When burned, methane produces water and carbon dioxide, which are less harmful to the environment. The issue here is not with rocket testing, but with improper storage of methane
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2023
641 points (98.1% liked)
Technology
58117 readers
4353 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Always knew bezos was a cheap skeet. Can’t even properly pay his employees. So why should he make proper rockets. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
It’s embarrassing because it sounds that all blue origin had to do was burn the excess methane to mitigate the impact.
This is leaking methane
load more comments
(2 replies)
billionaires existing should be illegal
Trickle down pollution.
If BO is being that careless with methane emissions then they are breaking laws. Report them
BO used to mean body odour and this sentence still makes sense in France
load more comments
(1 replies)
Fun notes from America's other privately owned, publicly funded space program. Even if you think that privatization of space is a good thing (you're wrong, it's not, but let's just assume for the sake of argument that it is) how do you justify the fact that the public takes on huge swaths of the development cost, then has to pay to use the service, then has to pay to clean up externalities like an ocean of methane in the atmosphere?
The space program of every nation have always worked that way. Even the Soviets were using Rhode Schwarz made gyroscopes. The Apollo rockets were built by the private sector.
The only real difference now is the ferrying contracts.
I would say purely "because it works". SpaceX has received a ton of funding, for sure. But they've delivered incredible advancements in reusable rocketry, methalox fuel cycles, cost to orbit and much more, while SLS was literally a flying scrap pile that was late and over budget despite being reused 1980s tech.
Let's not pretend that NASA rockets were really public work either, with most of the development and construction done by contractors like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Aerojet Rocketdyne and more... But these old guard companies were happy to keep turning out the same old product with incremental improvements.
SpaceX could have been a tremendous failure or success with the risks they've taken, and we're all lucky it turned out to be a success (so far...). It says it all when they are going to launch Orion on SLS but Starship is going to be waiting there at the moon for them. Well, if it doesn't blow up on the pad.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Eating the billionaires sounds more and more attractive every day.
Eating the rich just gives you gas (and prion disease). Compost the rich.
Let's not make dirty industrial activity clean, let's move it off world (destroying another different planet). Because, you know, that's apparently easier than actually solving the problem.
No, that is literally solving the problem. You can't make it clean. What exactly would we need to protect out in space or say the moon? The space whales, or moon frogs? You're protecting nothing but the vacuum of space and some rocks.
My oil stocks say keep it here. I won’t be alive to find out what happens. /s
Didn't we originally think the same ("you're protecting nothing") when it came to the ocean, the Rain Forests, lakes, streams, the Arctic, etc? Until we learned otherwise. By that time, the profit motive was too entrenched to ever allow things to change.
By way of example, what if the moon were mined to such an extreme that it changed its orbit? Wouldn't that impact it or the earth itself? What if the moon were no longer there at all because that suited a future trillionaire's aim to add another billion to their bank account?
No, the environmental movement has been happening since the industrial revolution caused air pollution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_movement
Mining the moon for rocket fuel won't affect its orbit, and I'm not sure how a trillionaire could remove the moon
load more comments
(2 replies)
I must have an overactive imagination because I can think of plenty of problems that unregulated space industry could cause.
Industry requires infrastructure and support, when speaking space terms everything is way more expensive so cost cutting will be rampant on all systems. Centralized space communication hub? No, we're gonna be bombarded with signals since maintaining the equipment on ground is cheaper (astrology sciences would suffer). Way to many objects in an orbital plane? Not their problem till eventually it becomes a catastrophic event as our own planet can become (Kessler Syndrome). More mass requires more fuel? Dump all the junk at every opportunity clogging space lanes (micro meteors and radiation will no longer be the main safety concern for travel).
I could go on and on, think about the current state of shipping and logistics. We already have events where ships were forced to sit for weeks outside of docks waiting to be unloaded (source). The space faring ships will only increase in size. What do you do with the useless containers they ship the contents back to earth with? The cost would be too high for re-usability getting it back into space. What about the workers who are at an unregulated site and their conditions?
I agree it's a conundrum of how do we advance when advancement causes destruction. It's something I've wrestled with when considering the Fermi paradox. Either you live harmoniously with the planet and die when it's environment changes, or you use that sucker up and get out of dodge before the next mass extinction takes you and nearly all of the living creatures out. I'm hoping in the future we meet some neighbors that can show a middle ground works well to persuade out current trajectory.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Honestly? You can't collapse the moon's ecosystem because the moon doesn't have an ecosystem.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Remember when William Shatner was nearly moved to tears by the beauty of the world after his experience on Bezos’s rocket? And then Bezos talked about moving production into space.
Remember when William Shatner was nearly moved to tears
Then Bezos proceeded to spray champagne over him while he was trying to make a quick speech.
Imagine being the biggest asshole on a stage with William Shatner.
Well, just when I manage to stop worrying about climate change so much...
load more comments
(1 replies)
It sounds like they should be more careful with how they store their methane.
I do want to stress though, that I think that space technology is the single most important subject we can focus on, except maybe medical. If extravagant trips for billionaire's can fund a bunch of it for now, that's fine by me. Only really means that governments should be doing more.
Every day, the sun emits roughly a billion times more energy than the earth uses. That is, all our technology, all our food, all animals, all plants and all the energy needed to create all weather combined consumes about one billionth of the sun's output. The rest is sent into deep space.
This waste of the sun's energy is so vast, that we as a species absolutely want to start capturing more of it as soon as possible, rather than squabbling in the mud for fractions of the 0.0000001% of the sun's output the earth uses today. Obviously we need our planet to survive until then, but getting proper infrastructure in orbit and beyond is such a massive game changer.
but getting proper infrastructure in orbit and beyond
Ah, there is the catch. Don't forget how you plan on getting that power safely back to earth.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
So we have hydrogen as rocket fuel that does not produce greenhouse gasses when burned and they decide to develop methane as a fuel source instead! Why!?!
Each fuel has it's own use case, but in the case of reusable rockets...
Hydrogen is harder to store, it leaks out of everything. Methane can sit in a tank for a long time. Holding a tank of methane so you can relight a rocket and land after being in space for a long time is a big advantage, and keeps you from having to throw away everything each flight.
Methane is easier to store and doesn't embrittle the pressure vessel.
Every day on Lemmy is a TIL with knowledgeable responses like these 👇
Hydrogen itself is a strong greenhouse gas and leaks from everything, so it wouldn't necessarily be better.
load more comments
(1 replies)
"Oh poo..."
- three generations inbred billionaire heir having their view of earth ruined by methane clouds during their million dollar space tourism flight.
Dudes the fuckin antichrist
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Most of the problem stems from just a few kinds of places: natural gas wells and pipelines, cattle feedlots, coal mines, rice paddies, and landfills.
Such was the case on June 4, when a plume of the gas was detected at the sprawling ranch in West Texas where billionaire Jeff Bezos tests space rockets.
It turns out that Bezos’s space company, Blue Origin LLC, routinely emits the stuff because it’s developing a rocket that runs on liquefied natural gas, which is almost pure methane.
The state air regulator, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, doesn’t impose limits on methane emissions or require disclosure of releases.
Wells and pipelines in the Permian Basin, a huge oilfield near the rocket site, are thought to give off some 2.7 million tons of methane a year.
In a 2019 speech at Blue Origin, he envisioned a future in which dirty industrial activity took place off-world and that our home was “zoned for residential and light industry.” As he tweeted in 2018, “We go to space to save the Earth.”
The original article contains 648 words, the summary contains 166 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
The state air regulator, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, doesn’t impose limits on methane emissions or require disclosure of releases.
Well there's your problem.
Billionaire space folly will attract 100% tax when I am finally in charge.
I guess his ex wife will need to fund methane capture programs now to tidy up his mess
I dislike Blue Origin as much as the next guy, but IMO the article (or at least the headline) distracts from the real problem here (the fossil fuel industry):
An air permit application filed with the TCEQ in January 2020 said the company expected to routinely dump LNG into the air to the tune of 3.4 million cubic feet a year, which would work out to more than 60 tons of methane.
Of course, Blue Origin’s emissions pale in comparison with those from its suppliers in the natural gas industry. Wells and pipelines in the Permian Basin, a huge oilfield near the rocket site, are thought to give off some 2.7 million tons of methane a year
So what? What are you going to do about it?
A book of matches is a good start.
Well that stinks.
Well how else is he going to find a new planet... duh!
Gotta ruin a planet to travel to a new planet
view more: next ›