WEBVTT - The Environmental Price of Rockets 0:00:00.160 --> 0:00:07.160 Brought to you by Toyota. Let's go places. Welcome to 0:00:07.360 --> 0:00:15.319 Forward Thinking. Hey there, and welcome tough Forward Thinking, the 0:00:15.520 --> 0:00:19.120 podcast that looks at the future and says burning out 0:00:19.160 --> 0:00:23.680 his views up here alone. I'm Jonathan Strickland and I'm 0:00:23.760 --> 0:00:26.680 Joe Mccormickin today, we're gonna be talking about rockets. And 0:00:26.720 --> 0:00:28.600 if you know us and you know this show, you 0:00:28.600 --> 0:00:32.479 know we love rockets. So there is not a chance 0:00:32.600 --> 0:00:36.519 in heck that we are here to bash rockets today. 0:00:36.560 --> 0:00:40.520 But since we sometimes talk about environmental impact on the show, 0:00:40.960 --> 0:00:44.440 and since rockets seem, by their very nature to involve 0:00:44.479 --> 0:00:48.559 an awful lot of burning and emitting of substances, we 0:00:48.640 --> 0:00:51.360 thought it might be worth asking what exactly is the 0:00:51.479 --> 0:00:54.880 environmental impact of a rocket launch and what can we 0:00:55.040 --> 0:00:58.360 do about that impact. Yeah, now, assuming of course that 0:00:58.440 --> 0:01:01.840 the environmental impact would be bad enough that we would 0:01:01.840 --> 0:01:05.000 need to do something. And when you first start looking 0:01:05.040 --> 0:01:07.959 around at the problem, you might think, oh, this isn't 0:01:08.000 --> 0:01:10.280 that big a deal, until you start thinking, wait a minute, 0:01:10.360 --> 0:01:14.360 We're heading to a future where we're really stressing how space. 0:01:14.440 --> 0:01:17.160 Getting into space is getting easier and easier. Things like 0:01:17.240 --> 0:01:20.919 reusable rockets, the private space industry. So this is actually 0:01:20.959 --> 0:01:23.600 something that we should think about now before it does 0:01:23.680 --> 0:01:27.040 become the next huge environmental problem. Right, and we can 0:01:27.040 --> 0:01:29.240 get into more of the details of that later. But Lauren, 0:01:29.360 --> 0:01:32.000 did you say that this was actually a listener request? 0:01:32.200 --> 0:01:35.560 I'm pretty sure it was, and I unfortunately didn't write 0:01:35.560 --> 0:01:37.720 down the name of the lovely human who sent it in, 0:01:37.880 --> 0:01:41.240 So I am so sorry, lovely human. Thank you for 0:01:41.319 --> 0:01:45.520 listening and for suggesting, and this is your episode congratulations. 0:01:45.600 --> 0:01:48.880 Now we should also point out that no less an 0:01:48.920 --> 0:01:52.360 authority than Sir Richard Branson tells us we have nothing 0:01:52.400 --> 0:01:55.480 to worry about. Well, whatever he tells us, we'll just 0:01:55.560 --> 0:01:59.800 take that's an objective, biased opinion, very short episode. Not 0:02:00.040 --> 0:02:03.400 it all related to the fact that he is overseeing 0:02:03.800 --> 0:02:07.600 Virgin Galactic space tourism industry. But what does he actually say? 0:02:07.880 --> 0:02:10.840 He actually says, and this this is something that could 0:02:11.240 --> 0:02:14.440 also be true. But you know, you still have to 0:02:14.440 --> 0:02:18.200 think about the implications here that the actual carbon dioxide 0:02:18.200 --> 0:02:24.440 emissions so CEO two, specifically from a rocket launch are less, 0:02:24.600 --> 0:02:27.320 at least for our Virgin Galactic style rocket launch, which 0:02:27.320 --> 0:02:29.480 is a little different from other ones because that would 0:02:29.560 --> 0:02:33.200 use a larger plane that would then launch a spacecraft 0:02:33.360 --> 0:02:35.359 from the plane while the plane is already in air. 0:02:35.680 --> 0:02:38.760 But he says the total CEO two emissions would be 0:02:38.840 --> 0:02:43.240 less than a round trip flight from New York to London, 0:02:43.560 --> 0:02:46.840 normal flight, not space flights. So like, if you were 0:02:46.880 --> 0:02:48.680 to get on a plane and fly to London and 0:02:48.720 --> 0:02:50.639 then party in London for a week, and then get 0:02:50.639 --> 0:02:52.399 back on a plane and fly back to New York, 0:02:52.840 --> 0:02:55.240 the CEO two emissions from those two flights would be 0:02:55.280 --> 0:03:00.560 greater than a virgin galactic rocket flight. Oh, then there's 0:03:00.560 --> 0:03:03.200 no big deal. Let's have all the space launches. I mean, 0:03:03.240 --> 0:03:04.919 I'm just going to trade off all those trips to 0:03:05.000 --> 0:03:08.360 London I take with trips to space, and and I'm 0:03:08.400 --> 0:03:13.080 like reducing my carbon footprint right, not so fast, slick, Okay, 0:03:13.120 --> 0:03:15.880 So we should look at what some scientists have actually 0:03:15.919 --> 0:03:19.040 found on the subject of the environmental impact of rocket launches, 0:03:19.040 --> 0:03:21.400 and we should preface this by saying, of course, not 0:03:21.520 --> 0:03:24.919 all rockets are the same. So yeah, yeah, there are 0:03:24.960 --> 0:03:28.079 lots of different combinations of combustants out there, and of 0:03:28.120 --> 0:03:32.160 course they therefore all produce different emissions in different quantities. 0:03:32.200 --> 0:03:35.000 And so rather than like go through each type exhaustively, 0:03:35.320 --> 0:03:37.360 we're going to talk about some of the wide ranging 0:03:37.360 --> 0:03:40.119 effects that are seen. Right, you have to go through 0:03:40.160 --> 0:03:43.200 every type of solid fuel, liquid fuel rocket, it would 0:03:43.720 --> 0:03:45.720 it would be in its own series, and that would 0:03:45.720 --> 0:03:51.440 get really really tedious, chemically tedious after a short while. Though, 0:03:51.440 --> 0:03:53.440 then again, think of the pluses. I mean, just think 0:03:53.480 --> 0:03:56.400 about how much we love trying to pronounce really long 0:03:56.480 --> 0:03:59.480 names of chemicals. I've got one coming up pretty soon. Yeah, 0:03:59.480 --> 0:04:02.320 oh man, you're in for a treat those lovers of 0:04:02.360 --> 0:04:07.040 tetra flora hydro clocks of blocks of do Yeah, pretty sure. 0:04:07.120 --> 0:04:10.720 That's what Mary Poppins says to make penguins dance for her. 0:04:10.800 --> 0:04:13.720 But go ahead, okay, Well, one of the big ones. 0:04:13.760 --> 0:04:16.000 I'm sure you guys encountered this. It seems to be 0:04:16.040 --> 0:04:20.919 one of the most prevalent objections to the environmental impact 0:04:20.920 --> 0:04:23.800 of rockets is the depletion of stratospheric ozone. So you 0:04:23.800 --> 0:04:28.640 guys remember back in the eighties the chlorofluora carbon's controversy. Yeah, 0:04:28.680 --> 0:04:33.880 aosol cans in particular, uh, were they were a source 0:04:34.320 --> 0:04:38.000 for CFC's or chloro flora carbons, which if they were 0:04:38.040 --> 0:04:42.520 to get into the stratospheric level of the atmosphere could 0:04:42.720 --> 0:04:45.240 end up depleting the ozone layer, creating these holes in 0:04:45.279 --> 0:04:48.159 the ozone layer. And ozone, as I'm sure most of 0:04:48.160 --> 0:04:50.920 you out there are aware, is really important for us 0:04:50.960 --> 0:04:54.799 because it absorbs ultra violet radiation. It decreases the amount 0:04:54.839 --> 0:04:57.440 of UV radiation that we receive here on Earth. Without 0:04:57.480 --> 0:05:02.000 that protective layer, we would be in far greater danger. 0:05:02.120 --> 0:05:04.880 We'd be much greater risk of developing things like skin 0:05:04.960 --> 0:05:07.960 cancer and other types of sun damage. Yeah, and so 0:05:08.120 --> 0:05:12.960 rocket engines typically eject gases, and these gases come well, 0:05:13.040 --> 0:05:16.839 not typically rocket engines always, yes, it's part of the gig. 0:05:17.080 --> 0:05:22.520 Maybe not all space flight propellants, but but rocket rocket 0:05:22.520 --> 0:05:26.840 engines ejected gases, and these gases can eject propellants that 0:05:26.920 --> 0:05:31.600 form chemical reactions with molecules of ozone. And that's not 0:05:31.680 --> 0:05:34.640 good because we need those molecules of ozone to be 0:05:34.760 --> 0:05:37.520 not reacted with, to stay how they are, to hang 0:05:37.520 --> 0:05:40.279 out they're more or less unchanged. That would be ideal, 0:05:40.360 --> 0:05:42.839 And of course that is not what's been happening since 0:05:42.920 --> 0:05:46.599 at least the nine seventies when we started looking at it. Yeah, 0:05:46.640 --> 0:05:48.719 So there was a two thousand nine article in the 0:05:48.800 --> 0:05:53.360 journal astro Politics the International Journal of Space Politics and Policy, 0:05:53.400 --> 0:05:55.480 which that sounds like a good journal. I've never really 0:05:55.560 --> 0:05:57.359 checked it out before, but I'm sure there's lots of 0:05:57.360 --> 0:06:02.440 good talk about space law in its politics. I'm wondering 0:06:02.520 --> 0:06:06.640 how you would fill a buster in space very quietly 0:06:07.160 --> 0:06:09.480 in space, no one can hear you fill a buster. 