mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) (08/06/90)
The current issue of Buzzworm, an "environmental journal" has a short article
on page 14 describing the pollution effects of the space shuttle. Quoting
from vol 2 no 4 (probably one of the last issues of this high-overhead glossy
rag):
"Dr. Michael Prather, a specialist in atmospheric research with NASA's
Goddard Institute for Space Studies, disputes the validity of the Soviet
figures [on space shuttle pollution]. While Prather concedes that the
total amount of chlorine in the solid rocket booster may equal
187 tons, he estimates the actual amount emitted into the stratosphere
at only about 68 tons per launch.
He also claims that ozone depletion caused by the shuttle is
relatively insignificant since 12 launches per year for several years
would only increase atmospheric chlorine levels about 0.5 percent,
while industrial and other CFCs are presently causing the stratospheric
chlorine levels to increase 5 percent annually."
Huh? Could any of these figures possibly be true? If Space Shuttle
launches might cause 10% or even 1% of the ozone problem, that seems
like a serious cause for concern! I rather suspect somebody must have
slipped a few digits in reporting this story. Can somebody please provide
some real numbers on how much the Space Shuttle contributes to the ozone
problem.newman@cdc910b21.gsfc.nasa.gov (P.A. Newman) (08/09/90)
On 6 Aug 90 mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) wrote: >The current issue of Buzzworm, an "environmental journal" has a short article >on page 14 describing the pollution effects of the space shuttle. Quoting >from vol 2 no 4 (probably one of the last issues of this high-overhead glossy >rag): > ... >Huh? Could any of these figures possibly be true? If Space Shuttle >launches might cause 10% or even 1% of the ozone problem, that seems >like a serious cause for concern! I rather suspect somebody must have >slipped a few digits in reporting this story. Can somebody please provide >some real numbers on how much the Space Shuttle contributes to the ozone >problem. ************************** I talked to Charlie Jackman (one of the authors of the above quoted study) and his response follows: ************************** The atmospheric modelling study of the space shuttle effects on the stratosphere involved three independent theoretical groups, and was organized by Dr. Michael Prather, NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The three groups involved Michael Prather and Maria Garcia (NASA/GISS), Charlie Jackman and Anne Douglass (NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center), and Malcolm Ko and Dak Sze (Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc.). The effort was to look at the effects of the space shuttle and Titan rockets on the stratosphere. The following are the estimated sources of stratospheric chlorine: Industrial sources: 300,000,000 kilograms/year Natural sources: 75,000,000 kilograms/year Shuttle sources: 725,000 kilograms/year The shuttle source assumes 9 space shuttles and 6 Titan rockets are launched yearly. Thus the launches would add less than 0.25% to the total stratospheric chlorine sources. The effect on ozone is minimal: global yearly average total ozone would be decreased by 0.0065%. This is much less than total ozone variability associated with volcanic activity and solar flares. The influence of human-made chlorine products on ozone is computed by atmospheric model calculations to be a 1% decrease in globally averaged ozone between 1980 and 1990. The influence of the space shuttle and Titan rockets on the stratosphere is negligible. The launch schedule of the Space Shuttle and Titan rockets would need to be increased by over a factor of a hundred in order to have about the same effect on ozone as our increases in industrial halocarbons do at the present time. Theoretical results of this study will be published in the Journal of Geophysical Research in the next few months in the paper "The Impact of the Space Shuttle on Stratospheric Chemistry and Ozone" by M. J. Prather, M. M. Garcia, A. R. Douglass, C. H. Jackman, M. K. W. Ko, and N. D. Sze. Charles Jackman, Atmospheric Chemistry and Dynamics Branch, Code 916, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771 *********************** P. A. Newman Code 916 NASA/GSFC
schraudo@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Nici Schraudolph) (08/19/90)
For weeks now I have been waiting for some reaction to Mark R. Thorson's alarming post (summary: shuttle launches cause significant percentage of the world's ozone destruction problem), but... zilch. Nada. Not a single post. Nobody violently doubting the figures. Nobody asking how this could be allowed to happen. Nobody suggesting what could be done. Just guilty silence overall. Could it be that we are trying to ignore a problem away here? Wouldn't be the first time. -- Nicol N. Schraudolph, C-014 nici%cs@ucsd.edu University of California, San Diego nici%cs@ucsd.bitnet La Jolla, CA 92093-0114 ...!ucsd!cs!nici
ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) (08/19/90)
In article <schraudo.651014932@beowulf> schraudo@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Nici Schraudolph) writes: <Referring to a post about the shuttle destroying the ozone layer> >Nobody violently doubting the figures. Nobody asking how this could be >allowed to happen. Nobody suggesting what could be done. Just guilty >silence overall. Could it be that we are trying to ignore a problem away >here? Wouldn't be the first time. More likely, the silence is due to a reluctance to get into yet another eco-freak war on something. I can't speak for the rest of the people on the net, but I've pretty much given up trying to talk to the people who post far-out claims for environmental damage. -- Matthew DeLuca Georgia Institute of Technology Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, Office of Information Technology for they are subtle, and quick to anger. Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (08/19/90)
