Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!ucbvax!space From: MCGRATH@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU ("Jim McGrath") Newsgroups: net.space Subject: Spacecraft emissions Message-ID: <12172161741.15.MCGRATH@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU> Date: Thu, 2-Jan-86 21:41:26 EST Article-I.D.: OZ.12172161741.15.MCGRATH Posted: Thu Jan 2 21:41:26 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 3-Jan-86 08:20:54 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: mcgrath%mit-oz@mit-mc.arpa Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 54 Staring in Space Digest, Volume 6 : Issue 58: > From: Paul Dietz > Has anyone ever thought about the environmental impact that an > air-breathing x-atmos vehicle is likely to cause? ... we can wind up > with lots more nitrous oxide, nitric oxide, nitric acid,.. What > happens? We... reduce the ozone layer... I think it is fairly clear from other submission that this is the only real concern - the others seem to have been disposed of convincingly. > From: "Keith F. Lynch" > This harks back to the anti-SST argument concerning NOx emissions > destroying the ozonosphere (which was vastly overblown). I agree - it is almost exactly the same argument. Since the scientific community has spent a huge amount of effort studying the upper atmosphere and devising various models of chemical transformations, the precise answer should be relatively easy to obtain. As I remember the latest reports on such research, the ozone layer is much more resilent that originally thought, so that there should be little difficulty. Moreover, existing SSTs are polluting the air far more than any space transportation system envisioned possibly could (exhausts weighted by frequency of flights). Clearly we are not suffering from ill effects (or they would have been reported by this time). > From: ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!hao!ames!eugene@ucbvax.berkeley.edu > (Eugene Miya) > I think you raise a valid point and the Office of Technological > Accessment (OTA) should probably start such a study. ... Linking > this to SST hysteria (both pro and con) would do this no end of harm. First, I see no reason not to use previous relevant research. Second, given that the OTA seems to hate anything with the work "space" in it, I would strongly oppose getting them involved. > One must not be blinded by technological wonders. Nor by rabid environmentalism. It is this type of "problem making" that gives environmentalists (as opposed to conservationists) such a bad name. The space program is already suffering from inertia and lack of political support. While it is only prudent to take reasonable steps to minimize environmental impacts, it is silly to make a federal case (literally) out of something with such a low probability of being a fatal defect and such a high probability of being used to try and derail or delay any work on these programs for the indefinite future. Jim -------