0:06:10.240 --> 0:06:12.520 But anyway. The article is called limits on the Space 0:06:12.640 --> 0:06:16.400 launch Market related to Stratospheric ozone Depletion, and the authors 0:06:16.400 --> 0:06:19.600 note that both solid rocket motors or sr M s 0:06:19.760 --> 0:06:24.080 and liquid rocket engines l r E s both produce 0:06:24.200 --> 0:06:28.000 emissions that have been shown to directly deplete global ozone, 0:06:28.040 --> 0:06:31.040 and they calculate that ozone depletion UH is going to 0:06:31.120 --> 0:06:34.919 be a function of payload, launch rate, and relative mix 0:06:34.960 --> 0:06:37.359 of SRM and l r E rocket emission. So it 0:06:37.360 --> 0:06:40.080 depends on what type you're using and what your your 0:06:40.120 --> 0:06:43.520 payload and number of launches are. But at the time 0:06:43.520 --> 0:06:47.480 of publication they estimated that rocket launches depleted the ozone 0:06:47.560 --> 0:06:51.640 layer by about zero point zero three percent per year, 0:06:52.400 --> 0:06:56.000 which at the time they say, okay, that's pretty much negligible, 0:06:56.080 --> 0:06:58.480 but we'll we'll come back to that in a bit. Well, 0:06:58.560 --> 0:07:00.800 let's let's talk about a little a bit more right now, 0:07:00.839 --> 0:07:04.200 because it turns out that uh, that the that direct 0:07:04.800 --> 0:07:10.880 um injection of chemicals that can react with with ozone, 0:07:11.440 --> 0:07:13.440 that's not the only thing we have to worry about 0:07:13.480 --> 0:07:16.240 that could actually affect the ozone layer. Right. Those are 0:07:16.320 --> 0:07:19.280 the reactive gases that react with the ozone layer, but 0:07:19.440 --> 0:07:22.880 they're also you can talk about emissions of particulate matter, right, 0:07:22.920 --> 0:07:26.240 and aluminum oxide and soot are two of those particulates 0:07:26.280 --> 0:07:28.240 that people have started to look at and say, this 0:07:28.320 --> 0:07:34.000 could actually really compound that problem because they are chemically 0:07:34.040 --> 0:07:38.520 reactive surfaces, meaning that the actual particles can be uh 0:07:38.680 --> 0:07:43.120 kind of a home for other chemicals to react with ozone. 0:07:43.280 --> 0:07:46.880 So they're not directly depleting the ozone. Rather, they are 0:07:46.920 --> 0:07:50.080 acting as sort of a a a laboratory of sorts 0:07:50.400 --> 0:07:52.760 for these chemical reactions to happen. It's just these are 0:07:52.800 --> 0:07:56.280 suspended in the air as a result of being ejected 0:07:56.360 --> 0:07:59.600 from the rocket as it's going through the stratosphere. So 0:08:00.040 --> 0:08:03.679 um uh. Specifically, it says here this was from an article. 0:08:03.680 --> 0:08:05.640 As reading, it says, the chemical reactions in question are 0:08:05.640 --> 0:08:08.440 pretty nasty and involved the emission of gas molecules referred 0:08:08.440 --> 0:08:12.920 to as radicals. Uh and that isn't In the nineteen eighties, 0:08:13.360 --> 0:08:16.960 radical means awesome kind of mean. Um. It's a single 0:08:17.040 --> 0:08:19.560 radical molecule in the strasphere can destroy as many as 0:08:19.560 --> 0:08:24.240 ten thousand ozone molecules. So aluminum oxide and soot provide 0:08:24.240 --> 0:08:27.240 the opportunity for more of this ozone killing stuff to 0:08:27.240 --> 0:08:30.640 get into the stratosphere, and they can. They can also 0:08:30.680 --> 0:08:34.280 in general contribute to climate change. Yeah, and now let's 0:08:34.280 --> 0:08:36.680 talk about aluminum oxide for a second, one of the 0:08:36.679 --> 0:08:39.560 two particulates. One