In article <schraudo.651014932@beowulf> schraudo@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Nici Schraudolph) writes: >For weeks now I have been waiting for some reaction to Mark R. Thorson's >alarming post (summary: shuttle launches cause significant percentage of >the world's ozone destruction problem), but... zilch. Nada. Not a single >post. If we were launching two shuttles a week, it would be a serious problem. If you look at early NASA studies, they say quite clearly that once traffic gets really high, there is an urgent requirement for a liquid-fuel booster... for exactly that reason (among others). As it is, it's peanuts. People have ignored it because it's alarmist fear-mongering rather than rational discussion. -- It is not possible to both understand | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology and appreciate Intel CPUs. -D.Wolfskill| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
mco@slimer.UUCP (Mark C. Otto) (08/19/90)
In article <12735@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes: >In article <schraudo.651014932@beowulf> schraudo@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Nici Schraudolph) writes: ><Referring to a post about the shuttle destroying the ozone layer> >>Nobody violently doubting the figures. [... other gushy stuff deleted ...] > >More likely, the silence is due to a reluctance to get into yet another >eco-freak war on something. [...] Get a REAL news feed, son. There have been at least half a dozen articles debating the effects of the shuttle on ozone in this news group and sci.space over the past month. And yes, the numbers were out to lunch in the original posting. The real ozone crunchers are the multitudes of industrial CFC users by (as I recall) almost an order of magnitude over all other sources combined. -- Mark C. Otto EMail: mco@slimer, {teemc | hpftc}!slimer!mco Voice: 1-313-441-4264 USnail: 5133 Heather #208, Dearborn, MI. 48126 Quote: "Yeah. Right. Kermit my a*s." - Mark C. Otto, '90
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (08/20/90)
Two other reasons why MORE articles about the shuttle ozone layer issue
haven't appeared here:
* It's summer, in fact August, and volume is down overall because a lot
of people are off the net.
* Discussions like that belong, if at all, in sci.space. People aren't
used to reading or posting ordinary blather here.
The user who wondered whether we were "ignoring something away here" may
be guilty of confusing the net with Something Important.
--
Canada -- a few acres of snow. ^v^v^ Tom Neff
-- Voltaire v^v^v tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COMnewman@cdc910b21.gsfc.nasa.gov (P.A. Newman) (08/20/90)
I posted this a few weeks ago, but Nicol N. Schraudolph (Schaudo@beowolf.ucsd.edu) and several others seem not to have received it. So here goes a second time: On 6 Aug 90 mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) wrote: >The current issue of Buzzworm, an "environmental journal" has a short article >on page 14 describing the pollution effects of the space shuttle. Quoting >from vol 2 no 4 (probably one of the last issues of this high-overhead glossy >rag): > ... >Huh? Could any of these figures possibly be true? If Space Shuttle >launches might cause 10% or even 1% of the ozone problem, that seems >like a serious cause for concern! I rather suspect somebody must have >slipped a few digits in reporting this story. Can somebody please provide >some real numbers on how much the Space Shuttle contributes to the ozone >problem. ************************** I talked to Charlie Jackman (one of the authors of the above quoted study) and his response follows: ************************** The atmospheric modelling study of the space shuttle effects on the stratosphere involved three independent theoretical groups, and was organized by Dr. Michael Prather, NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The three groups involved Michael Prather and Maria Garcia (NASA/GISS), Charlie Jackman and Anne Douglass (NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center), and Malcolm Ko and Dak Sze (Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc.). The effort was to look at the effects of the space shuttle and Titan rockets on the stratosphere. The following are the estimated sources of stratospheric chlorine: Industrial sources: 300,000,000 kilograms/year Natural sources: 75,000,000 kilograms/year Shuttle sources: 725,000 kilograms/year The shuttle source assumes 9 space shuttles and 6 Titan rockets are launched yearly. Thus the launches would add less than 0.25% to the total stratospheric chlorine sources. The effect on ozone is minimal: global yearly average total ozone would be decreased by 0.0065%. This is much less than total ozone variability associated with volcanic activity and solar flares. The influence of human-made chlorine products on ozone is computed by atmospheric model calculations to be a 1% decrease in globally averaged ozone between 1980 and 1990. The influence of the space shuttle and Titan rockets on the stratosphere is negligible. The launch schedule of the Space Shuttle and Titan rockets would need to be increased by over a factor of a hundred in order to have about the same effect on ozone as our increases in industrial halocarbons do at the present time. Theoretical results of this study will be published in the Journal of Geophysical Research in the next few months in the paper "The Impact of the Space Shuttle on Stratospheric Chemistry and Ozone" by M. J. Prather, M. M. Garcia, A. R. Douglass, C. H. Jackman, M. K. W. Ko, and N. D. Sze. Charles Jackman, Atmospheric Chemistry and Dynamics Branch, Code 916, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771 *********************** P. A. Newman Code 916 NASA/GSFC
