Environmental concerns grow as space tourism lifts off

[Klaralven]

...

Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo uses a type of synthetic rubber as fuel and burns it in nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas.

The fuel pumps black carbon into upper stratosphere, 30-50 kilometers (18 to 30 miles) high. Once there, these particles can have multiple impacts, from reflecting sunlight and causing a nuclear winter effect, to accelerating chemical reactions that deplete the ozone layer, which is vital to protecting people from harmful radiation.

"We could be at a dangerous point," said Toohey, who wants more scientific investigations into these effects before the launches become more frequent. Virgin has said it wants to conduct 400 flights a year.

Compared to Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo spaceplanes, Blue Origin's are much cleaner, according to a recent paper by scientist Martin Ross of Aerospace, which Bezos' company plugged on Twitter. That's because it burns liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, which combusts as water vapor.

Ross' paper found Blue Origin's vertical launch reusable rocket causes a hundred times less ozone loss and 750 times less climate forcing magnitude than Virgin's, according to ballpark calculations.

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210718-environmental-concerns-grow-as-space-tourism-lifts-off

[femmedem]

1. It should be illegal. I can't imagine a better example of environmental injustice.

So many of us are doing what we can to limit the greenhouse gases we're responsible for--I've made it a point to live within walking distance of my job for the past twenty years--while these guys spew potent greenhouse gases for a thrill? Uh, no.

[Dial H For Hero]

7. Even if space tourism were to increase a hundredfold, it would only be a tiny fraction

of the carbon footprint of tourism on the whole.

[femmedem]

8. All of us should be more aware that tourism, especially flying, is awful for the environment.

I wince every time I see dear friends' vacation photos from far-flung places. Tourism is selfish, too. I did fly twice in the last decade, both times related to family emergencies, but I doubt I will ever fly again just for fun.

[Dial H For Hero]

9. I fly internationally 2 to 3 times per year for vacations. To each their own.

I'm actually flying to Phuket, Thailand in just two weeks.

[femmedem]

10. Does "to each their own" apply to other forms of pollution as well?

I mean, are you generally libertartian on this issue, or do you believe that if polluting actions benefit one person but harm everyone else, they should be regulated? Or if not regulated, that the more ethical thing is for people to refrain?

We are in a system now where it is nearly impossible to live without contributing to the greenhouse gases which threaten life on this planet. I heat my house with gas. But aviation accounts for over 2% of greenhouse gas emissions, and it is usually a luxury whose harmful effects will outlive any of us.

[Dial H For Hero]

11. I supppose it would require showing direct harm. It's one thing to show that (for instance)

a particular chemical plant is spewing out something that's causing birth defects in a community. It's quite a leap to go from that to limiting one's ability to travel because the plane they're on puts CO2 into the atmosphere.

As you point out, virtually any modern activity by humans has at least some greenhouse emissions. Heck, the infrastructure required for the internet to exist and be used certainly does. Aviation, automobiles, power generation....these all have an impact.

I'm no more going to call for restrictions on flying for leisure than I am for keeping someone from driving a car for the fun of it. Pollution is the inevitable byproduct of modern civilization. Should we try reduce it? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Reducing the speed limit on all roads to a maximum of 40 mph would reduce emissions and save many lives, but I'm not in favor of it.

As for me personally....I'm not going to refrain from traveling the world while I still have my health. I don't think it's unethical, but some may disagree.

[femmedem]

12. I appreciate your thoughtful and thought-provoking response.

It sent me down a google rabbit hole about climate change and the tragedy of the commons, and has me pondering what, if anything, might save us when no single person's actions are responsible for some other single person's suffering, but universal suffering is the inevitable result of unregulated, cumulative damage to the common resource.

But my pondering won't save anyone. I might as well go watch cat videos.

[Dial H For Hero]

19. Describing the future climate as bringing universal suffering to mankind is, I think, putting it

somewhat strongly. Granted, while I do like to think of myself of scientifically literate, I'm hardly a climatologist. But my impression is that while the near to mid term future of the planet isn't exactly rosy when it comes to this issue, I don't think we're facing Armageddon, either. Some parts of the planet will suffer, certainly. Others...not so much. And in any case, even if climate change is largely anthropogenic (something I think at least likely), the chance of humanity reigning industry back enough to meaningfully reverse such change is, well...nil.

I do admire it when someone such as yourself has the courage of their convictions and shows it by consciously changing their lifestyle. My only advice would be not to let this matter affect you to the point that it significantly impairs your enjoyment of life. It's too damned short as it is.

[Blues Heron]

2. All tourism comes with a steep eco cost

Flying to Cancun to get wasted on the beach isn't very carbon neutral either.

That said, sounds like Branson's version is worse than Bezos by a long shot.

[Klaralven]

4. Branson's rocket burns a synthetic rubber compound that is mostly carbon by weight

[onethatcares]

3. you'll know the degradation is in full swing

when there are cigarette butts and styrofoam fast food boxes flying around. I mean its not like we'll be able to see it or anything like that.



We humans just don't know how to clean up after ourselves.

[Effete Snob]

5. None of the Branson acolytes will touch this

But rocket launches are an environmental nightmare to the most sensitive parts of the atmosphere and should be cost/benefit based on something other than personal gratification.

[Klaralven]

6. It takes about 8 or more pounds of fuel to put 1 pound into low earth orbit.

[WarGamer]

14. 1300 satellites were launched into orbit last year.

[Effete Snob]

18. Yes, and?

I dump my used motor oil down the storm drain because, really, compared to other, incidental industrial spills it isn’t that much

[WarGamer]

13. give me a freekin break... maybe France24 should focus on India and China...

constructing a new coal-fired power generation plant every WEEK...

Does Bezos own F24?

[Klaralven]

15. The French government owns France 24.

[WarGamer]

16. Obviously, I was referring to the obvious "puff piece" as written.

[hunter]

17. Cruise ships get about 13 miles per gallon.

I'm not sure what the proper measurement of recreational dollars to environmental destruction should be.

If somebody spends $250,000 dollars on a virgin galactic flight maybe they'll have less money to spend on more environmentally destructive pursuits.

$250,000 would buy a lot of concrete for a mansion expansion. How damaging would that be to earth's atmosphere?

Or worse, if spent on some fascist climate change denying politician?

[Dial H For Hero]

20. Isn't it more like 50 gallons per mile?