of the things about alluinum oxides, besides 0:08:39.600 --> 0:08:42.600 the fact that it can serve as this are um, 0:08:42.640 --> 0:08:46.520 this launching point for chemical reactions, it's also reflective, so 0:08:46.559 --> 0:08:49.600 it can actually reflect light that is heading towards Earth 0:08:49.720 --> 0:08:53.280 back into space. It can, but it also does absorb 0:08:53.520 --> 0:08:57.320 light on the infrared spectrum. So therefore it seems likely 0:08:57.400 --> 0:09:00.439 that it could contribute to atmospheric warming and therefore to 0:09:00.559 --> 0:09:02.760 climate change in the long run. It's it's one of 0:09:02.760 --> 0:09:04.720 those like more it's it's a bigger question mark than 0:09:04.720 --> 0:09:07.120 the soot issue. The issue is a little bit more, 0:09:07.240 --> 0:09:10.560 uh sure, in terms of it's gonna mess and stuff up. 0:09:10.600 --> 0:09:12.520 I guess we could say it's not all in terms 0:09:12.559 --> 0:09:17.200 of black and silver. Let be the soot aluminium all right, anyway, 0:09:17.240 --> 0:09:19.000 let me talk about soot for a second. So the 0:09:19.000 --> 0:09:22.920 stuff that makes soot black is called black carbon, and 0:09:22.960 --> 0:09:27.920 generally speaking, most scientists say putting black carbon directly into 0:09:27.960 --> 0:09:30.640 the stratosphere is what we would typically say, it is 0:09:30.640 --> 0:09:33.440 a bad thing. You don't want to do it. Uh, 0:09:33.520 --> 0:09:36.439 it doesn't stay in the stratosphere for as long as 0:09:36.480 --> 0:09:40.000 carbon dioxide would. Carbon dioxide can stay up for for decades, 0:09:40.080 --> 0:09:43.680 hundreds of years even, but black carbon would only stay 0:09:43.720 --> 0:09:46.319 up there for maybe five to ten years. Uh, it's 0:09:46.320 --> 0:09:48.080 stay it's it tends to get washed out of the 0:09:48.120 --> 0:09:51.400 lower levels of the atmosphere because precipitation will just knock 0:09:51.400 --> 0:09:53.720 it down the air. But in the stratosphere you don't 0:09:53.760 --> 0:09:57.960 have that to to contend with UM And according to 0:09:58.400 --> 0:10:01.680 Popular Science, they sited to study that said black carbon 0:10:01.720 --> 0:10:05.680 absorbs one hundred thousand times as much energy as carbon 0:10:05.720 --> 0:10:10.440 dioxide emitted by rockets. So that tells you that it's 0:10:10.480 --> 0:10:13.000 it's a power player in the in the potential for 0:10:13.120 --> 0:10:20.160 making a climate change worse. UM. So rockets produce about 0:10:20.200 --> 0:10:22.960 a thousand times more black carbon per unit of fuel 0:10:23.520 --> 0:10:28.160 compared to normal aircraft. Plus rockets are traveling through the stratosphere, 0:10:28.160 --> 0:10:31.800 so it's a direct injection of this stuff into the 0:10:31.880 --> 0:10:34.240 left layer. You absolutely do not want it to go 0:10:34.320 --> 0:10:38.360 into now, according to computer models, so these are simulations. 0:10:38.679 --> 0:10:41.280 Obviously we don't have a ton of data about this, 0:10:41.640 --> 0:10:44.520 but according to computer models, ring shaped cloud of black 0:10:44.559 --> 0:10:47.840 carbon would form around the area of a launch site 0:10:47.840 --> 0:10:50.440 where a rocket has come up. Uh. That cloud of 0:10:50.440 --> 0:10:52.800 black carbon would actually have both a warming and a 0:10:52.880 --> 0:10:55.440 cooling effect. The it would create a shade in a 0:10:55.480 --> 0:10:58.400 certain region that would immediately start to cool it, but 0:10:58.440 --> 0:11:00.720 it would also help trap heat, so would have warming 0:11:01.040 --> 0:11:03.560 in certain areas and cooling and others, and it could 0:11:03.600 --> 0:11:07.040 be pretty dramatic. We're talking of a magnitude of five degrees, 0:11:07.080 --> 0:11:10.040 although I must add popular science and neglected to say 0:11:10.040 --> 0:11:13.760 whether those were celsius or fahrenheit. Wait, should we either 0:11:13.800 --> 0:11:17.400 assume that they're being correct and snobby and just assuming 0:11:17.480 --> 0:11:21.080 celsius or should we assume that they're being slack and 0:11:21.120 --> 0:11:27.520 assuming fahrenheit Joe, It's called popular science, so on worldwide 0:11:27.520 --> 0:11:31.440 standards we can go with seals. But at any rate 0:11:31.480 --> 0:11:34.680 that I mean five degrees is that's enormous. Like it 0:11:34.840 --> 0:11:37.480 sounds like it's nothing, right, especially if you live someplace 0:11:37.520 --> 0:11:41.800 that has a fairly dramatic switch from winter to summer, 0:11:41.840 --> 0:11:44.240 where you've got, you know, a big range of temperatures. 0:11:44.360 --> 0:11:46.760 Five degrees sounds like, oh, well that's nothing. No, it 0:11:46.960 --> 0:11:51.160 is huge. Uh, when most of the climate change models 0:11:51.160 --> 0:11:53.080 we talk about end up being well, this could be 0:11:53.120 --> 0:11:55.839 an increase of maybe one point three degrees, and everyone 0:11:55.920 --> 0:12:00.480 freaks out. This is five degrees. So in it it's 0:12:00.600 --> 0:12:03.640 much shorter term. So it's not like something that would 0:12:04.040 --> 0:12:06.160 last forever. If we got to a point where we 0:12:06.160 --> 0:12:09.200 were seeing these effects, we could say we're gonna put 0:12:09.360 --> 0:12:13.920 the hold on space launches and change things up, because 0:12:14.040 --> 0:12:16.600 if we continue to do this will just keep the problem, 0:12:16.640 --> 0:12:20.400 it will perpetuate it. Right. Also, I should add that 0:12:20.440 --> 0:12:25.280 the model they were using was assuming a thousand launches 0:12:25.320 --> 0:12:28.280 per year, which is an order of magnitude larger than 0:12:28.280 --> 0:12:30.559 what we're seeing right now. It's usually about a hundred 0:12:30.640 --> 0:12:32.920 per year. Yeah, that that would be that would be 0:12:32.920 --> 0:12:34.920 a busy year. A hundred would be a busy year. 0:12:34.960 --> 0:12:37.000 We'll talk more about that in a little bit, but yeah, 0:12:37.160 --> 0:12:41.040 a thousand launches a year is is way more than 0:12:41.040 --> 0:12:44.280 what we do right now. However, remember we're talking about 0:12:44.280 --> 0:12:47.480 a future where space tourism is presumably going to be 0:12:47.559 --> 0:12:50.280 a thing, where we reusable rockets are bringing the cost 0:12:50.360 --> 0:12:53.520 of getting into space down. And once you start removing 0:12:53.520 --> 0:12:56.600 those barriers, then obviously there are a lot of reasons 0:12:56.640 --> 0:12:58.920 to try and get out into space, from science to 0:12:58.960 --> 0:13:03.920 tourism to all sorts of surveillance, all kinds of reasons. Um, 0:13:04.080 --> 0:13:07.079 it's not unreasonable to suspect that in the future we 0:13:07.360 --> 0:13:11.360 would see around a thousand launches a year. I mean, 0:13:11.400 --> 0:13:14.880 that's an enormous amount, but it could happen. In fact, 0:13:14.880 --> 0:13:19.959 one company uh X core x c o R wants 0:13:20.000 --> 0:13:23.280 to ramp up like when they hit full speed. They 0:13:23.280 --> 0:13:27.720 want to be having four launches per day. Now, even 0:13:27.720 --> 0:13:31.280 assuming that that's just work days like business days, and 0:13:31.320 --> 0:13:35.800 removing all the popular holidays. In the United States, this 0:13:35.920 --> 0:13:39.600 year has two hundred fifty of those days. Two fifty 0:13:39.640 --> 0:13:41.840 times four is one thousand. So there you go. There's 0:13:41.840 --> 0:13:46.319 your thousand, um uh And and it's important to keep 0:13:46.320 --> 0:13:49.040 in mind here that the effects on the atmosphere aren't 0:13:49.080 --> 0:13:51.880 the only effects that we're potentially looking at. No, there 0:13:51.920 --> 0:13:53.880 are multiple reasons you might not want to be a 0:13:53.920 --> 0:13:57.600 frog that lives near a launch site. Yeah, I generally 0:13:57.600 --> 0:13:59.560 don't want to be a frog. I have to say. 0:13:59.760 --> 0:14:02.079 I'm mean, I don't know they're they're real cute, but 0:14:03.440 --> 0:14:06.200 I find that a narrow minded lattitude is making me think. 0:14:06.280 --> 0:14:09.240 Wasn't there a picture of a rocket launching with a 0:14:09.320 --> 0:14:14.319 frog hanging off of it like desperately? Yeah, this this 0:14:14.400 --> 0:14:17.920 episode goes out to you are amphibian friend and at 0:14:17.920 --> 0:14:22.000 any rate, but no that there are legitimately documented negative 0:14:22.080 --> 0:14:25.640 environmental effects on the ground surrounding rocket launch site, right, 0:14:25.640 --> 0:14:28.120 which is not a big surprise. You see these these 0:14:28.200 --> 0:14:32.240 rockets taking off. Obviously massive amounts of gas are admitted 0:14:32.320 --> 0:14:35.000 right there at ground level. Most of that, however, is 0:14:35.040 --> 0:14:39.000 not a huge deal for the immediate area. In fact, 0:14:39.080 --> 0:14:43.360 one of the most dangerous chemicals associated with rocket launches 0:14:44.160 --> 0:14:46.080 wasn't really part of a rocket launch at all. It's 0:14:46.160 --> 0:14:50.040 kind of a secondary chemical that was used in order 0:14:50.040 --> 0:14:54.360 to clean rocket engines, especially after tests, So this wasn't 0:14:54.400 --> 0:14:57.920 necessarily for a full launch. It might be a test situation, 0:14:58.400 --> 0:15:00.800 but it would those tests would typic. We take place 0:15:01.080 --> 0:15:04.960 at launch facilities like Kennedy Space Center. So one of 0:15:04.960 --> 0:15:10.840 the byproducts that was particularly dangerous has tri chlora ethylene 0:15:10.920 --> 0:15:13.600 or TCE. I think I got that right on the 0:15:13.640 --> 0:15:15.680 first try. I'll never get it right again, so I'm 0:15:15.720 --> 0:15:18.440 going to stick with t CE at any rate. That 0:15:18.520 --> 0:15:21.760 was used to clean the engines and remove hydrocarbon deposits, 0:15:21.880 --> 0:15:24.200 So it was in order to to clean out an 0:15:24.200 --> 0:15:26.280 engine so that you could use it again if you 0:15:26.320 --> 0:15:29.480 were in a testing phase. But TC, it turns out, 0:15:29.600 --> 0:15:34.280 is a very toxic chemical. It's carcinogenic and worse than that. 0:15:34.720 --> 0:15:36.920 If you put it in the ground, it can bind 0:15:37.200 --> 0:15:41.840 with soil and sand and stay chemically active for a 0:15:41.880 --> 0:15:45.239 really long time. It's possible for it to get into groundwater, 0:15:45.320 --> 0:15:48.120 although not likely because it's actually more dense than water, 0:15:48.200 --> 0:15:50.440 so it tends to sink down. But there are a 0:15:50.440 --> 0:15:53.680 lot of geologic processes that could push it back up 0:15:53.720 --> 0:15:58.280 into uh the atmosphere, where that would really be a problem. 0:15:58.320 --> 0:16:01.480 I should also point out that the places where the 0:16:01.560 --> 0:16:05.480 deposits are people don't draw their water from the groundwater 0:16:05.520 --> 0:16:08.720 in those places, but it's still could have a really 0:16:08.760 --> 0:16:13.040 bad impact on wildlife in the environment. So also water 0:16:13.120 --> 0:16:16.680 doesn't really stay put yeah, yeah, you can't. I mean, 0:16:16.960 --> 0:16:19.240 you know, water. Water is like me, baby, It goes 0:16:19.280 --> 0:16:22.480 where it wants to at any rate. So I was 0:16:22.480 --> 0:16:24.000 looking at Joe the whole time of that, and he's 0:16:24.080 --> 0:16:27.640 just just shaking his head. So keep in mind that. 0:16:27.800 --> 0:16:30.600 Uh so before this, when the space race first started, 0:16:30.760 --> 0:16:35.880 right all the way up until after the Apollo thirteen mission, 0:16:36.760 --> 0:16:39.240 there was no such thing as the Environmental Protection Agency 0:16:39.280 --> 0:16:42.040 here in the United States. There was no governing body 0:16:42.120 --> 0:16:46.640 that created the policies and laws that would uh guide 0:16:47.040 --> 0:16:51.640 organizations like I don't know, NASA to dispose of harmful 0:16:51.760 --> 0:16:54.760 chemicals in a responsible way. No, the e P as 0:16:54.800 --> 0:16:58.680 a creature the Nixon administration. That's true. Yeah, Nixon formed 0:16:58.720 --> 0:17:01.760 it in December nineteen seven, and so all the launches 0:17:01.840 --> 0:17:04.640 that happened before that, there was no such governing body. 0:17:04.680 --> 0:17:08.200 So NASA did what made sense. It was cheap. They 0:17:08.320 --> 0:17:10.480 dug a hole and they dumped the TC in it. 0:17:11.200 --> 0:17:14.720 This seems like a good place for this. Oddly enough, 0:17:15.840 --> 0:17:19.199 not such a good place. So yeah, now NASA is 0:17:19.440 --> 0:17:24.480 currently cleaning that soil and has been for quite some time. 0:17:24.520 --> 0:17:27.320 I should shouldn't. It's not like they just started. They've 0:17:27.359 --> 0:17:30.840 been doing it. Year over year. They they're always allotting 0:17:30.880 --> 0:17:33.840 a certain number of millions of dollars toward that effort. 0:17:34.359 --> 0:17:37.320 But from why I understand, we're still looking at some 0:17:38.240 --> 0:17:41.240 decades of cleaning ahead of us. It's not like it's 0:17:41.280 --> 0:17:45.160 going to be um uh taking care of overnight. I mean, 0:17:45.480 --> 0:17:49.960 more than two fifty contaminated sites were identified as being 0:17:50.280 --> 0:17:53.440 places where TC is is found at least in some 0:17:53.480 --> 0:17:57.800 measurable amount. Now, NASA actually strikes me as fairly environmentally 0:17:57.840 --> 0:18:01.399 conscientious as far as government and organizations go, So I 0:18:01.720 --> 0:18:05.280 would imagine they're doing a better job these days. Absolutely. Yeah, 0:18:05.359 --> 0:18:08.960 they have cut way back on using TC. They still 0:18:09.080 --> 0:18:11.560 use it in small amounts, but they also follow very 0:18:11.600 --> 0:18:15.080 strict rules about how to dispose of it. But they're 0:18:15.160 --> 0:18:19.320 using a lot of other alternatives that are chemically they 0:18:19.400 --> 0:18:22.040 react in similar ways to TC, but they don't have 0:18:22.040 --> 0:18:26.159 that carcinogenic factor. They're not toxic the way TC is. 0:18:26.920 --> 0:18:31.120 So so the hope is that future launches will have 0:18:31.320 --> 0:18:35.320 less of an environmentally dangerous effect on the ground around 0:18:35.359 --> 0:18:38.800 the launch site due to these sorts of chemicals. But 0:18:38.800 --> 0:18:41.320 but this is this is a byproduct. Of course, some 0:18:41.400 --> 0:18:46.320 contaminants are released by some launch combustions themselves that affect 0:18:46.359 --> 0:18:49.640 the ground side around the launch. Solid booster rockets, which 0:18:49.640 --> 0:18:52.159 are what the Space Shuttle used for part of their 0:18:52.240 --> 0:18:57.680 launch sequence, combust aluminum and ammonium perclorates and release aluminum particles, 0:18:57.800 --> 0:19:00.119 which which have that effect on the atmosphere is discussed of. 0:19:00.600 --> 0:19:04.520 But they also released hydrochloric acid, like two thirty tons 0:19:04.560 --> 0:19:07.879 of hydrochloric acid per flight. That sounds like a lot. 0:19:08.119 --> 0:19:10.800 It's not a little bit um and you know it's 0:19:10.840 --> 0:19:13.160 it's water soluble, which means that when it does fall 0:19:13.200 --> 0:19:16.679 to the ground, it contaminates the local water supply. NASA 0:19:16.720 --> 0:19:20.560 found reduced numbers of plants species near launch sites partially 0:19:20.600 --> 0:19:22.800 due to this stuff, and it can make bodies of 0:19:22.840 --> 0:19:25.600 water too acidic for fish to survive in. See. This 0:19:25.680 --> 0:19:29.400 makes me think of the again of the eighties because 0:19:29.600 --> 0:19:33.040 acid rain was something that you heard about all the time. 0:19:33.400 --> 0:19:35.719 There is a song that Tim Burton sung about it 0:19:35.800 --> 0:19:39.520 in a fern Gully, The Last Rainforest. Yeah. Actually Tim Curry, 0:19:39.640 --> 0:19:41.760 Tim Curry, Tim Curry, we were talking about Tim Burton 0:19:41.840 --> 0:19:44.560 right before the show. I knew exactly who you're talking about, 0:19:44.880 --> 0:19:48.320 Tim Tim Curry. Tim Curry was the villain of full 0:19:48.480 --> 0:19:51.440 so I assume he was in favor of Acid Raine. Yeah, yeah, 0:19:51.440 --> 0:19:53.399 he was pretty excited. Recalled. Just before the song, he 0:19:53.440 --> 0:19:56.280 says something like toxic sludge mother's milk, and then he 0:19:56.359 --> 0:19:59.160 just goes into this song and it only gets creepier 0:19:59.200 --> 0:20:01.160 from there. That was that That was a really good 0:20:01.520 --> 0:20:06.360 impersonation of what was the character's name, Smog. I think 0:20:10.280 --> 0:20:13.440 so my references are all over