Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

These launches are getting SpaceX the money to advance to methane-powered rockets: they will literally make rocket fuel out of air and sunlight, making them absolutely carbon neutral.


ISRU (what you're describing) does require a large amount of energy to do at scale. Also, ISRU has never been at the scale required to fully fuel a rocket.

There is a decent writeup on wikipedia[1] on how difficult this would actually be to do ISRU on mars. The TL;DNR is 56,200 meters squared of thin film solar panels. Granted, solar power is roughly half as effective on mars as it is on earth, but still. For reference, an American Football field is 7,140 meters squared.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Mars_program#Mars_prope...


(Note from the link: that's the requirement to provide fuel for one starship launch every 26 months.)


Is the manufacture of biofuels actually carbon neutral? What about the massive deforestation of Indonesia - caused by Germany's biofuel mandate?


or is it not a biofuel? are they using the Sabatier reaction so they just need energy input (could be solar)?


Yes, the stated goal is the sabatier reaction from solar energy.

The apparent purpose of this is pretty much a tech-demo for mars. In terms of minimizing environmental impact on earth it would pretty clearly be better just to send the solar energy to the grid and divert natural gas that would have gone to generating electricity to launching rockets.


In context - using solar energy to extract atmospheric CO2 and manufacture methane - yes.

We're not discussing "massive deforestation" here. Germany's biofuel mandate does not affect rockets in Texas.


Does shipping a rocket to Mars with enough propellant to make the trip and land when it gets there affect the balance?

Every rocket to Mars carries hydrocarbon that will never come back.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: