Price for Space

VII городская конференция

"Ломоносовские чтения на русском и английском языках"

Price for Space

Мифические и реальные опасности космических запусков

с космодрома Плесецк

г. Архангельск

2018 год

Introduction

        Exploring the final frontier of space is the only way for humanity to ensure its very survival and secure the resources needed for generations to come [3, 8]. Now, when our species is only taking its first steps in this new world, we are extremely vulnerable to any fluctuations.

Since the first Moon landing, the public support to space exploration continues to decline and so does funding of the state space agencies. This indicates that to ensure continuous development, any state space programme requires the public support.  

A major space centre - the Plesetsk Cosmodrome – is located in Arkhangelsk region. Being the northernmost spaceport in the world, it serves as the gateway to high-inclination and polar orbits for reconnaissance, navigation and communication satellites of Russian Federation, thus being crucial for its defence and communication needs. Particular attention the Cosmodrome gained by its sixtieth anniversary, due to this date a vivid description of its life and development was given in the documentary “The Taiga Cosmodrome” (2018).  

For all its advantages, it is leaving the residents of the region, to say the least, concerned. After each launch a wave of public hysteria rises, accusing the Cosmodrome of polluting the environment, endangering the lives of the residents of Arkhangelsk region and claiming for compensation.

The aim of our work is to investigate what ecological problems of the Cosmodrome are mythical and what are real.

Research objectives:

1) To research the public opinion on the well-known ecological problems;

2) To reveal the most significant problems from the residents’ point of view;

3) To find up to date information about the work of the Cosmodrome;

4) To analyse the calculations;

5) To examine types of pollution and their real effects.

Methods: survey research, data analysis, classification, description, explanation of the calculation.

Is It Good to be Home for Plesetsk Cosmodrome?

Public Perception Survey

To investigate whether the citizens view the Cosmodrome as a facility of increased danger and to reveal the problems of the spaceport people are mostly concerned with, I conducted the following survey closely connected with environment.

162 school students took part in the survey.  It included two parts. The first one contained only one question “Do you believe the rocket launches damage the environment?” The interviewees who answered “Yes” took part in the second part of the survey. We asked them to range the four forms of environmental damage caused by rocket launches, proven existing by multiple research papers [1, 6, 12], in order from the most to the least dangerous, including the following environmental problems:

1) Launches deplete ozone layer.

2) Toxic fuel pollutes the environment.

3) Combustion products pollute air.

4) Stages fall on inhabited areas.

The results of the first part are the following: 90.7% (147) of respondents believe space launches cause damage to environment. 9.3% (15) of them, consequently, believe there is no damage caused by space launches. (Appendix 1, figure 1)

Since the second part in the questionnaire implies ranging, I have calculated the index of apprehensions called the Index of Fears by adding together order numbers of the risk factors and then inverting the results to represent them in a more convenient way. This index measures how people perceive risk factors related to space launches. The higher the index, the more disturbing people consider this particular threat. According to the results, the majority of the concerns fall within problems caused by toxic fuel, then to the ozone depletion, air pollution and falling stages (Appendix 1, figure 2).

Having analysed the results, I studied the scientific investigation on the topic and performed my own calculations to prove if the fears had any real basis, and made the following conclusions.

Toxicity of Fuels

According to the Index of Fears, respondents are concerned the most about toxic fuel polluting the environment.

Fortunately, the rockets of Angara and Soyuz-2 use relatively safe fuel and non-toxic oxidizer (Appendix 2, table 1). Their fuel - kerosene - has toxicity rating four, but it is no deadlier than ordinary petroleum and requires the same precautionary measures, meaning that it cannot significantly endanger the environment, especially in comparison with civilian vehicles using the similar fuel.

The only rocket using toxic fuel currently in service is Rockot (Appendix 2, table 1) – it utilises unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine (known as UDMH) as fuel and dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) as oxidizer [4]. Both UDMH and dinitrogen tetroxide are toxic (one and three toxicity rating respectively according to table 1), that means that only short exposure will cause severe chemical intoxication or death [2, 10].

Fortunately, its hazardous fuel and oxidizer are manufactured right in the space centre in the special facility, which means that there is no way for them to harm the environment outside the Cosmodrome whilst transported. However, there is still a way for toxic fuel to get into pristine expanses of our region and harm people – via separated stages. The first stage of Rockot falls in the Arctic Ocean, meaning that if there is some fuel or oxidizer left in the stage after the engines cut-off, it will dissolve in the ocean, causing unpredictable consequences.

We cannot assess the damage caused by the fuel dissolving in the Arctic Ocean due to the absence of reliable data. Better to say, due to the absence of any data at all. This remains to be evaluated.

Nevertheless, the circumstances are favourable for our environment, as neither Roscosmos nor Russian Defence Ministry cannot anymore obtain the crucial components for Rockot, manufactured in Ukraine, which means that the last Rockot will fly in 2019, ending its long and dirty history.

Ozone Depletion

The second dangerous problem, according to the Index of Fears, is ozone depletion (Appendix 1, figure 2). The ozone layer is an atmospheric layer within the stratosphere, which protects all living beings on Earth by absorbing most of our Sun’s deadly ultraviolet radiation and maintaining the temperature of the atmosphere. Ozone depletion is a steady lowering of total amount of ozone in the atmosphere. This phenomenon, discovered in the late 1970s, led to adoption of Montreal Protocol, which bans the production of ozone-depleting chemicals. After the ban came into effect, ozone levels stabilized and began to recover in the 2000s [9]. Recovery is projected to continue, but many people believe that rocket launches hinder progress.

Using chemical formulae calculation, I have analysed reactions taking place in combustion chambers of the rocket engines, powered by UDMH and dinitrogen tetroxide or kerosene and liquid oxygen.

H2NN(CH3)2 + 2N2O4 → 2CO2+3N2+4H2O

2C12H26 + 37O2 → 24CO2 + 26H2O

The formulae show that both of these combustion cycles produce water. At high altitudes above Karman line (the edge of space lying at 100 km), water molecules rapidly decompose, producing hydrogen and oxygen, which, in turn, deplete the ozone layer. However, multiple researches have proven that with the current frequency of launches, which is unlikely to increase, the rocket launches cause negligible damage to the ozone layer and do not affect its recovery [5, 9, 12].

Consequently, the rocket launches from Plesetsk cause no significant damage to the ozone layer; at least as long as their frequency is low, meaning that the fears are exaggerated and the ozone layer will continue to recover.

Combustion Products

Rocket engines, once fired, burn fuel and produce exhaust, which moves the rocket forward. This phenomenon is called reactive movement. Rocket exhaust consists of combustion products. As the rocket engine produces continuous thrust, combustion products appear to be scattered all around the rocket’s trajectory, which often lies above inhabited areas and pristine nature. Public concerns related to combustion products are understandable, rated by the Index of Fears to be third in order of importance (Appendix 1, figure 2).

According to the previously mentioned formulae, most the combustion products of all the rockets currently in service are nitrogen, carbon dioxide and water. Indeed, as these reactions are simplified, there are more than only these three substances. However, the quantities of the other substances are so miniscule that their very existence can be neglected.  

Water effect on the ozone layer has been previously estimated to be negligible. Luckily, below the Karman line, water is a natural component of the atmosphere and hydrosphere thus causes no damage.

Nitrogen, constituting 78.1% of Earth’s atmosphere, obviously, causes no damage, as its quantities emitted by rocket launches are miniscule compared to its total amount in the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide, however, is not that benign: its increased emissions are one of the causes of the global climate change. My calculations indicate that in 2018 rocket launches have contributed 1.69% of overall carbon dioxide emissions in Arkhangelsk region, meaning that the contribution to global climate change may be neglected as well [11].

The threat from combustion products emitted by rocket engines is exaggerated. To my mind, combustion products seem to be by far the least dangerous risk factor of rocket launches.

Falling Stages

Falling stages is considered to be the least malicious from the interviewees’ point of view. During the ascent rockets separate stages to allow the remaining engines and propellant to accelerate the rocket more easily and eventually reach desired orbit. Separated stages are cleared out of fuel, as they are designed to burn it out entirely to maximize efficiency. Sometimes, however, common mistakes occur which lead to the fuel remaining. Unfortunately, there is no reliable data of the amount of fuel in the separated stages. It is also worth mentioning that fall fields do not intersect with inhabited areas, it means that stages do not fall on people’s homes. They fall in the wilderness.

In Arkhangelsk region, there were six designated fall fields for space launch vehicles, but most of them were abandoned following the collapse of the Soviet Union and significant decline both in number of launches and the rocket fleet. In 2018, only two fall fields remain active. There fall side boosters of Soyuz 2.1a and 2.1b, whose fuel is relatively safe (Appendix 2, table 1). Even if kerosene gets into water, it will dissolve and cause no harm to those, drinking water from this particular water source. The only effort required to eliminate any ecological damage is disposal of the remaining metal and kerosene. In 2008, the Cosmodrome issued a contract to remove the stages remaining in the vast expanses of Arkhangelsk region and dispose them for the first time. Such regular cleanings are continuing up until now.

The first stages of Rockot, Soyuz 2.1v and Angara 1.2 fall in the waters of the White Sea and the Arctic Ocean. It has been proven, kerosene and liquid oxygen, used in the Soyuz and Angara, do not cause any significant environmental damage. However, the fuel of Rockot is extremely dangerous.

The stages can hardly ever be called the most dangerous aspect of space launches, as they fall in the wilderness and do not endanger the lives of the inhabitants. However, the toxic fuel remaining in these stages might lead to unpredictable consequences, but its damage is still to be evaluated.

Conclusion

The Plesetsk Cosmodrome is a significant place of our region, as it is one of its main factors in its financial health, however, many people are concerned about its influence on the environment, and the overwhelming majority believe it affects it badly. The aim of my work is to investigate if their attitude has the real basis or only groundless fears. For that purpose, I created the Index of Fears that shows the most dangerous environmental problems from the interviewees’ point of view. Having analysed four malignant problems, toxic fuel has been distinguished to be the worst trouble. In my opinion, there is a considerable risk associated with toxic fuel and oxidizer dissolving in the waters of the Arctic Ocean. Fortunately, the last Rockot will fly in 2019, but the damage caused by it continuous launches over the course of the last few decades is still to be evaluated.

According to the research, the risk factors involved in the space launches are significantly lower than it is generally believed and miniscule compared to other industries. Clearly, there are facilities in our region causing greater environmental damage and requiring urgent ecologists’ attention and public criticism – landfills, for example. Moreover, I can hardly ever imagine our life without satellites launched from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome, as they send television signals, provide communication, the ability to predict weather, analyse the climate change, and monitor the ocean and forest fires. I believe these benefits compensate any side effects of the space launches.

However, what I have done is not enough. Up-to-date truthful information on the environmental problems is quite difficult to find. Since no state space programme can evolve without public support, both the Cosmodrome itself and the Russian space agency should improve their public relations to dispel the fears and overwhelming indifference and acquire the public support needed for their continuous development and upholding their positions as the leaders in the world space exploration.  

References

1. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Mars 2020 mission: June 2014, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. – P. 314.

2. Hansen H. Human health perspective of environmental exposure to hydrazines // Chemosphere – 1998. vol. 37. №5 – P. 801-843.
3. Krichevky S. Cosmic Humanity: Utopia, Reality, Perspectives // Future Human Image – 2017. vol. 7 - P. 50 - 70
4. Rockot User’s Guide: August 2011, Eurockot Launch Services GmbH. – P. 220.
5. Ross M. N., Observation of Stratospheric Ozone depletion in Rocket Exhaust // Nature - 1997. №390 - P. 62-64.
6. Ross M. N., Sheaffer P. M. Radiative Forcing Caused by Rocket Engine Emissions // Earth’s Future – 2014. vol. 2. №4 – P. 177-196.
7. Ross M. N., Vedda J. A. The Policy and Science of Rocket Emissions // The Aerospace Corporation – 2018 – P. 1-12.
8. Sagan C. Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space // Sagan C. – Random House, 1994. - P. 429.
9. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2014, United Nation’s World Meteorological Association. – P. 310.
10. ГОСТ 12.1.007-76. Система стандартов безопасности труда. Вредные вещества. Классификация и общие требования безопасности. – Введ. 1977 – М.: Стандартинформ, 2007 – 5 c.
11. Кудряшова А. А. Ущерб от загрязнения окружающей среды (УОЗС) как показатель расчета эколого-экономического индекса // КузГТУ – 10 с.
12. Останина Н. Г., Кубриков М. В. Воздействие ракетно-космической техники на озоновый слой // СГАУ им. Решетнева – 2012 – С. 227-228

Appendix 1

Figure 1. First question answer ratio.

Figure 2. Index of Fears

Note: the Index of Fears is calculated by adding together order numbers of the risk factors and inverting them. The higher the index, the more disturbing people consider this particular threat.

Appendix 2

Table 1. Overview of rockets in service.