper atmosphere for four to five years, absorbing solar radiation and preventing it from reaching the Earth's surface, potentially causing a heating effect.

The impact of rocket emissions on the ozone layer is also a cause for concern. Each rocket launch creates a small, short-lived hole in the ozone layer, and while the current loss of total ozone due to rockets is small, the growth of the space tourism industry could lead to future depletion of the upper stratospheric ozone layer. This would undo the progress made by the Montreal Protocol, a global agreement to ban substances that deplete the ozone layer. The interaction between the Earth's atmosphere and exhaust from methane-fuelled rocket engines is also not yet fully understood, making it difficult to assess the full extent of the environmental impact of space tourism.

In addition to the emissions produced during launch, space tourism also generates space junk—derelict satellites, rocket stages, and other debris—that can fall back to Earth during re-entry, creating further pollution. The vaporisation of this discarded hardware produces dust, a process that is not well understood and requires further research.

Despite these concerns, some argue that the environmental impact of space tourism is negligible compared to other industries, such as the airline industry. The space tourism industry is still very small, and the local and short-term effects on the environment are currently limited. However, as the industry grows and the frequency of launches increases, the environmental impact is likely to become more significant. There is also a lack of regulation in the industry, which could lead to further environmental damage if left unchecked.

Overall, while the environmental impact of space tourism is not yet fully understood, there are clear indications that it has the potential to cause significant harm to the environment, particularly to the ozone layer and the climate. As the industry develops and becomes more accessible, it is important that regulations are put in place to minimise the potential negative consequences and protect the Earth's atmosphere.

Pollution from private space companies

The privatization of the space industry has sparked concerns about its negative impact on the environment, with private space companies like SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Amazon facing scrutiny for their contributions to pollution and climate change. SpaceX, for instance, launched 96 orbital rockets in 2023 and aims for nearly 150 in 2024, with each launch emitting carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere. The company's proposed Starship program, which involves frequent launches of large rockets, has alarmed scientists due to its potential to significantly increase pollution compared to aircraft emissions.

The environmental impact of private space companies extends beyond carbon emissions. Solid-rocket motors emit chlorine gas, a serious threat to the ozone layer, and the intense heat generated during spacecraft re-entry can disturb the atmosphere. Additionally, the privatization of the space industry has led to concerns about resource allocation, with resources that could be used to address Earth's issues being diverted towards space exploration. The monetization of space has also resulted in the proliferation of satellites, contributing to space debris and the potential for further pollution when these satellites eventually fall back to Earth.

The exact extent of pollution caused by private space companies is challenging to ascertain due to the lack of scientific investigation into their emissions. While some argue that rocket launches contribute insignificantly to global CO₂ emissions, the comparison may be overly simplified. Rockets emit various gases and particles, such as soot and alumina, directly into the sensitive stratosphere, which aircraft rarely penetrate. The complex interactions between exhaust from methane-fueled rocket engines and the Earth's atmosphere are not yet fully understood, making it difficult to assess the full impact of these emissions.

Amid the concerns, some private space companies have expressed intentions to address their environmental impact. For instance, Elon Musk has proposed developing a non-fossil-fuel methane source for the Starship program, creating a closed-loop fuel cycle. Jeff Bezos, the founder of Blue Origin and Amazon, has pledged $10 billion to combat climate change, although his space ventures have faced criticism for their potential to exacerbate climate issues.

As the privatization of space exploration continues to accelerate, it is crucial to address the environmental implications of these ventures. While some companies demonstrate a willingness to mitigate their impact, the overall trend of increasing launches and the pursuit of carbon-intensive business models by private space companies pose significant challenges to global climate protection efforts.

Impact on the ozone layer

The ozone layer is a protective layer in the Earth's atmosphere that blocks harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation from reaching the planet's surface. This layer is crucial for maintaining life on Earth, as excessive exposure to UV radiation can lead to increased risks of cancer and eye damage for humans.

Rocket launches have been identified as a potential threat to the ozone layer. The exhaust from rockets contains chlorine, a known ozone-depleting substance. Additionally, the soot and other particles emitted by rockets can accumulate in the upper stratosphere, where they absorb sunlight, leading to increased temperatures and altered chemical reaction rates. This accumulation of pollutants can result in ozone loss and changes in atmospheric circulation patterns. The impact of rocket emissions on the ozone layer is expected to intensify with the projected increase in space travel and rocket launches, as highlighted in a study by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Furthermore, the issue of falling space debris and the atmospheric reentry of satellites has been raised as a potential contributor to ozone depletion. When satellites burn up in the atmosphere, they release chemicals and particles that can reach the ozone-rich stratosphere. The resulting chemical reactions are predicted to cause ozone destruction, with potential consequences that are not yet fully understood.

The impact of spaceflight on the ozone layer was initially believed to be primarily associated with solid-fuelled rockets. However, recent studies have shown that liquid-fuelled rockets, particularly those burning fossil fuels, also pose a significant threat. The combination of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, used in some newer rockets, emits only water vapour and is considered to have a lower environmental impact. Nonetheless, the overall increase in space travel and rocket launches is projected to expose people in the Northern Hemisphere to increased harmful UV radiation due to ozone depletion.

While the aviation industry burns significantly more fuel than all global rocket launches, the potential environmental impact of rocket emissions on the ozone layer cannot be overlooked. Further research and regulation are necessary to understand and mitigate the potential consequences of increased space travel on the Earth's protective ozone layer.

Frequently asked questions