Fueling the Future of Space Travel: Why Liquid Hydrogen is the Key to Sustainable

Rocket Propulsion

Samuel Funk

Glenelg High School

Gifted and Talented Independent Research

Ms. Leila Chawkat

12 May 2023
 2

Abstract

Emissions from rocket engine combustion are a growing environmental concern that has been

reported to cause radiative forcing, ozone depletion, and climate change in the Earth's

atmosphere. Recent studies have concluded that the rocket propellants primarily responsible for

the expulsion of the pollutants black carbon and aluminum oxide, while powerful, can be

detrimental to the atmosphere's chemical balance, causing significant environmental damage.

The researcher hypothesized that rockets using only liquid hydrogen engines would be the most

effective solution for rocket emissions. In order to find correlations between variables, the

researcher conducted a data-based meta-analysis using datasets containing emissions, specific

impulses, and thrusts of the most common rocket propellants. From the data collection results,

the researcher concluded that different engines have varying environmental impacts, energy

efficiency, and thrust, all of which companies must consider when building a rocket for a

mission. Additionally, the researcher noted that solutions to limit rocket emissions already exist,

such as utilizing hybrid rockets; however, there is a lack of international policy limiting the

emissions themselves. This absence of regulation allows space companies to disregard the

environmental impacts of their spacecraft. The researcher plans to encourage adults to share a

proposal to their nation's appropriate agencies advocating for the addition of direct atmospheric

pollution to the Montreal Protocol in the next Meeting of the Parties.

 3

Table of Contents

Introduction....................................................................................................................................4

Literature Review.......................................................................................................................... 4

Background................................................................................................................................ 4

Ozone Depletion and Changes in the Earth’s Temperature....................................................... 5

Economics..................................................................................................................................8

Policy and Regulation:...............................................................................................................8

Growing Industry of Space Travel.............................................................................................9

The Necessity for Space Travel............................................................................................... 10

Additional Alternative Fuels and Green Propellant Projects...................................................10

Data Collection............................................................................................................................. 12

Data.......................................................................................................................................... 12

Methods....................................................................................................................................15

Analysis/Results.......................................................................................................................15

Discussion................................................................................................................................ 17

Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... 18

References..................................................................................................................................... 20
 4

Fueling the Future of Space Travel: Why Liquid Hydrogen is the Key to Sustainable

Rocket Propulsion

Introduction

At first glance, most data covering rocket emissions seem to suggest that the issue of

pollutants from rockets is but a minor one in the grand scheme of the worldwide environmental

degradation crisis. However, the truth emerges when one discovers the predicted “...surge in

growth of a kind not seen since the birth of the space age” (Ross & Toohey, 2019, para. 1). The

most widely used propellants in the modern world are RP-1 kerosene, solid rocket motors

(SRM’s), hypergolic fuels, and liquid hydrogen. Unfortunately, almost all of these emit large

amounts of black carbon, aluminum oxide, nitric oxides, sulfuric compounds, poisonous

substances, or toxic carcinogens. The only entirely clean standard propellant is liquid hydrogen;

however, it has drawbacks such as weak thrust power when compared to an SRM or RP-1

engine. RP-1 kerosene, when used as the primary propellant in rockets such as Falcon-9, emits

roughly 30 metric tonnes of black carbon. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to exemplify

why Space companies should utilize alternative fuel sources like liquid hydrogen to prevent the

depletion of the Earth’s ozone layer, changes in the Earth’s climate, and the overall health of the

Earth’s ecosystem.

Literature Review

Background

Rocket engines are multi-stage machines that generate force through the combustion of a

mixture of fuel and oxidizer, called a propellant. Solid rocket motors contain a booster filled with

a solid fuel and oxidizer mixture containing a hollow space through the middle to launch the

rocket with a changing rate of combustion (Sparrow, 2021). The more commonly used propellant
 5

type is liquid propellants, which are not usually stored as one and require separate tanks for the

fuel and oxidizer. These two components are mixed during launch to create a combustible

propellant. The most commonly used oxidizer for engines utilizing liquid fuel is liquid oxygen.

The combustion reaction of the fuel and oxidizer propels both the rocket body and particles of

varying pollutant products through the Earth’s atmosphere. Because rockets burn fuel during

their entire ascension from Earth and through most of their exit from the Earth’s atmosphere,

these pollutants are injected directly into each atmospheric layer (Ross & Vedda, 2018).

Ozone Depletion and Changes in the Earth’s Temperature

The most environmentally concerning pollutants in terms of rocket emissions are black

carbon and aluminum oxide particles. Black carbon, also known as soot, is produced by many

different propellants, primarily kerosene-based ones. The particles are relatively small, and the

concern comes from its warming effect. When in the upper stratosphere, black carbon particles

form into dark clouds, absorbing light energy from the sun and releasing it in the form of heat to

the surrounding atmosphere. (Ross & Vedda, 2018). These clouds of soot can “trap heat in the

atmosphere and contribute heavily to the climate warming” (Kang et al., 2020, para. 2).

Heightened temperature change can lead to more rapid depletion of the Earth’s ozone layer (Ross

& Vedda, 2018).

In addition to black carbon, aluminum oxide (alumina) is another very concerning

chemical pollutant usually expelled by rockets utilizing solid rocket boosters. Alumina particles

are much larger than black carbon; however, they similarly form into a cloud that reacts with

sunlight. When sunlight hits alumina particles, rather than spreading heat to the atmosphere, they

reflect the energy back into space, effectively limiting the amount of UV radiation from the sun

and cooling the Earth as a result. While this may seem beneficial to the Earth, the chemical
 6

reactions on the surface of the particles consume ozone in the stratosphere (Ross & Vedda,

2018). This is a significant issue that outweighs the minor cooling effect. While black carbon and

aluminum oxide are not the only rocket emissions that impact the environment, they are by far

the most concerning factors and should be focused on when attempting to limit rocket pollution.

Being one of the first propellant methods used in early rockets and proving to be very

reliable and affordable, solid rocket motors still stand as one of the most commonly used rocket

propellants in the space industry. However, after analyzing numerous sources, Kordina and Law

(2020) concluded that when compared to the other most commonly used propellants, SRMs emit

the most aluminum oxide and chlorine by far. In addition to this, they also expel considerable

amounts of black carbon and nitrogen oxides (para. 68). When considering the wide variety of

notable emissions by this propellant, the specific environmental effects of SRM-type engines, as

noted by Sirieys et al. (2022), include ozone changes, radiative forcing, and cloud formation (p.

3). It has been determined that, while there are benefits to using SRMs, such as high thrust, they

emit significantly more ozone-depleting substances than liquid propellants (Dallas et al., 2020).

One of the most popular liquid propellants is RP-1, a refined kerosene fuel usually

oxidized with liquid oxygen. While it is cost-effective, powerful, and easily available to space

companies, it was found that RP-1 is the largest producer of black carbon when compared to

other commonly used fuels, and it expels a lot of carbon dioxide (Kordina & Law, 2020, para.

63). Like SRMs, RP-1-based rocket engines were identified to cause atmospheric ozone changes,

radiative forcing, and cloud formation (Sirieys et al., 2022, p. 3). This is primarily a result of its

extremely high amounts of black carbon emissions.

