Rocket traffic: Will it damage the atmosphere?

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

Some atmospheric researchers are suggesting that rocket launches may have to be restricted in the future to avoid serious damage to the Earth’s protective ozone layer.

Future ozone losses from the increasing number of rocket launches could eventually exceed the damage caused by CFCs, the chemical compound banned from use in aerosols, freezers and air conditioners.

‘As the rocket launch market grows, so will ozone-destroying rocket emissions,’ said Darin Toohey of the University of Colorado at Boulder’s atmospheric and oceanic sciences department. ‘If left unregulated, rocket launches by the year 2050 could result in more ozone destruction than was ever realized by CFCs.’

Toohey’s research, in conjunction with authors from the Aerospace Corp. and Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, appeared online in the journal Astropolitics.

Without the Earth’s ozone layer, life on the surface of the planet would be impossible due to exposure to harmful radiation from the sun. Several decades ago, scientists began to notice that the ozone layer was being eaten away, most famously over Antarctica, due to chemical reactions eventually traced to chlorofluorohydrocarbons. In 1987, CFCs were banned from industrial uses, leading to predictions that the ozone layer will recover by 2040.

Current global rocket launches deplete the ozone layer by less than 1% annually, Toohey said. But as the number of launches increases with plans by some nations, including the U.S., to colonize the moon and venture to Mars, the problem could become serious, he said.

Rockets use a variety of propellants, from solids to liquids to hybrids. Currently, little is known about their respective impacts on the ozone layer. Researchers said they are hopeful a solution to the problem can be found.

‘I am optimistic that we are going to solve this problem, but we are not going to solve it by doing nothing,’ Toohey said.

-- John Johnson Jr.