Space Tourism-should we wait a bit longer or is it the right time?

[gronf]

I won't be anywhere near "satisfied" with our space achievements till we have at least one viable colony (20K+ population, plentiful resources etc) that could pretty much carry on if, say, Earth was somehow instantly destroyed. Yeah, I know it's very unlikely that I'll live to see that (the colony, not the Earth destruction (wouldn't mind that tbh)), but a guy can dream..

 

[theone8181]

Wounder how long it will be till we get the first orgy in space.

 

[BUDFORCE]

I'm told that tourism causes a lot of environmental damage already, so perhaps extending that into space with those massive fuel-burning rockets should wait until there are carbon-neutral spacecraft... In fact, I'd suggest waiting until we have a dozen life-supporting planets cleanly and safely colonised, before we go burning Earth up in the name of tourism.

Space rockets really don't cause that much pollution at all, despite the big massive rocket fire they produce.

Most US/Western Rockets burn either a mix of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen (hydrolox) or liquid kerosene and liquid oxygen (kerolox) , about 99% of which ends up as water vapour when it's burned, very little carbon at all is produced.

Here:

 

[Eurofighter]

There you go then. Already sorted.

 

[Efour]

I don't care. I can't afford it. It'll only take a crash or 2 to see it rethought out, if now isn't the right time.

As long as it because a global thing open to the rich and stupid of all countries and doesn't get political.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

Yet again, the Simpsons called it.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Doesn’t NASA return more value to science and tech than it costs to run it?

NASA might.... but what you posted seems to mostly be scientific, technological, academic, moral and financial, rather than specifically environmental.
None of that will matter if the planet we live on gets wasted by the damage caused in the process of these advancements, and even more so if a bunch of private companies are firing rockets off for rich peoples' entertainment.

Space rockets really don't cause that much pollution at all, despite the big massive rocket fire they produce.
Most US/Western Rockets burn either a mix of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen (hydrolox) or liquid kerosene and liquid oxygen (kerolox) , about 99% of which ends up as water vapour when it's burned, very little carbon at all is produced.

Arguments vary, but it's not just the burning of the fuel that has an impact - Look at all the industry and logistics required to make the rockets in the first place, all the other particles that scatter into the atmosphere during launch and re-entry (alumina is one I see mentioned a lot, which warms the planet by trapping our outgoing long-wave radiation), all the fossil fuels burned to produce the hydrogen in the first place, all the trucks moving materials and parts together to get the rocket built and firing... There's a reason we don't all fly around like The Jetsons yet.

This is an interesting, albeit heavily biassed, article on the pros and cons. Mostly it's about what could be, in terms of sustainability and lowered environmental footprints, but we're really not even close to that yet: https://everydayastronaut.com/rocket-pollution/

 

[visibleman]

...should we wait a bit longer or do it now?

No. As someone mentioned, you need the economy of scale for it to become more affordable for us mere mortals.

Look at all the industry and logistics required...

That's a fairly big scope which would make any other industry/item on the planet look absolutely ********, including that environment "friendly" vegan burger you got for dinner.

There's a reason we don't all fly around like The Jetsons yet.

Sure and it's little to do with the environment, rather practicability and technology not being there (currently) for every household to have a flying spacecraft.

 

[Nasher]

Yet again, the Simpsons called it.

It's always either Simpsons or Southpark

 

[FoxEye]

That's a fairly big scope which would make any other industry/item on the planet look absolutely ********, including that environment "friendly" vegan burger you got for dinner.

How about then just the energy/carbon cost of creating the fuel. If, as claimed, burning the fuel is virtually neutral in terms of impact.

Producing hydrogen is a fairly energy expensive business. And/or dirty.

Estimating The Carbon Footprint Of Hydrogen Production (forbes.com)

Hydrogen’s “dirty secret” is that it is produced primarily from fossil fuels. Thus, whether hydrogen is really “clean” depends on the method of production.

Hydrogen can also be produced by the electrolysis of water, but this is generally a costlier approach than the SMR route. When electricity is used to produce hydrogen, thermodynamics dictate that you will always produce less energy than you consume.


In other words, the energy input in electricity will be greater than the energy output of hydrogen. Nevertheless, if a cheap source of electricity is available — such as excess grid electricity at certain times of the day — it may be economical to produce hydrogen in this way. This will be the topic of a future article.

More generally, whenever someone tells me that something is "clean" or "environmentally friendly", my first reaction is to see where they're cheating/fudging the numbers.

Because very little of anything humans do is clean or environmentally friendly. It's mostly a lie.

 

[Eurofighter]

Yes but more and more electricity is being generated from wind and solar every day.

 

[ttaskmaster]

That's a fairly big scope which would make any other industry/item on the planet look absolutely ********, including that environment "friendly" vegan burger you got for dinner.

That is how they do it, though - Electric cars were awesome when you looked at how they run compared to a diesel, until someone pointed out the environmental impact of the EV manufactuire meant that it took something like five years before it actually broke even with the most polluting diesel.
The wider footprint is usually where the damage is found. Your product might be utterly carbon neutral, but the marine diesel used by the ship that transports it over from China at a rate of several tonnes per mile is what spoils it.

Sure and it's little to do with the environment, rather practicability and technology not being there (currently) for every household to have a flying spacecraft.

Even if everything else were there, the pollution increase alone would be more than enough to utterly kibosh the idea.