A more unique yet commonly used propellant type is hypergolic propellant. Engines

utilizing hypergolic propellants react instantly without ignition and are, therefore, very useful in
 7

situations where instant launches are needed. Hypergolic engines do not produce many

pollutants, especially when compared to RP-1 and SRMs, making them an atmospherically

friendly alternative to these propellants. Its most significant pollutant is carbon dioxide, yet its

levels lie well under what is considered dangerous (Kordina & Law, 2020, para. 61). The most

common hypergolic fuel, unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH), while minor, causes

ozone changes, radiative forcing, and cloud formation. However, scientists’ primary concern is

its extreme toxicity and ecosystem damage (Sirieys et al., 2022, p. 3). While UDMH and other

hypergolic fuels are relatively environmentally friendly when only considering atmospheric and

climate impacts, they are also considered “extremely toxic substance[s] with carcinogenic,

mutagenic and teratogenic properties” (Kosyakov et al., 2019, p. 2). Another significant issue

with UDMH is its poison effects on agriculture and the Earth’s surface. Treatment for

UDMH-affected land also generally produces toxic products, making it hard to decontaminate

the land completely (Kosyakov et al., 2019). Overall, this fuel is a well-performing alternative to

high-pollutant propellants like SRMs and RP-1; however, it can be hazardous and is not a

completely optimal solution to the environmental issue posed by rockets.

The most promising liquid propellant for eliminating impactful rocket emissions is liquid

hydrogen. Because the chemical composition of this propellant is simply hydrogen acting as the

fuel and oxygen as the oxidizing agent, liquid hydrogen was unsurprisingly shown to produce the

largest amount of water vapor when compared to the other most commonly used rocket

propellants. Fortunately, this is its only notable pollutant emission other than trace amounts of

nitrogen oxides (Kordina & Law, 2020, para. 68). Water vapor emission is not of serious

concern. Cloud formation is the only significant atmospheric impact of liquid hydrogen
 8

combustion (Sirieys et al., 2022, p. 3). This places liquid hydrogen at the top of the list for most

environmentally friendly, as it has virtually no environmental impact at all.

Economics

In order for private space companies to agree to lower the environmental impacts of their

spacecraft, the methods must be cost-effective. Hybrid rocket engines are a proposed cost-saving

alternative to full-kerosene or SRM rockets. These multi-stage rocket engines can utilize both

solid and liquid propellants, leading to a more cost-effective rocket (Dallas et al., 2020, p. 7).

Also, while not as clean as rockets that use exclusively liquid hydrogen or other green

propellants, combining green propellants with other, higher-thrust propellants can optimize the

rocket's efficiency, cost, and overall environmental impact. Another cost-saving method that

reduces waste is reusable rockets. An example of a major rocket that could land back on Earth

and be reused was the Falcon Heavy, which “ reduced costs by 65% and global warming

potential by 64%” (Torres, 2020, p. 7). By creating reusable rockets, engineers do not have to

build entirely new rockets for similar missions. Materials for rockets produced using

environmentally unfriendly methods would be needed less often, and there would be an extreme

waste reduction. This also makes it substantially cheaper, leading to more overall missions and

the accelerated expansion of the space industry.

Policy and Regulation:

While reduced costs would make environmentally friendly rockets more desirable to

space companies, regulation is the most effective method for limiting anything. Fortunately, there

already exists an international treaty called the Montreal Protocol, which limits the production of

ozone-depleting substances worldwide (Egorova et al., 2023). The Montreal Protocol has proven

to be one of the best efforts toward reversing ozone depletion. Egorova et al. (2023) modeled
 9

both a future with and without the Montreal Protocol, and they showed that without it, “Ozone

could be almost entirely depleted, [...] surface temperature could be warmer all around the globe,

[...] [and] negative health effects from the increased UV radiation at the surface and most of the

negative consequences of the high-end future climate pathway” (para. 19). These findings

demonstrate the effectiveness of global agreements like the Montreal Protocol. Unfortunately,

due to the limited amount of annual launches, the Montreal Protocol does not specifically

mention vehicles like rockets, which, instead of emitting pollutants from the ground, inject them

directly into all regions of the atmosphere (Ross & Vedda, 2018, p. 6). The direct injection of

these pollutants into the atmosphere is much worse for the environment as they are able to act

more quickly after release, and they do not dissipate and spread out as much. To solve this

overlooked issue, many scientists suggest adding orbital vehicles to the list of regulated pollutant

sources in the Montreal Protocol. This would require space companies to incorporate alternative

fuel sources, such as liquid hydrogen, into their rocket designs, reducing pollutants such as black

carbon and alumina. Because of the limited research on rocket emissions, it is difficult to gauge

what level of regulation to include in this proposal. Ross and Toohey (2019) suggest the use of

geoengineering to help form specific regulatory standards for emissions to include in an

amendment to the Montreal Protocol (para. 18).

Growing Industry of Space Travel

While currently, rocket emissions are insignificant in the grand scheme of human-created

pollution, “the global launch rate has already more than doubled in the past decade” (Ross &

Toohey, 2019, para. 1), signaling a significant increase in urgency for the issue. Additionally,

growing speculation from researchers has arisen predicting the formation of a large

space-tourism industry in the near future. Ryan et al. (2022), for example, state that “In 2021,
 10

commercial space flights by Virgin Galactic (Gorman, 2021), Blue Origin (Johnson, 2021), and

SpaceX (Wattles, 2021) demonstrated that space tourism is plausible” (p. 1). If the issue of

rocket emissions is not solved while it stays insignificant, the predicted quickly-expanding

“commercial space tourism industry could cause irreparable harm to the ozone layer” (McCue,

2022, para. 19).

The Necessity for Space Travel

When attempting to find a solution to the rising concern of rocket emissions, it is

assumed that space travel itself, is necessary; however, the question must be raised of ‘Is space

exploration essential to the human race?’ There come many beneficial byproducts from space

exploration, as a wide variety of useful inventions are derived from applications in space. For

example, scratch-resistant glass was first used to develop astronaut helmets. More notably, much

important research can only be conducted in microgravity environments like the International

Space Station. This implies that there are discoveries necessary for the human race that can only

be made in space. Other useful results of space exploration include its ability to assist humans in

understanding their environment more thoroughly and assist in defending against objects like

asteroids colliding with the Earth (D. Conte, personal communication, 2022). Overall, there are

many crucial benefits to space travel that make it necessary for humans to continue to expand

and explore.

Additional Alternative Fuels and Green Propellant Projects

While most literature concludes that liquid hydrogen should be implemented in most

rocket designs to limit black carbon and alumina emissions, there are various other projects,

including missions in development and concluded missions, that attempt to solve the issue of the

harsh environmental impacts of rockets. An example is NASA’s Green Propellant Infusion

 11

Mission (GPIM), a spacecraft launched in June 2019, which demonstrated the success of an

alternative hypergolic fuel to hydrazine called AF-M315E. This propellant performs very

similarly to hydrazine but without the extreme toxicity and difficulties with handling (Foust,

2021). The main concern with this fuel is its large water production that could tamper with the

devices on the spacecraft or satellite (Foust, 2021). Another relatively new form of propulsion is

electric propulsion. These engines use stored electrical energy to thrust an inert gas out of the

nozzle to create movement. This method of propulsion has been documented with an ISP, a

measure of rocket engine efficiency, of up to 4000 seconds, which is well over the average

propellant ISP (D. Conte, personal communication, 2022). The thrust of an electric propulsion

system is not high enough to launch spacecraft from the Earth, so it can only effectively be used

for small movements like trajectory alterations once the vehicle is in space (D. Conte, personal

communication, 2022). Also, in Sweden, efforts to find a less-toxic hypergolic alternative to

UDMH are underway. Similar to NASA’s GPIM, scientists in Sweden have created an

ADN-based LMP-103S propellant that is less toxic than UDMH and methanol-based. It utilizes

HAN, hydroxyl ammonium nitrate, as a solid oxidizer for the hypergolic fuel. Because it is a

methanol-based propellant, it has a 20% higher specific impulse than hydrazine (Katsumi &

Hori, 2021), meaning it is safer and more efficient.

To further investigate the specific emissions of the previously discussed rocket

propellants, a dataset meta-analysis was performed. The data collection highlights the individual

properties of the most commonly used modern propellants that benefit and detriment rocket

missions. It aims to conclude which types of rocket engines have lower levels of dangerous

emissions while still being both powerful and efficient.

 12

Data Collection

Data

Fig 1 (Stratospheric Black Carbon vs. Rocket and Propellants Used)

 13

Fig 2 (Stratospheric Aluminum Oxide vs. Rocket and Propellants Used)

 14

Fig 3 (Main Propellant Isp (Ns g^-1) vs. Main Propellant)

Fig 4 (Main Propellant Average Thrust/Weight Ratio (kN/Kg))

 15

Methods

In order to identify the correlation between propellant type and emissions, as well as

compare the performance of those propellants, a correlational dataset meta-analysis was carried

out. An analysis of quantitative data regarding specific emissions and thrusts of certain rockets

was necessary to effectively compare the relationships between the rockets’ engine performance

and their emissions. The identification of this relationship provides evidence to conclude which

propellant. Due to a lack of materials, a lack of funding, and safety concerns, a meta-analysis of

existing data was chosen as the primary data collection method. Datasets with similar and

distinct variables were utilized to find new correlations between the unconnected variables. To

evaluate the emissions of various propulsion systems, a dataset by Tyler Brown was used. Brown

references official vehicle manuals and launch reports to collect data on the exact emissions of

various rockets. The emissions data for each rocket engine was compared to its specific impulse

(Isp) using a dataset by Dany Frem. This dataset was created using Frem’s mathematical method

for determining the specific impulse of rocket propellants. While specific impulse measures the

rocket engine's efficiency, the rocket's thrust is another important factor in determining the

performance of a rocket. This data was collected from a dataset by Sarvesh Janarthanan, which

calculated the thrust-to-weight ratio of more than 200 different rockets. In order to connect these

performance variables to the propellants themselves, a dataset by Robert Ryan that included the

propellants used for each stage of many notable rocket launches was used. The propellants were

then matched to the rocket’s performance as concluded in the other three datasets.

Analysis/Results

The dataset analysis of the emissions of rockets using various propellants indicates that a

rocket's total emissions do not solely depend on the propellant used; however, it plays a
 16

significant role. The rocket that emitted the largest amount of black carbon compared to the other

studied launches was the Falcon Heavy, which utilizes Merlin engines powered by RP-1

kerosene as its propellant and liquid oxygen as its oxidizer. While this kerosene rocket emitted

the most black carbon, eight of the top ten black-carbon-emitting rockets studied use solid

motors as their primary propellant. These results are not surprising, as most literature in the field

of rocket emissions suggests that solid motors are the dirtiest propellant in terms of black carbon

emissions, with RP-1 coming in second. The primary reason for this discrepancy is the

tremendous number of engines used to lift the Falcon Heavy, amounting to 37 separate engines

in total (Jozič et al., 2020). This excess of engines resulted in extremely high black carbon

emissions and other less impactful pollutants, including nitrous oxides, carbon dioxide, and

water vapor. The only rockets that emitted any aluminum oxide were rockets utilizing solid

motors. Due to their chemical makeup, solid rocket boosters generally emit large amounts of

aluminum oxide, unlike most other propellant types. Solid motor rockets were also shown to

almost always be accompanied by an alternate fuel source like liquid hydrogen or a hypergolic

fuel. Liquid hydrogen and hypergolic fuels produced the least amount of black carbon and, along

with RP-1 kerosene, produced no aluminum oxide. This makes liquid hydrogen and hypergolic

fuels better options for reducing a rocket's atmospheric and global climate impact. The

environmental impact of the propellant used, while it is the focus of this paper, is irrelevant to

space companies if it does not effectively lift and maneuver the rocket. To address this essential

attribute, the researcher compared the average specific impulse of kerosene, liquid hydrogen, and

solid motor rockets, as well as the average thrust-to-weight ratio of kerosene vs. liquid hydrogen

rockets, to evaluate the efficiency and power of various propellants. Specific impulse is a

measure of the efficiency of a rocket engine, determined by the amount of time that a kilogram
 17

of propellant can produce thrust equal to its weight on Earth (D. Conte, personal communication,

2022). An engine’s thrust-to-weight ratio is a measure of the power of a rocket, determined by

the amount of force applied by the engine divided by the weight of the engine itself. The engines

that produced the highest specific impulses were powered using liquid hydrogen, meaning that

liquid hydrogen engines utilize not only the most environmentally friendly propellant but the

most efficient one as well. Kerosene engines exhibited the second highest specific impulse,

followed closely by solid motors as the least efficient. When comparing the two main liquid

propellants, liquid hydrogen and kerosene, kerosene delivers a substantially higher

thrust-to-weight ratio. This exposes the main weakness of liquid hydrogen engines; they often do

not provide enough thrust to lift the rocket into the air quickly and independently.

Discussion

Space exploration is necessary for the future development of science and technology, and

the industry’s rapid growth is already upon us. Rockets’ impact on the global climate crisis is

currently insignificant compared to the many other sources of pollution due to the limited

number of annual launches. However, this fact will change soon if the world does not adapt to

the exponentially rising launch rates. It is important to solve this budding issue before it is too

late. In order to do so, more research must be conducted, as the amount of literature in the field

of rocket emissions is minimal. Public and private space companies should also utilize the most

sustainable engines possible for their specific mission. While propellants like solid rocket

boosters and RP-1 kerosene are commonly used in modern times for their cheap costs, reliability,

and effectiveness, they cause great damage to the Earth’s atmosphere with each and every

launch.
 18

The most promising solution to this issue, as shown by the data collected, is to utilize

liquid hydrogen engines as much as possible in order to limit the amount of black carbon and

aluminum oxide emissions. One potential drawback is a lack of thrust from the liquid hydrogen

engine. This, however, can be solved by constructing hybrid rockets with an initial stage

composed of kerosene engines to supplement the thrust deficiency of liquid hydrogen propellant.

While this does not eliminate dangerous rocket emissions altogether, it limits them by only using

high-thrust propellant when necessary and utilizing the environmentally friendly and

high-efficiency propellant liquid hydrogen. This form of rocket creates a great balance between

functionality and sustainability. This hybrid rocket model may not be the most effective rocket

for certain missions, but it poses an example that the solution to this issue lies in balancing

trade-offs.

Conclusion

The future of the space travel industry will be hindered by the absence of sustainable,

environmentally friendly rocket engines unless change occurs in the near future. Many of the

most commonly used modern rocket propellants emit large amounts of dangerous pollutants such

as black carbon and aluminum oxide. These pollutants have many harmful effects on the Earth’s

atmosphere and climate, including ozone changes, radiative forcing, and polar mesospheric cloud

formation. In order to build a green rocket, one must weigh the tradeoffs and make compromises

that change depending on the specific mission. The solution most applicable to the average

mission is a hybrid rocket that utilizes a high-thrust fuel such as kerosene for the stage one

engine and high-efficiency, low-emission liquid hydrogen engines for the subsequent stages.

Developing a general solution to the issue of rocket emissions will require additional research

contributions to the field due to a lack of relevant literature. More information regarding the
 19

effects of the direct injection of concerning pollutants into each layer of the atmosphere is needed

to fully gauge the severity of the issue. While this problem remains, space companies must make

an attempt to limit the amount of black carbon and aluminum oxide expelled from their rockets.

Governments must create stricter regulations on the particles being sent into the atmosphere, and

incorporating these limitations into the Montreal Protocol is the most promising method.
 20

References

Brown, Tyler. (2022). Rocket Launch Emission Dataset [Data set]. Zenodo.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6499777

Conte, D. (2022, November 29). [Personal interview by the author].

