"What Might Have Been" Thursdays

The Boeing 2707. "Two seven oh seven". It sounds as cool as it looks. The hydrocarbon fueled 2707 supersonic transport would have cruised at Mach 2.7 at an altitude of 20 kilometers, well above the mid-latitude tropopause. Boeing had 115 airframe orders on the books when congress cancelled development in 1971. Will supersonic transport ever be viable? What does "viable" mean when speaking of the stratosphere?

Soot Plume

This is look-back cam on a Delta II showing soot plume from RS-27A kerosene fueled rocket engine. That plume looks like pretty weak sauce. But it appears that rocket engines emit a few hundred times more soot (per unit mass of kerosene burned) than aircraft engines emit. Is it a big deal?

You Could Not Make This Up

No kidding this is an actual plume from, we understand, a Russian military rocket that failed last month one hundred or so kilometers up. It is also possible that it was a test of some method to foil missile defense sensors. I don't know. It is a mesmerizing pattern, whatever happened. It is easy to predict that this plume modified the ionosphere in some way.

The Inscrutable Hand of Ms. Market

It has been suggested that the demand for transportation services has a "trough" around 3 hours so that supersonic transport is not profitable. But people will pay a big premium to get people and material across the planet in 90 minutes. Maybe so. Ms. Market's take might look like this. If this is true, it has significant implications for climate and ozone. And good news for Virgin Galactic.

Nitrous Hybrid Rockets Are All The Rage

See here for big conference of users. What do hybrids emit? How would 1000 launches per year of hybrid rockets affect climate and ozone? We don't know.

This Vehicle Would be a Large Emitter

Big plans perhaps. Follow the "12 to 1" rule : 12 kilotons into the stratosphere for every kiloton into LEO. That would be over 2 kilotons per launch.

It Adds Up

Virgin Galactic SpaceshipTwo

Virgin Galactic is planning several flights per day for the next decade!  This is fantastic and would no doubt lead to orbital operations.  But I am wondering: What does the rocket do the stratosphere?  I am not even sure that VG has spelled out , exactly,  the propellants.  We know it is a nitrous oxide based hybrid but perhaps the fuel has aluminium?  Something else? 

 

So the propellant is, let's guess, 10 tons per flight.  All of it emitted into the stratosphere.  Now VG is talking on the order of 1000 flights per year.   Now lets assume an ODP of 0.5 - about like old fashioned SRMs.  Thus we have 5000 ODP-tons per year.   Is that a lot?  I think it is. 

Are Space Planes Really Environmentally Friendly?

A recent article in the New York Times reports on Virgin Galactic's (VG) efforts to offer " 'a trip of a lifetime' that won't harm the planet." Sounds great, and I'd sure like to ride with Jim Lovelock, one of the early influential scientists on my career in stratospheric ozone measurements (he invented the electron capture detector that remains the most sensitive way to detect chlorofluorocarbons). Sir Richard Branson (SRB) is quoted in the article as saying "The [carbon] cost of us putting someone into space will be less than flying to London and back on a commercial plane." Note the qualifier 'carbon', which was added by the author of that article.

It wouldn't be hard to calculate the carbon footprint of a VG spaceflight - say from New Mexico to Sydney, Australia, and to compare that on a per-passenger basis to the carbon footprint of a flight to the same destination on a 747. Now I don't doubt VG's claims that I have seen elsewhere that the carbon footprint would be smaller. However, what is missing in this comparison are the impacts on the stratosphere and mesosphere, which are minuscule in the case of the 747 (most of the ozone-harming emissions of subsonic aircraft remain in the lower atmosphere, where they are removed by photochemical processes). The impacts of emissions in the stratosphere and mesosphere, however, are usually all very harmful to ozone. So without a doubt, the impacts of VG spaceflights on the environment will be significant on a per passenger basis.

The recent paper in Astropolitics by Ross et al., of which I am a coauthor, points out that large numbers of such flights (in the case of space tourism or frequent launches of small payloads for climate change mitigation) could be the next major ozone depletion problem - perhaps as soon as the 2030s. the culprit? Emissions of soot, NOx, water vapor, and hydrocarbons. The stratospheric and mesospheric impacts of some of these emissions (e.g., H2O and NOx) are reasonably well understood, whereas the impacts of others (soot, HCs) are not. And the by-products of the "hybrid" rocket engines that VG will employ are a complete unknown - until we have measurements in the plumes of those rockets to confirm combustion models.

It would certainly be a shame if billions of dollars are spent between now and then to develop capabilities that reduce our global warming impacts, only to be shown to cause major damage to Earth's protective ozone layer, especially after the hugely successful efforts to limit other ozone depleting substances (ODS).

I don't doubt SRB's and VG's good intentions - after all, they are activively seeking ways to reduce their fossil carbon footprint and even offering a $25 milllion prize for demonstrating the ability to remove 10 billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere in 10 years. It would seem that in this case, however, they need to take a broader view of the environmental impacts of their space launch activities. At the very least, it would be bad PR if Jim Lovelock's ride into space were to deplete more ozone than a year's worth of Virgin Atlantic flights from London to Sydney.

Now, it would be great PR if VG were to propose to use that flight with Jim Lovelock to actually measure their impacts on ozone. Perhaps someone will be able to blog about that issue in the not-too-distant future!

Parabolic Arc Gets it!

This is typical of sort of helpful - but sort of unclear - stuff on the web. Actually the story is not new but the writer sort of "gets it" about rockets and ozone with the tagline:

"Space tourism threat: less carbon emissions than ozone depletion?"

I interpret this as:

"Risk to space tourism profits is from ozone depletion, not global warming!"

which is pretty much on the mark. Nice going Doug Messier! Doug is one of the few spacetravel bloggers who understand that ODSs and GHGs are different. Coupled but different. Doug understands that rocket emissions are not a big deal from a GHG perspective but might well be a big deal from an ODS perspective. Eventually.

Anyway, its good to see somebody understand these two points. Is Virgin Galactic reading this?