Skip to main content

Is spaceflight advancement worth the "pollution"?

Spaceflight is an advanced industry. To get to outer space efficiently, you need to create combustion with a fuel & oxidizer. Some fuels are more powerful than others. The image you see above is an image of NASA testing their Artemis Moon Rocket, called SLS, short for Space Launch System. It has 4 engines (known as RS-25 Engines). All 4 of these engines are being reused from old space shuttle missions from space shuttles. For a fuel, they use Liquid Hydrogen (LH2) and for oxidizer, they use Liquid Oxygen (LOX/LO2).

You need an oxidizer in a rocket, because rockets go to space, and space is a near vacuum, meaning it is emptiness, resulting in pretty much no oxygen being present. To create combustion/a fire, you need oxygen. We have plenty of that on Earth, which is why & how fires exist, but in space, you need to bring your own with you, so rockets carry Liquid Oxygen. Liquid because it is more dense than gaseous oxygen, so you can fit more of the oxygen in your fuel tank. When Hydrogen and Oxygen burn together, the exhaust is simply just water vapor, and nothing else. That's right, the exhaust is gaseous H2O. If you capture the exhaust, and liquify it (simply by letting it sit there to turn into a liquid since water is a liquid at room temperature), you can literally drink it. 

The image at the beginning of this post is Hydrogen & Oxygen, so none of that is actually pollution, it basically just makes clouds, and if you look in the middle of that big white cloud of steam, and then look to the right, you can see a grey area, and that is water raining down from the cloud generated by the steam back down onto the surface of Earth.

Although this sounds great, and that we no "no longer need to pollute" to get to space, and can simply use Hydrogen, well, yeah it is a great idea. But that is to just get to space. Hydrogen/Oxygen is definitely not the best fuel choice to get to Earth orbit or beyond, some may say it isn't even good. When you burn rocket fuel & oxidizer, you are usually burning hydrocarbons. This is the most powerful type of liquid (or gaseous) fuel. A hydrocarbon is a molecule which contains hydrogen atom(s) and carbon atom(s). Hydrogen is an exception as it is just H2, 2 hydrogen atoms, and no carbon atoms, the simplest fuel, but not the most powerful. Hydrocarbon fuels are more powerful than simple Hydrogen fuel.

Coming right after Hydrogen, in 2nd place, CH4. CH4, aka Methane is a hydrocarbon consisting of 4 Hydrogen atoms and 1 Carbon atom.

When methane is burned with Oxygen, the exhaust is CO2 and H2O. There is more H2O than CO2. Since Hydrogen burns clear (when carbon is burned in rocket fuel it burns orange), this makes the exhaust fairly transparent, as seen on SpaceX's Starship Rocket.

Methane is needed to have a rocket with high tonnage to Mars & beyond, to enable human colonization of Mars, therefor making humans a multiplanetary species. Kerosene has a crap load of molecules, especially a lot of Carbon. With all of Kerosene's molecules, this makes Kerosene a good fuel choice for rockets intended to carry payloads to Earth orbit, but it pollutes A LOT, and is not a good choice for a bunch of other reasons. An image of a rocket launching, burning Kerosene, can be seen below. (SpaceX Falcon 9 Rocket launching for a Starlink Mission)

The conclusion is, rockets don't pollute as much as you would think. The core of NASA's upcoming SLS rocket that will return humans to the Moon does not pollute one bit, and SpaceX's upcoming Mars rocket barely pollutes. So yes, spaceflight advancement is worth the *minimal* pollution, because if a disaster occurs on Earth, wiping out all humans on Earth, we need another place to be that is self sustaining, and as of right now, that is Mars. To send humans to Mars and have high tonnage to Mars, you need a big & powerful rocket, and you need to be able to refuel on Mars, making Methane the perfect fuel.

Popular posts from this blog

Starship SN10 Aborts at T - 0 Seconds for its 10km test flight.

  Moments ago, Starship SN10 attempted a flight to 10km, to then orient itself into a unique horizontal bellyflop position, flip itself upright after it has descended to about 1km, deploy the landing legs, and touch down on the landing pad softly. This vehicle, Starship Number 10, uses Liquid CH4 (methane) and Liquid Oxygen aka LOX/LO2, used by its 3 powerful Raptor engines.  Today, SpaceX started their official stream for the Starship SN10 Flight. SpaceX have privated the stream replay, so we cannot replay it. In case you want the link: The vehicle began fueling up with Methane and LOX, and then shortly after, it started the engine chill process, which is the process of chilling the engines down in preparation for engine ignition, so the engine material does not crack or get damaged from sudden shock. The vehicle attempted to start up its 3 Raptor engines, by opening the fuel & oxidizer valves, starting up the turbopumps, sho

What is “the best” programming language?

Programming languages, there are so many of them. Some programming languages are way easier to learn than other ones. But which programming language, is “the best” programming language? This question, it is not really answerable. There is no “best programming languages”, they are all meant for different things, well, MOST of them. If I were to compare 2 different programming languages, meant for very similar things, like Batch and Bash, I would say Batch is easier, as its Syntax is not as confusing as Bash’s to the average person. Here is another example, C# is primarily used for computer applications, mostly on Windows, and HTML is a markup language, being used to make websites. I cannot compare C# (it is pronounced “See Sharp” if you didn’t know) because they are used for completely different things. It wouldn’t make sense to say, “C# is way better”, because what is it better at? Developing desktop applications? Sure! Then I can say HTML is better at making websites, it is not a logi

How do you know the universe was not created a few minutes ago?

       The universe is the giant area of space that we live in, which is observable. Anything past our universal border is not in our universe. People do say the universe is constantly expanding, but there is no proof of that, as the "imaginary" or, maybe not imaginary border at the "end" of our universe. But, how do you know that the universe even exists? Were you even in it last week? Did last week even exist? Last week, the universe could have been created, and you do not have proof against it. All of your knowledge and memory could have easily popped into existence a few seconds ago, tricking you into thinking you have existed for longer than you think. This is likely, but also unlikely, it is a 50/50 chance. A reason that this is unlikely is, there are a lot of things that do not make sense in our universe. Like, why does matter attract matter, resulting in gravity? This exists in our universe, but can it exist in a different universe? Not really, or most likel