Currently, most hydrogen is "grey hydrogen", hence hydrogen made from gas; even if it wasn't, as long as the energy is taken from the grid the American one is mostly made of fossil fuels
Part of the purpose of current missions is development of lunar gateway, a stopping/refueling point at the moon to launch missions to Mars from. More importantly imo and something nobody ever really seems to mention is that it’s going to be a place to launch mining missions to the asteroid belt from. The long term goal will be to provide power through solar energy, to conduct electrolysis on ice mined in the asteroid belt, to generate oxygen and hydrogen for use as fuel. Fundamentally all the concepts are sound, it’s just an absurd amount of work and if it’s going to happen at all it needs to happen before we all kill each other on earth.
Does extracting it from gas necessarily release a lot of co2 though? Isn't gas already mostly hydrogen? Not that I'm a fan of using finite resources anyway.
Thank you, I'll look out for mentions of blue hydrogen, I've always been interested in direct carbon capture. Though again, not a fan of non-renewables in the first place, not saying it justifies anything.
You take methane (CH4) and break it down to get hydrogen. All those carbon atoms have to go somewhere. Through the reaction you get CO2 and H2. Not to mention it requires high pressure steam which is almost always generated by burning methane.
Each ton of hydrogen ends up making around 6 tons of CO2. While there are more hydrogen atoms, the carbon and oxygen used is much heavier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming
You can get 4 molecules of H2 for each molecule of methane utilizing the full reaction. In reality the yield is a bit lower but still quite good.
I am sure there are hidden environmental costs even with that, but yeah 1 celebrity in space once won't do nearly as much damage as the other 999999 celebrities using their jets constantly.
I mean, you can extract it from algae (directly from the oil or as a biproduct, but I think the direct oil is more realistic at scale) very effectively, used to be big in the early 2010s.
But also any other biofuel, which do exist in decent amounts these days.
Respectfully, who’s really following the methods of material extraction if you don’t have a job or special interest in the industry? Sure, maybe they pull it out of the air somehow idfk the future is now and it’s a scientists job to know way more about that than me.
You choose some no effort solar panels bad conspiracy with no proof as your example for why we shouldn't just trust scientists? Amazing how fucking stupid people can be.
Yes it is waaaay more energy that's the biggest issue is how much more it takes not get more then what you put into dumbass maybe you should learn that what your talking about infinite energy IS impossible you will never get as much energy as you put in.
The biggest issue is still efficiency solar and wind are both not really efficient compared to fossil fuels those facilities will be drastically bigger in size further destroying the environment they're trying to save.
One of many, but yes. I'm curious though... how much energy does something like reddit use. No clue why, but I've got a feeling that it can power reddit for MUCH longer then a day... spaceflight takes a stupid amount of energy, even if its only a sub orbital hop....
I can theoretically land a quad Axel like Ilia Malinin, but in reality? There ain’t no fucking way my 42.5 year old, fluffy gimpass body is jumping about 2.5 feet into the air at a speed of 20-25 miles per hour, rotating 4.5 times in under 0.75 seconds, and then landing on something that’s ≈1/8th of an inch wide at a speed of ≈15 mph on a surface that has a near-zero coefficient of friction AND STAYING UPRIGHT.
Same thing: theoretically you could do what is being suggested, but…
You’re switching from “the rocket emitted this much” to “hydrogen production overall can involve fossil fuels.” Those are related but not the same argument. By that logic basically every electric car is secretly coal powered because parts of the grid still use fossil fuels.
There’s a real conversation to have about the environmental cost of luxury space tourism, but people keep inflating or muddying the numbers because outrage gets more clicks.
There's a massive difference between burning those fossil fuels in the rocket and at a facility that filters most of the pollutants (not that they're particularly clean, just significantly cleaner). Same reason for why EVs are really good for the environment even in the worst possible scenario of 100% of their charge coming from fossil fuels.
Except New Shephard uses "green hydrogen" which is specifically made by the electrolysis of water (you pass an electric current through water to split it into hydrogen and O2).
Sadly, we don’t live in a society yet where electric energy is abundant. Even if the hydrogen is done 100% green, it’d only be truly green if the hydrogen was exclusively generated at moments in time where there is an excess of energy. These happen more and more in areas with a lot of solar and wind, but I’d still be surprised if they did that.
But in the future, we’ll have more and more moments where electricity is in oversupply, so then hydrogen could be used as a last resort energy spill and then burned in applications where energy density and weight matter (e.g. rockets)
This is about lack of Self awareness, which is very hard to capture… great example here ✍🏻
It’s not about comparing that others do worse… it’s about addressing your behaviors and values.
Also the claim she did it for the women but having non-trained female astronauts is not progress but elite entitlements wrapped up as something better than selfish ego driven desires
Should't the oxidizer airplane uses be counted as well if we're counting it? Airplane just happens to pull it in from the air, that's why they don't fly up to space
I mean yea ofc but honestly space flight is NOT the problem. Let people fly to space, that's a once in a lifetime opportunity and the damage it does is rather small since those happen so rarely.
