Timeline for Pollution by rockets and missiles
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 24, 2017 at 18:28 | comment | added | Uwe | If RP1 is burned with LOX, no nitrogen is present in the combustion chamber, so no NOx is produced there. If the hot gases after the nozzle mix with air, some nitrogen of the air might react with the oxygen of the air to build NOx. But this is possible for LH2 and LOX too. But are the gases after the nozzle and after mixing with some air still hot enough to produce NOx? | |
| Jun 23, 2017 at 10:31 | comment | added | MSalters | It's not just RP1 burning which produces those nasty NOx components. Any open flame in the atmosphere will break N2 and O2 bonds, and the resulting radicals may recombine as NOx compounds. That includes LH/LOX rockets. | |
| Jun 23, 2017 at 8:47 | comment | added | Gp2mv3 | @uhoh I agree, and I'm totally convinced that spacial activities are highly profitable for humanity. But speaking about the pollution of the propellants, it's also interesting to thing about their production. | |
| Jun 23, 2017 at 7:59 | comment | added | uhoh | @Gp2mv3 nor is the energy needed to make the aluminum and other components, build and light the buildings and get the people to and from the launch site every day. Some launches have in fact had major net beneficial impact on pollution by putting the satellites up there that are busy measuring and reporting both polutant levels and their effects. I think taken all together, the effect of launches and spaceflight is a huge pollution reducer. | |
| Jun 23, 2017 at 7:43 | comment | added | Gp2mv3 | What should be also taken into account is the energy needed to produce and store LH, LOX, RP1,... Because those aren't negligible. | |
| Jun 23, 2017 at 7:24 | comment | added | le_daim | I think you can include Challenger, because as they were ignited they probably burn entirely. | |
| Jun 23, 2017 at 2:48 | comment | added | Russell Borogove | (Plus a little ammonia if run fuel-rich, which I guess is generally done.) | |
| Jun 23, 2017 at 2:39 | comment | added | Russell Borogove | Hydrazine monoprops go to ammonia; the usual hypergolic biprop suspects go to a variety of stuff, mostly N2 and water. yarchive.net/space/rocket/fuels/hydrazine.html | |
| Jun 23, 2017 at 2:21 | vote | accept | user132257 | ||
| Jun 23, 2017 at 2:16 | history | answered | geoffc | CC BY-SA 3.0 |