• evranch@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    “Fortunately” the amount of methane vented in a test or RUD is tiny compared to the vast and mostly undocumented amounts leaked from CNG infrastructure globally.

    Really we should fix that especially since we’re talking about limiting emissions from cows while pipelines and wells are quietly leaking all day, every day.

    Also the losses of high GWP refrigerants like the incredibly common R134a which is just swept under the rug. It was used as the blowing gas for spray foam for decades, a large proportion of the total weight of a canister was propellant, while simultaneously we were told to recover every gram during service on a refrigeration unit due to high GWP…

    However at least we can feel ok about the insignificant amount of methane vented from modern rockets, and they do try to flare most losses on the ground or get it in the flight termination explosion.

    • Peppycito
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I’m not sold on the argument that it’s okay to do this bad thing because other things are worse. No cows are farting in the stratosphere, the article is mostly about high altitude emissions being significantly worse. None of that cloud that showed up on radar was on fire.

      • evranch@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        I agree that they have to do better. That cloud was likely a flameout that blew methane out before termination when the oxygen ran low.

        I consider that these tests have to have some tolerance for failure as the finished product shouldn’t result in any venting except in an accident.

        The alternatives like keralox, solid fuel or hypergolics have worse emissions in actual operation and hydralox wastes vast amounts of energy refining and chilling liquid hydrogen, so getting the methalox cycle running will be a net benefit once testing is complete.

        • Peppycito
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Indeed, they’re all bad. If they manage to meet the design brief and have starship launching daily the ‘drop in the bucket’ argument will quickly lose its strength.

          Those clouds were from the booster and then the ship exploding, the booster was supposed to return to the landing site and the ship was supposed to fly around to Hawaii. They were far from empty as evidenced by the clouds on the radar. Engine cut off does indeed leak fuel, you can see it on the video. Same as at startup. Spacex would have to tell us how much.

          I find it very concerning since I fully expect spacex to pull it off and get these things launching as regularly as airplanes. I’ve soured on the hand waving it off as necessary to the Progress Of Man. It’s looking more like this is all for the Progress Of One Man’s Pocket Book.