the place today, Smog. 0:20:13.560 --> 0:20:16.359 That's the dragon from the hop anyway, Okay, I'm fine, 0:20:16.400 --> 0:20:20.440 al right at any rate, So scale here get back. Yeah. 0:20:20.440 --> 0:20:23.720 We talked a little bit already about the fact that 0:20:23.720 --> 0:20:27.080 that in the grand scheme of things, we aren't launching 0:20:27.480 --> 0:20:31.880 that many rockets today. Right, It's not like we're going 0:20:31.960 --> 0:20:34.720 crazy and there's a launch every single day of the week, like, 0:20:34.880 --> 0:20:38.520 not like what people are planning for the future. So 0:20:38.680 --> 0:20:42.760 where are we, like, how many rockets are going up? 0:20:42.840 --> 0:20:46.920 Say a couple of years ago. Well, I found one 0:20:47.040 --> 0:20:50.560 article on space flight now dot com that, if it's correct, 0:20:50.680 --> 0:20:54.200 they said that I had the greatest number of space 0:20:54.280 --> 0:20:58.640 launches of any year since nineteen and that number was two, 0:20:59.520 --> 0:21:02.280 So that's not a whole lot. In they said there 0:21:02.280 --> 0:21:05.840 were eighty one attempted space launches, and as we mentioned earlier, 0:21:06.760 --> 0:21:09.960 the different types of emissions and their effects don't necessarily 0:21:10.000 --> 0:21:12.800 compare across the board. But just for a sense of scale, 0:21:12.880 --> 0:21:15.720 let's look at airplanes. I found one blog post that 0:21:15.720 --> 0:21:18.639 crunched some numbers from an industry report compiled by the 0:21:18.680 --> 0:21:21.720 Air Transport Action Group, and it estimated that there were 0:21:21.760 --> 0:21:24.960 a little more than a hundred thousand conventional air flights 0:21:25.080 --> 0:21:30.040 every day around the world. That's a lot, that's a 0:21:30.119 --> 0:21:33.000 hundred about a hundred thousand every day. And if that 0:21:33.080 --> 0:21:36.119 number is correct, even if every rocket launch had the 0:21:36.160 --> 0:21:40.400 impact of ten thousand commercial air flights, our current rate 0:21:40.400 --> 0:21:43.440 of space launches wouldn't come close to rivaling the air 0:21:43.440 --> 0:21:48.320 travel industry. Right, And that's not the only cars heavy 0:21:48.320 --> 0:21:51.920 industry coal burning, So so it is um worth keeping 0:21:52.000 --> 0:21:55.440 scale in mind. Rockets aren't really a big problem today, 0:21:55.720 --> 0:21:59.960 comparatively speaking, it's a it's a drop in the pollution bucket. Yeah, 0:22:00.320 --> 0:22:02.879 but remember this is a future focused podcast, and as 0:22:02.920 --> 0:22:06.160 you said before, space tourism might pick up on top 0:22:06.200 --> 0:22:10.840 of that, mining asteroids, harvesting helium from the Moon, servicing 0:22:11.480 --> 0:22:15.960 networks of space station satellites, extraterrestrial colonies in the future. 0:22:16.320 --> 0:22:17.960 We hope there are going to be a lot of 0:22:18.000 --> 0:22:21.200 space launches. So if that is the case, we really 0:22:21.240 --> 0:22:24.040 would need to find some kind of solution to the 0:22:24.080 --> 0:22:28.800 problem of space launch emissions and it's and it's byproducts. Yes, 0:22:29.119 --> 0:22:33.359 So do we have any such alternatives even in just 0:22:33.480 --> 0:22:37.600 planning stages. Yes. NASA has one type of fuel they're 0:22:37.600 --> 0:22:41.000 calling alice, which is short for aluminum ice, and they 0:22:41.080 --> 0:22:43.879 conducted a project with grad students at Perdu and Penn 0:22:43.960 --> 0:22:47.520 State with the Air Force Office of Scientific Research to 0:22:48.119 --> 0:22:53.280 create this this more environmentally friendly propellant from nanoscale aluminum 0:22:53.320 --> 0:22:57.560 powder and water ice wow uh and d. During combustion, 0:22:57.600 --> 0:23:00.479 it produces just hydrogen gas and aluminum ox it so 0:23:00.840 --> 0:23:03.399 not that bad uh. Part part of the idea here 0:23:03.440 --> 0:23:05.960 is that it could be manufactured on other water ice 0:23:06.040 --> 0:23:10.080 bearing places in space like the Moon or Mars or asteroids. 0:23:10.119 --> 0:23:12.920 And the aluminum nano particles are really the key here 0:23:12.960 --> 0:23:16.440