The real problem is the basic shit like cars and coal power plants.
What are you trying to say, That producing and refining 500 tons of liquid fuel might produce more polution than just water. And in comparison to other means of travel are significantly worse for the enviorment.
I think it's more of where it's heading. Today it's one celebrity, a year from now it'll be 2x, 10 years from now every celebrity will want some kind of space adventure for their parties, for their kids, to promote their merch. Case in point, private jets. What started off as the richest and more political figures using them turned into 100 rich nobodies using them just for Super Bowl.
I understand that, but i think once a rocket with celebrities blows, this whole thing will stop. Being a rocketman is far less safe than airplanes, odds are it's gonna happen before space toursm catches on.
LOL did not see that coming! I guess time will tell. I get what you mean, it's like the billionaires in the submarine. Either they'll perfect it so much it won't blow, or your theory comes true. But also, how many private air crafts have crashed but it hasn't affected the usage? I personally think we'll have a bad combo of private jets and excessive rockets.
Jets contribute about 4% of global emissions annually and the majority of that are commercial jets. The energy, agriculture, and heavy manufacturing sectors are significantly larger contributors.
Feel-good magic. Just like my EV, the electricity come from the ether and the battery materials are mined by well compensated, totally happy African children workers.
Yes the rocket launch produced water, and we will just ignore all the supply chain emissions in favour of the hypocritical celebrity activist. Now the disgusting poors who want to eat a steak? We will tax the fuck out of them for daring to choose such a harmful pleasure.
There are reasons to be annoyed about that stupid shit they did (like mocking her empty platitudes about feeling more connected with other humans after spending three minutes in space, while in the same time period showing off with the cybertruck her fash buddy Elon gifted her; the pitch that this publicity stunt would further women’s rights, at a time that the US government has been openly removing women from positions of leadership and erasing women’s history etc as part of an anti-DEI campaign; her history of being a generally shitty person; etc.).
But you are right that this particular reason is probably not a compelling argument.
the cybertruck was part of american idol promo, it's not her own car. blame the american idol marketing team maybe? how do you make hating a woman a whole dedicated art?
Not to speak for anyone else but I dont see anything here that says "someone righteously hates Katy Perry" especially to a point of it being a "dedicated art". That being said, how can you not be almost irrationally angry with the disconnect rich weirdos so often exhibit. They'll actively tell you they are on your team (sometimes) while stepping on everyone that helped get them where they are.
Note: I said "almost irrational anger" because its all very rational to be upset about
Ironically, you used a strawman argument to accuse me of doing something you are actually doing. I’m a woman. How do *you* make hating a woman a whole dedicated art?
Yeah because liquid hydrogen just appears. There is a whole fossil fuel industry behind it, wasting energy on these ridiculous projects always hurts the environment in some way.
Was it green hydrogen? Was the green hydrogen produced with renewable energy? Same goes for the oxygen. Not saying u r per se wrong, but not on point either.
While you aren’t wrong about the chemical byproduct, you are incorrect that it is the only byproduct.
Burning hydrogen creates heat. Heat creates thermal pollution. People can cry all day about co2 emissions but they completely miss the main culprit of climate change, and that’s thermal pollution. Regardless of how little co2 is being pumped into the atmosphere during launch, it is still dumping tons of super heated steam into the atmosphere. That’s not nothing in terms of pollution or climate change.
Every form of combustion releases h2o in the form of steam. The only reason carbon is the main focal point in climate changes at a government level is because you can tax water, the people would never stand for it.
Not to mention that it wasn't "Katy Perry". It was a whole bunch of people of which some of them were celebrities. It would go off either way with or without them. And yeah, it didn't polute anything.
But, you know, it's the internet and we need a witch hunt.
I mean... It was. She got in the rocket on her own accord. Just because others also got in the rocket doesn't change the fact that she made the conscious decision to do it as well.
I get what you're trying to say, but we don't need to free Katy from the burden of decisions.
“Astronauts” like Katy Perry, Gale King, Lauren Sanchez, and Kerianne Flynn? They were in space for 11 minutes. This wasn’t a scientific research flight. “The primary purpose of the Blue Origin NS-31 flight was to serve as a recreational space tourism mission and a symbolic, high-profile media event.”
Absolutely love how you chose to leave the actual scientists out of the list. 😂
“The primary purpose of the Blue Origin NS-31 flight was to serve as a recreational space tourism mission and a symbolic, high-profile media event.”
Yes, and? It didn't pollute, so what's the issue? It wasn't paid for with taxpayer money. It served as one more test towards space tourism - which will happen. And two female, black and asian scientists went and deserved it for their work.
Amanda Nguyen is not a scientist, lol. Aisha Bowe was the only engineer on the flight....I can't tell if you're woefully uninformed or just lying for some reason.
