So… space launches may help mitigate the effects of global cooling?
I’m relieved to see from cjunk’s post that the space shuttle is CO2 free 🙂
Yes, but how much CO2 was produced in manufacturing the rocket fuel?
Wow, like a slow-motion A-bomb in reverse.
Repeat after me: CO2 is not pollution; it mkaes trees and flowers grow. The more there is, the better is the vegatation.
The majority of the vapour trail is WATER VAPOUR, not CO2.
Liquid hydrogen plus liquid oxygen is a great explosive chemical reaction that produces great thrust but the reaction produces H20.
Most of the smokestack pictures billowing out smoke that you see are really billowing out STEAM or water vapour. It condences in the cooler air compared to the heated conditions of the smokestack/your home furnace vent.
On the other hand, water vapour cause 95% of the greehouse effect, so yeah, the space shuttle contributes to global warming.
Incredible clip.
I loved when the shuttle blasted through the cloud cover, “like a slow-mo A-bomb in reverse” (great analogy).
Thanks for sharing!
mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm
I remember when the enviro freaks wanted to halt rocket launches because they were damaging the environment.
Now…not a word since NASA started fudging the numbers on Climate Change.
And why do they fudge the numbers? For MONEY!
Gord, for the Space Shuttle Main Engines, no CO2 is produced to manufacture the fuel. They split water using electricity (derived from nuclear power in Florida) to produce the Hydrogen and Oxygen.
For the Solid Rocket Boosters, the propellant is a combination of ammonium perchlorate (69.6%), aluminum (16%), iron oxide (0.4%), polymer binder (12.04%), and epoxy (1.96%). Since the SRB propellant masses about 500000 kg per booster, and assuming a roughly 2:1 ratio of Hydrogen atoms to Carbon atoms in the polymer and epoxy, that works out to about 60000 kg of Carbon per SRB.
Your guess is as good as mine as to how much CO2 is produced by the power plants and factory that produce the SRBs in order to sequester 120 thousand kg of Carbon in the form of solid rocket fuel.
The reen efe tED TURNER as DADDY GEENBUCK becuaealthough he mines logs his on properyhehd a hill bullozed o he could vew a disten moutan range an hs title DADY GREENBUCKS is beuase he ge ig fat checks t the eco-wackos
I want an ounce of of the stuff you smoke Spurwing. Seriously.
Ok spurwing. When you get sober again, could you repeat that?
Geez, and I just finished a cOLT 45 And a couple of shots!
So… space launches may help mitigate the effects of global cooling?
I’m relieved to see from cjunk’s post that the space shuttle is CO2 free 🙂
Yes, but how much CO2 was produced in manufacturing the rocket fuel?
Wow, like a slow-motion A-bomb in reverse.
Repeat after me: CO2 is not pollution; it mkaes trees and flowers grow. The more there is, the better is the vegatation.
The majority of the vapour trail is WATER VAPOUR, not CO2.
Liquid hydrogen plus liquid oxygen is a great explosive chemical reaction that produces great thrust but the reaction produces H20.
Most of the smokestack pictures billowing out smoke that you see are really billowing out STEAM or water vapour. It condences in the cooler air compared to the heated conditions of the smokestack/your home furnace vent.
On the other hand, water vapour cause 95% of the greehouse effect, so yeah, the space shuttle contributes to global warming.
Incredible clip.
I loved when the shuttle blasted through the cloud cover, “like a slow-mo A-bomb in reverse” (great analogy).
Thanks for sharing!
mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm
I remember when the enviro freaks wanted to halt rocket launches because they were damaging the environment.
Now…not a word since NASA started fudging the numbers on Climate Change.
And why do they fudge the numbers? For MONEY!
Gord, for the Space Shuttle Main Engines, no CO2 is produced to manufacture the fuel. They split water using electricity (derived from nuclear power in Florida) to produce the Hydrogen and Oxygen.
For the Solid Rocket Boosters, the propellant is a combination of ammonium perchlorate (69.6%), aluminum (16%), iron oxide (0.4%), polymer binder (12.04%), and epoxy (1.96%). Since the SRB propellant masses about 500000 kg per booster, and assuming a roughly 2:1 ratio of Hydrogen atoms to Carbon atoms in the polymer and epoxy, that works out to about 60000 kg of Carbon per SRB.
Your guess is as good as mine as to how much CO2 is produced by the power plants and factory that produce the SRBs in order to sequester 120 thousand kg of Carbon in the form of solid rocket fuel.
The reen efe tED TURNER as DADDY GEENBUCK becuaealthough he mines logs his on properyhehd a hill bullozed o he could vew a disten moutan range an hs title DADY GREENBUCKS is beuase he ge ig fat checks t the eco-wackos
I want an ounce of of the stuff you smoke Spurwing. Seriously.
Ok spurwing. When you get sober again, could you repeat that?
Geez, and I just finished a cOLT 45 And a couple of shots!
Money well spent (Seriously).