kendrix_j@mims.enet.dec.com (John R. Kendrix) (08/21/90)
In article <schraudo.651014932@beowulf>, schraudo@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Nici Schraudolph) writes... >For weeks now I have been waiting for some reaction to Mark R. Thorson's >alarming post (summary: shuttle launches cause significant percentage of >the world's ozone destruction problem), but... zilch. Nada. Not a single >post. >Nicol N. Schraudolph, C-014 nici%cs@ucsd.edu >University of California, San Diego nici%cs@ucsd.bitnet >La Jolla, CA 92093-0114 ...!ucsd!cs!nici Well it could be that noone thought it worth the time to dispute something so ludicrous. Simply by applying a little common sense, one can see that a single volcano eruption would have much more impact than all of the launches so far. I'm not flaming here, just stating what to me is perfectly obvious. JK ******************************************************************************** * John R. Kendrix c/o * Disclaimers: The opinions expressed here * * Digital Equipment Corporation * aren't likely to be claimed * * 5555 Windward Parkway * by me, much less my employer. * * Alpharetta, Ga. 30201 * * * 404-475-3379 * E-Mail: Kendrix_J@mims.enet.dec.com * ********************************************************************************
expc66@castle.ed.ac.uk (Ulf Dahlen) (08/21/90)
In article <14754@shlump.nac.dec.com> kendrix_j@mims.enet.dec.com (John R. Kendrix) writes: >Well it could be that noone thought it worth the time to dispute something so >ludicrous. Simply by applying a little common sense, one can see that a single >volcano eruption would have much more impact than all of the launches so far. >I'm not flaming here, just stating what to me is perfectly obvious. If one use even more common sense, it might be `obvious' that a volcano eruption isn't such a good thing for the environment. --Ulf Dahlen Linkoping University, Sweden and Edinburgh University, Scotland Internet: uda@ida.liu.se
petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) (08/22/90)
In article <schraudo.651014932@beowulf> schraudo@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Nici Schraudolph) writes: >For weeks now I have been waiting for some reaction to Mark R. Thorson's >alarming post (summary: shuttle launches cause significant percentage of >the world's ozone destruction problem), but... zilch. Nada. Not a single >post. > >Nicol N. Schraudolph, C-014 nici%cs@ucsd.edu Where have *you* been? There were 3-4 postings on the subject. Peter Jarvis......
JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) (08/26/90)
In article <5852@castle.ed.ac.uk>, expc66@castle.ed.ac.uk (Ulf Dahlen) says: > >If one use even more common sense, it might be `obvious' that a volcano >eruption isn't such a good thing for the environment. A volcano eruption *is* the environment. Kurt -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- || Kurt Tappe (215) 363-9485 || Amigas, Macs, IBM's, C-64's, NeXTs, || || 184 W. Valley Hill Rd. || Apple ]['s.... I use 'em all. || || Malvern, PA 19355-2214 || (and in that order too! ;-) || || jkt100@psuvm.psu.edu --------------------------------------|| || jkt100@psuvm.bitnet jkt100%psuvm.bitnet@psuvax1 QLink: KurtTappe || -----------------------------------------------------------------------
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (08/27/90)
In article <90238.003420JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) writes: >>If one use even more common sense, it might be `obvious' that a volcano >>eruption isn't such a good thing for the environment. > >A volcano eruption *is* the environment. Good point. There is a pervasive illusion in certain quarters that Mother Nature is our friend. Wrong; dead wrong. She doesn't care at all whether we live or die... and she loves surprises. -- Committees do harm merely by existing. | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology -Freeman Dyson | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
tuv@pmafire.UUCP (Mark Tovey) (08/28/90)
In article <1990Aug27.165426.17695@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <90238.003420JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu (JKT) writes: >>>If one use even more common sense, it might be `obvious' that a volcano >>>eruption isn't such a good thing for the environment. >> >>A volcano eruption *is* the environment. > >Good point. There is a pervasive illusion in certain quarters that Mother >Nature is our friend. Wrong; dead wrong. She doesn't care at all whether >we live or die... and she loves surprises. >-- Another thing to point out is that we are just as much a product of nature as anything else in the world and therefore our actions are a part of nature. I'm not saying that this is justification to destroy our environment, only that not all of man's actions that impinge on the so called natural order of events are necessarally bad. We are different than the rest of the denizens of this world in that we can greatly affect the environment in a very sort time either positively or adversely. Rather than stop all progress because we might alter the environment slightly, we should be aware of the impact, try to find alternatives, and choose the one with the least impact. Shutting down the shuttle program because it adds slightly to ozone depletion would be wrong because of the loss of the benifits that can be gained from that program. Instead what should be done is to find an alternative to the SRB that has less of an impact. Our nuclear program has been at a standstill because of fears of nuclear waste. So instead we build more coal fired plants that have a far greater adverse impact. All because of emotional thinking instead of logical