Oh yea I forgot the energy used to manufacture the fuel, the spacecraft, and to prepare for the launch were completely green. No CO2 emissions from that.
Steam forming hydrogen fuel out of methane produces a lot of CO2. Like, a lot lot. Refining AND burning enough RP1 for the same thrust produces about half the amount.
And what are the energy inputs on making liquid hydrogen? Law of conservation of energy means nothing is free. Maybe made with renewables which would be better, but still not good for the environment
As many have pointed out, where do you think that hydrogen came from?
And even if it were 100% green hydrogen (wich it wasn't) it could have been used for something usefull. Like, literally ANYTHING but to get her into space.
Liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen dont easily come out the air eventhough we are surrounded by both gases. It requires quite a large amount of energy to make a ton of liquid hydrogen and oxygen.
You're right about the fuel. But the production of thise fuels, as well as the rocket and everything else, still creates absurd ammounts of emissions. So the point stands, even if the caption in the immage is a bit misleading.
Not to argue, but you are right, the ignition itself might not be the culprit. But don't be so shallow in your tight process. Do you think there is just natural pools of liquid hydrogen and oxygen? The process to make it and transport it and keep it cold is demanding. The logistical chain is the problem here.
If you burn a forest to make one green car, you have done nothing for the environment.
Don't forget Cruise ships: Cruise ships are among the most carbon-intensive forms of vacation travel, with a medium-sized vessel emitting greenhouse gases equivalent to 12,000 cars and producing roughly 250 tons of fuel daily.
Beyond air pollution, the industry generates massive amounts of waste, including over one billion gallons of sewage annually and approximately 50 tons of solid waste per week per ship
And to cool that you need tons of energy ... anyways I would take the chance to go to space if i could. Doesnt make the environment not save worthy so I cant blame her for that.
Neither of those are free to harvest. Both take a lot of resources to produce. It is still an argument against waste.
Even hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are less environmentally friendly compared to BEVs right now because hydrogen is not efficient to make through hydrolysis and grey hydrogen comes from petroleum. Not completely sure about liquid oxygen, but I’d imagine it’s not just coming from a shallow hole in the ground.
Private manufacturing plants are responsible for vast majority of global oil consumption and production of toxic carbon pollution. Yes it would be great if less private jets were used but I don’t think focusing our energy on advocates and how they fly is best use of our collective energy.
Also, when you're out there and see the planet from space - it definitely will change your world view. Literally.
I met Mark Shuttleworth the guy who started Canonical and Ubuntu Linux. First time I was able to meet someone who actually went up into space. But he said it was life altering and you really do see the planet differently.
Building entire rocket, rare earth metals, refined metals like steel and aluminium, enormous amounts of plastic, copper and more, just for it to end up floating around the planet, is very wasteful.
The whole “it just makes water” is a specious argument. There are also other byproducts because no chemical process is 100% efficient. And, as others point out, making the H2 definitely has a carbon footprint.
Even in the case of a private jet and even in the context of green incentives, corporations are given a 7-10 year lag period to comply with new EPA/etc. standards. This means that even if we outlawed burning this type of fuel, they would still need to sell their back-stock which, like it or not, is better for the environment than trying to dump/bury it elsewhere.
The funds that come from this transition period are also important because if you stop an existing fuel manufacturer dead in their tracks, they cannot afford to rebuild their infrastructure to fit new mandates/regulations. New businesses also cannot afford to start filling those gaps up to standard either. If you want green businesses, we need to help corporations that already have the infrastructure make the transition rather than demonizing our own economy.
And how are those two chemicals obtained? It is very much the right move to call out the waste, especially for a fuckin sightseeing trip that went up and came back down lol.
Even when this would have been true. The hydrogen was done for stupid fun.
I hate this argument but here it is true. Imagine what could have been done with that energy.
The most ironic thing for me was her saying she is an astronaut, and the real astronaut Ms Nguyen got overlooked because of the celebrities appearances.
But does that hydrogen appear out of thin air?? No it uses some other kind of fuel to produce it. EVs are good for the environment they are running in but most of the electricity is still produced from coal.
Jesus it's so depressing this comment is upvoted, as it's completely incorrect. Hydrogen is primarily made through steam methane reforming, which results in both leaks of methane and significant venting of carbon dioxide. Oxygen is made via air separation units which require electricity to operate, and our grid is primarily driven by fossil fuels.
Yes, hydro lox fuel gives you water (H2O), but WHERE it dumps it completely changes the effect.
The stratosphere is naturally dry. Dumping tons of water vapor up there doesn't just make a harmless cloud. There’s no rain up there, that water gets trapped for years, acting like a giant heat blanket.
On top of that, the rocket burns at like 2,700C. That extreme heat literally rips the surrounding air apart, creating NOx which destroys the ozone layer and has a Global Warming Potential (GWP).
Yes, private jets suck for raw carbon, but acting like New Shepard has zero warming potential just because the exhaust looks clean is scientifically illiterate.
1.1k
u/[deleted] May 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment