NASA to make more Global Warming!

[Supercool Dude]

Have you guys seen the two new new rockets that will replace the Space Shuttle?

Both of them use the very same type of Solid Rocket Boosters that the shuttle uses.

What has me very upset is that these type of SRB's pollute like crazy and release Greenhouse gases which are helping tp melt the Earth's ice polar caps and glaciers and cause these Superhurricanes to attack America like it is a magnet for Hurricanes.

NASA Administrator Michael Griffith is a dunce!

The World is in a state of Global Warming and he is adding to the problem and not helping.

He has ordered NASA to build two new rockets to replace the Space Shuttle.

They employ Solid Rocket Booster exactly like the Shuttle does.

These boosters use a heavy pollutant that causes Global Warming.

No one in Congress or the press, and not even Greenpeace has any objections.

And with no cure for Global Warming, NASA has decided to continue polluting with these SRB's.

We don't need these SRB's

The Saturn V rockets did not use SRB boosters.

The Delta IV Heavy uses Hydrogen & Oxygen.

Michael Griffith looks like a dunce!

http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/griffin_bio.html

[Ninjahedge]

SCD, you need to get a grip.

The solid core boosters are not the chief polluting source, by FAR, in the environment.

Write your letters to the automobile industry who, if they increased their average MPG on their models as modestly as a few MPG, would make more of an impact that all the exhaust fumes generated by all of the launches in history.


Until these shuttles become airbusses, we really do not have to worry about them melting the polar caps.

China will do that for us!!!! ;)

[Supercool Dude]

No! You do not realize the amount of pollutants the SRB's make.

There have been 114 shuttle missions, which translates into 228 SRB flights.

That is a huge amount of Solid Rocket Propellants and it leaves behind smoke and salty dust and it ejects this stuff high into the upper atmosphere and you know that can decimate the Ozone Hole which just keeps getting bigger.

All of this GW is melting the glaciers causing too much fresh water into the North Atlantic which appears to be changing the Gulfstream and the ecology...................

But you do not care and have become apathetic towards the way we burn fuels......

I haven't got an answer to gas and diesel cars..............:(

[ZippyTheChimp]

Before we can discuss this intelligently, you need to be specific on exactly what pollutant is being released by solid rocket propellants that is absent from liquid propellants. Statements such as:
These boosters use a heavy pollutant that causes Global Warmingare of no use.

No! You do not realize the amount of pollutants the SRB's make
No, I guess we don't. Why don't you tell us?

The consensus is that carbon dioxide is the main contributor to global warming because it persists in the atmosphere longer than other gases such as methane. I'm sure dust and smoke are contributors, but sold particulates settle out in a relatively short time. Just think how many rocket launches it would take to equal one volcanic eruption.

A rocket launch looks spectacular, and clogged highways are boring, so it may be a common mistake to downplay the importance of the automobile as a polluter, but there are millions of them, and they are out there every day.

Eliminating a few hundred rocket launches is a drop in the bucket.

http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/causes01.jsp

[Gulcrapek]

Right. There are far more extensive things to worry about.

I'm guessing SRBs leave some kinda ammonium perchlorate crap?

The fact remains, however, that the boosters are incredibly powerful and that power cannot be achieved with current liquid engines. Designing new ones would take billions of dollars the government is not willing to spend.

[BrooklynRider]

... Designing new ones would take billions of dollars the government is not willing to spend.

The Aliens living underground could tell them how to do it....;)

[NYatKNIGHT]

That's why they need to build this. (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7413)

[Supercool Dude]

The propellant mixture in each SRB motor consists of an ammonium perchlorate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_perchlorate) (oxidizer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidizer), 69.6 percent by weight), aluminum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum) (fuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel), 16 percent), iron oxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_oxide) (a catalyst (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalyst), 0.4 percent), a polymer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer) (a binder that holds the mixture together, 12.04 percent), and an epoxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoxy) curing agent (1.96 percent).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Booster

Here, you read and decide for yourself!:eek:

I think we should use the Delta 4 Heavy for the CEV instead. It uses Hydrogen & Oxygen and leaves steam for exhaust.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/delheavy.htm

[Ninjahedge]

Supercool, look at how much is put in there and start doing the calculations.

Wikpedia does not expouse the ramifications of solid fuel boosters on global warming.

The ammounts listed seem significant until you see the rate of discharge per year of these substances and compare that to things such as Oil refineries, coal power plants, and other emmissions.

On top of that, you have consumer exhaust that is doing quite a bit more.

Also, there is the whole issue of the modernization of mainland China. What happens when they get as electricity hungry as us? Their car emmision standards are behind us as it is, do you think there is no possibility of them firing up a few coal power plants to fill the need? We have already discussed doing the very same thing!


Also, where do you think all that hydrogen and oxygen comes from? We would not be getting that stuff from solar power? Also, how do we keep it cold? How do we transport it? How MUCH do you need for the same amount of propulsion? How much would this cost, and would the environmental impact of the generation, transportation storage and actual lifting of that much fuel up with the craft on takeoff?

I laud your environmental concern, but you must ALWAYS research your topic before you cruisade for it, because even if you are right in what you are saying, people will not listen if most of the other things you say are easily disproven....

[Supercool Dude]

Ever hear of the straw that broke the Camels back?

These SRB's are the last straw!

They are not taking us in the right direction.

These SRB's will just make GW worse.

I have written to a number of politicians on Capitol Hill.............

All I get is apathy.

Even Greenpeace doesn't give a damn!:(:confused:

[Ninjahedge]

Greenpeace has some common sense.


Stop talking about the straw that broke the camels back. I would be more concerned about removing the Mac Truck from its back first before I worry about brushing the dust off it's forehead.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Ever hear of the straw that broke the Camels back?

These SRB's are the last straw!
In a perfect world, we would have unlimited resources (money) to tackle every cause of a problem. That world does not exist.

If you waste money eliminating the minor causes of a problem, that money is not available to deal with the major causes. The result is, your efforts will have less of an impact on the problem.

Also, if you grab at every issue and turn it into a a major threat just to draw attention to the problem, an unwanted result will be that opponents to the very concept of Global Warming will use these insignificant issues to discredit your entire argument.

It isn't the straw that broke the camel's back. It's a fart in a hurricane.

[Supercool Dude]

You know, maybe I should sue NASA!

[Ninjahedge]

You know, maybe I should sue NASA!


I am detecting a sarcastic BS thread.

I HOPE it is sarcasm, because if it isn't, this is getting scary........

:eek: