The Effects of Rockets, Revisited

As rocket launches become more and more frequent every year, we have to ask: how much does this industry actually contribute to the climate crisis?

Back in 2022, I set out to find the answer to this question. And now, we are revisiting it.

This piece is part of our Throwback Series, where we revisit early CNM articles and rebuild them with new reporting, new context, and a clearer understanding of the climate story.

From the original article

The irony is that rocket and satellite innovations are revolutionizing the way we study Earth's climate. For example, HotSat, which we covered in our last throwback (HERE), is changing the way we approach heat loss.

However, these innovations come at a cost. 2025 saw 324 orbital rocket launches, each thrusting tons of soot into the atmosphere. The scale of this is hard to wrap your head around. In just the first 165 seconds of a rocket launch, 116 tons of CO2 is emitted. Add on the rest of the mission, and the construction, and the emissions are almost unbelievable.

Most rockets use a fuel called Rocket Propellent-1, or RP-1 for short. This fuel has been used for decades, as it is stable at room temperature, not dangerously explosive, and relatively cheap.

From the original article

Pollution from rockets is unique. They pollute in a concentrated area across multiple layers of the atmosphere. This is especially harmful to the ozone layer, which protects Earth from UV radiation. In 1987, substances that deplete the ozone layer were banned, but not rockets. While ozone loss from rockets isn't posing an immediate threat, it will become more important as the number of annual launches increases.

On the bright side of things, scientists are making lots of progress on rocket fuels that are better for the environment. Many startups around the globe are working on sustainable fuels, some of which reduce emissions by around 90%. Many of these companies focus on reducing the damage that occurs before the rocket is launch, rather than significantly reducing emissions in the atmosphere.

Companies are also working on rockets that use methane, which increases efficiency.

Methane, however, is quite controversial. Despite the fact that it is more efficient and does not stay in the atmosphere as long as CO2, methane is about 80% more warming over it's lifetime.

In addition to sustainable fuels, many space exploration companies, including NASA, are experimenting with radical new ways to launch payloads. For example, building a giant arm to sling shot satellites into space. Or take Virgin Orbit, who launch satellites from airplanes, typically 747s, resulting in around 5% of the emissions compared to a typical launch. Although airplanes are also terrible for the environment, they pollute the lower parts of the atmosphere, which isn't as harmful.

Reshaping the way we build and launch rockets will be hard. Every change requires lots of testing, and the industry is understandably reluctant to move away from safe, proven technology. Making the transition to new engines and propellent won't be easy, and most changes will probably result from much-needed government regulations.

I don't want to make it sound like space exploration is bad in any way. In fact, I think that it is some of the most interesting and important science happening in the world. That said, now is the time to make space exploration sustainable, not once it is a huge problem.

The Saturn V rocket, used for the Apollo missions.

Credit: NASA (via Unsplash)

New Article Material © 2026 Climate News Media

Original Article Excerpts © 2022 Forest Olson