Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin rocket tests in Texas are emitting so much methane you can see it from space::So much you can see it from the ISS in space.

  • kombineros@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    1 year ago

    When burned, methane produces water and carbon dioxide, which are less harmful to the environment. The issue here is not with rocket testing, but with improper storage of methane

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Oh poo…”

    • three generations inbred billionaire heir having their view of earth ruined by methane clouds during their million dollar space tourism flight.
  • BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    So we have hydrogen as rocket fuel that does not produce greenhouse gasses when burned and they decide to develop methane as a fuel source instead! Why!?!

    • ammonium@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hydrogen itself is a strong greenhouse gas and leaks from everything, so it wouldn’t necessarily be better.

  • Ecen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    It sounds like they should be more careful with how they store their methane.

    I do want to stress though, that I think that space technology is the single most important subject we can focus on, except maybe medical. If extravagant trips for billionaire’s can fund a bunch of it for now, that’s fine by me. Only really means that governments should be doing more.

    Every day, the sun emits roughly a billion times more energy than the earth uses. That is, all our technology, all our food, all animals, all plants and all the energy needed to create all weather combined consumes about one billionth of the sun’s output. The rest is sent into deep space.

    This waste of the sun’s energy is so vast, that we as a species absolutely want to start capturing more of it as soon as possible, rather than squabbling in the mud for fractions of the 0.0000001% of the sun’s output the earth uses today. Obviously we need our planet to survive until then, but getting proper infrastructure in orbit and beyond is such a massive game changer.

    • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      but getting proper infrastructure in orbit and beyond

      Ah, there is the catch. Don’t forget how you plan on getting that power safely back to earth.

      • Ecen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        True. Doing that wouldn’t be easy right now.

        However, it doesn’t necessarily need to get back to Earth. If we have power up in space, it gets much easier to run mining operations on asteroids, the moon etc. As soon as we have both power and minerals, we can also start putting factories in orbit instead of on Earth, reducing energy need down here.

        The stuff those factories produce can be dropped down to Earth, OR we use that stuff in space to build even more infrastructure. In fact, at this point it becomes feasible to build really nice space stations that people can go live on if they want. Eventually, we’d even have the production capacity to build O’Neill Cylinders.

        Now we can just continue building and mining in space, while developing or preserving Earth as we like.

    • Fades@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Which is why we should not be leaving it to these billionaires.

      FUCKING FUND NASA instead of these fascists

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    The state air regulator, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, doesn’t impose limits on methane emissions or require disclosure of releases.

    Well there’s your problem.

      • atx_aquarian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Also extracting some key facts from the article:

        … an instrument on board the International Space Station, [detected] about 1.5 metric tons per hour. There’s no indication of how long it lasted.

        An air permit application filed with the TCEQ in January 2020 said the company expected to routinely dump LNG into the air to the tune of [60 tons] a year

        …a huge oilfield near the rocket site [is] thought to give off some 2.7 million tons of methane a year.

        (My paraphrasing and emphasis added.)

        I’m not saying one of those isn’t a lot, though I am observing that we really really really need to ramp up renewables production to offset fossil fuel demand.

      • Deftdrummer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Of course, Blue Origin’s emissions pale in comparison with those from its suppliers in the natural gas industry.

        Hate harder.