Value chain · CLM-0846
In plain terms
NASA's report says its carbon figures leave out the effects of rocket exhaust released high in the atmosphere, and in several places says those effects are assumed to be worse than releasing the same emissions at ground level, but it never says how much worse.
The claim as recorded
NASA's report states once, on p.viii, that "RD1 and RD2 emissions intensities do not include upper atmosphere effects of launch emissions, which are assumed to be worse than producing the same emissions on the surface of the Earth, and still under study by NASA and the academic community"; two later passages say these effects are not yet quantified, or unknown, but widely assumed to be worse (one says "much worse") than burning the fuel on the ground; the report gives no quantified magnitude for the excluded effect anywhere.
Scope and limits
The modal is "are assumed to be worse", which is NASA's own hedge and may not be hardened into a finding that they ARE worse. NASA gives no magnitude, so this record may NOT be used to imply any numerical correction to the 26 and 40 gCO2e/kWh figures. A search of all 108 PDF pages for "black carbon", "alumina", "aluminum oxide", "aluminium oxide" and "stratospher" returned zero hits; "ozone" appears only in the title of a cited NOAA item, in the p.viii footnote and in the p.89 reference list.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
p.viii (PDF p.9), the only place with this wording: "RD1 and RD2 emissions intensities do not include upper atmosphere effects of launch emissions, which are assumed to be worse than producing the same emissions on the surface of the Earth, and still under study by NASA and the academic community." p.24 (PDF p.41): "the effects of burning rocket fuel in the upper atmosphere are not yet quantified by science (NOAA, 2022), but widely assumed to be much worse than burning these fuels on the ground". p.26 (PDF p.43): "the exact climate impact of burning rocket fuel in the upper atmosphere is unknown, but widely assumed to be worse than burning an equivalent amount of fuel on the ground (NOAA, 2022)". p.xiii (PDF p.14) calls the emissions finding "pending further studies of upper atmosphere effect of launch emissions".
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-008 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0846
CLM-0846, Energy Aperture, as of 2024.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-012
- CLM-0006None of the five main studies mentions the international radio-frequency exposure limits, or any safety standard, or a restricted area...CLM-0123NASA's own 2024 study puts space solar power at 12 to 80 times the cost it expects in 2050 from power stations on the ground, a set it...CLM-0124NASA also found that if several things improve at once, rather than just one, space solar power does become cost competitive.CLM-0125On carbon, NASA found space solar power within the range of five renewable ways of making power on the ground (wind, solar, solar thermal...CLM-0144A NASA study found that launching everything into space is by far the biggest cost of a space solar power system, and that most of those...CLM-0192The full list of assumptions behind the headline result of NASA's 2024 study, that space solar power would cost far more than ground...CLM-0193To get to a competitive cost, NASA's own 2024 analysis needs launch costs to halve, solar cells to get much more efficient, satellites to...CLM-0240A from-scratch cost model of the "Innovative Heliostat Swarm" design gets almost the same electricity cost as NASA's own study: about 62...More on the source page.