Value chain · CLM-0829
In plain terms
The authors leave alumina, black carbon and water vapour from rocket exhaust out of their own carbon study because the atmospheric effects are too uncertain to quantify, even though in an earlier study of theirs almost all of the ozone damage came from exactly those launch emissions.
The claim as recorded
The authors state as a limitation of their own process-based GHG case study that "the influence of aluminium oxide (Al2O3), black carbon (BC) and water vapour from launch has not been considered in this analysis due to the high uncertainty associated with atmospheric impacts of these exhaust products", while separately reporting for their earlier MORPHEUS study that "in terms of ozone depletion, >99% of the impact comes from the launch event due to the release of aluminium oxide, black carbon and radical emissions".
Scope and limits
The exclusion statement applies to this paper's own GHG case study in section 4, not to every assessment it cites. The ">99%" figure is from a different and earlier study by the same group and belongs to a DIFFERENT IMPACT CATEGORY, ozone depletion, not to global warming potential. Putting the two together shows that reported gCO2e/kWh totals in this literature exclude launch-exhaust species whose effect has separately been found dominant in another category. It does NOT quantify how much greenhouse-gas burden the exclusion omits, and may not be used to imply a numerical correction to any gCO2e/kWh figure.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
Printed p.8 s3.3, third bullet: "The influence of aluminium oxide (Al2O3), black carbon (BC) and water vapour from launch has not been considered in this analysis due to the high uncertainty associated with atmospheric impacts of these exhaust products." Printed p.4: "In terms of ozone depletion, >99% of the impact comes from the launch event due to the release of aluminium oxide, black carbon and radical emissions."
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-008 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0829
CLM-0829, Energy Aperture, as of 2024.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-009
- CLM-0182When two different research teams assessed the exact same 1978 space solar power design, the older accounting method (which spreads...CLM-0825The authors argue that the cost-based way of estimating carbon is too coarse for a custom-built industry like spacecraft, and they conclude...CLM-0826When the authors redid NASA's own 2024 figures for two satellite designs using their materials-based method instead of NASA's cost-based...CLM-0827The authors say NASA's 2024 carbon figures for two satellite designs came out of a model built on NASA's own cost estimates, and that NASA...CLM-0828The authors say ESA's own space life-cycle guidance advises against the cost-based method because it tends to overstate environmental...CLM-0830The authors say an environmental claim about a space technology counts for nothing unless a proper standardised life-cycle study backs it...CLM-0831This is a conference paper from October 2024 that does not claim to have been independently peer reviewed, states that it calculated no...CLM-0849The range of 13 to 43 grams that NASA compares its satellites against comes from one US laboratory's dataset, and the two ends are the...More on the source page.