Dallas, J.A., Raval, S., Alvarez Gaitan, J.P., Saydam, S., & Dempster, A.G. (2020). The

environmental impact of emissions from space launches: A comprehensive review.

Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120209

Egorova, T., Sedlacek, J., Sukhodolov, T., Karagodin-Doyennel, A., Zilker, F., & Rozanov, E.

(2023). Montreal Protocol's impact on the ozone layer and climate. Atmos. Chem. Phys.,

23, 5135–5147. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5135-2023.

Foust, J. (2023, January 23). Green propellant successfully demonstrated on NASA mission.

SpaceNews.

https://spacenews.com/green-propellant-successfully-demonstrated-on-nasa-mission/

Frem, Dany (2018): A Reliable Method for Predicting the Specific Impulse of Chemical

Propellants. SciELO journals. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.6832565.v1

Janarthanan, Sarvesh (2019): A Statistical Model for Liquid Propellant Rocket Engine Dry

Weight. Auburn University.

https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/6916/Masters%20Thesis_Liquid%20Rock

et%20Engine.pdf

Jozič, P., Zidanšek, A., Repnik, R. (2020). Fuel conservation for launch vehicles: Falcon Heavy

Case Study. MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13030660

 21

Kang, S., Zhang, Y., Qian, Y., & Wang, H. (2020). A review of black carbon in snow and ice and

its impact on the Cryosphere. Earth-Science Reviews, 210.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2020.103346

Katsumi, T. & Hori, K. (2021). Successful development of HAN based green propellant.

Energetic Materials Frontiers, 2(3), 228-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enmf.2021.09.002

Kordina, F., & Law, A. (2020). How much do rockets pollute? Everyday Astronaut.

https://everydayastronaut.com/rocket-pollution/

Kosyakov, D., Ul'yanovskii, N., Pikovskoi, I., Kenessov, B., Bakaikina, N., Zhubatov, Z., &

Lebedev, A. (2019, August). Effects of oxidant and catalyst on the transformation

products of rocket fuel 1,1-dimethylhydrazine in water and soil. Chemosphere.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.04.141

McCue, M. M. (2022). A Regulatory Scheme for the Dawn of Space Tourism. Vanderbilt

Journal of Transnational Law, 55(4), 1087+.

https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A727672205/GPS?u=glen20233&sid=bookmark-GPS&xi

d=f3a73a0b

Pultarova, T. (2021). The environmental impact of rocket launches: The 'dirty' and the 'green'.

Space.com. https://www.space.com/rocket-launches-environmental-impact

Ross, M. N., & Toohey, D. W. (2019). The coming surge of rocket emissions. Eos; American

Geophysical Union. https://eos.org/features/the-coming-surge-of-rocket-emissions

Ross, M., & Vedda, J. A. (2018). The policy and science of rocket emissions. Center for Space

Policy and Strategy.

https://csps.aerospace.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/RocketEmissions_0_0.pdf
 22

Ryan, R. & Marais, E. (2021): Rocket emissions impact dataset. University College London.

Dataset. https://doi.org/10.5522/04/16974166.v1

Ryan, R. G., Marais, E. A., Balhatchet, C. J., & Eastham, S. D. (2022). Impact of Rocket Launch

and Space Debris Air Pollutant Emissions on Stratospheric Ozone and Global Climate.

Earth’s Future, 10(6). https://doi.org/10.1029/2021ef002612

Sirieys, E., Gentgen, C., Jain, A., Milton, J., & de Weck, O. (2022). Space Sustainability Isn't

Just about Space Debris: On the Atmospheric Impact of Space Launches. MIT Science

Policy Review. https://doi.org/10.38105/spr.whfig18hta.

Sparrow, G. (2021, June 30). How rockets work: A complete guide. Space.com.

https://www.space.com/how-rockets-work

Torres, A. I. (2020). Reusable Rockets and the Environment. UC Merced Undergraduate

Research Journal, 12(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.5070/M4122048807 Retrieved from

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1v52510j