Particles that shouldn't be there, destroying what protects us
En un momento en que la humanidad mira hacia las estrellas con ambición renovada, la física Isabel Moreno nos recuerda que cada cohete que asciende deja una huella invisible pero real en las capas más altas de la atmósfera. Lo que el ojo percibe como una nube efímera en el horizonte es, en realidad, cientos o miles de toneladas de CO2 equivalente, carbono negro y aerosoles que alcanzan la estratosfera y la mesosfera, donde reside la capa de ozono. La pregunta que plantea no es si el turismo espacial comercial tiene un coste ambiental, sino si estamos dispuestos a medirlo antes de que se vuelva irreversible.
- Cada lanzamiento comercial libera entre cientos y miles de toneladas de CO2 equivalente, más partículas de carbono negro que ascienden hasta las capas atmosféricas donde el ozono es más vulnerable.
- La industria aeroespacial no dispone de un inventario centralizado de emisiones, lo que convierte la vigilancia ambiental en un ejercicio de estimación más que de certeza.
- El impacto no se limita a la combustión: la fabricación, el transporte, el consumo masivo de agua para amortiguar vibraciones y los incendios provocados por el rencendido de motores suman capas de daño raramente visibilizadas.
- Con el ritmo de lanzamientos comerciales en aceleración constante, el efecto acumulativo sobre la capa de ozono podría pasar de ser una nota marginal a convertirse en una amenaza atmosférica de primer orden.
- Moreno advierte que sin regulación ni seguimiento de emisiones, la industria espacial podría repetir los errores históricos de otros sectores que crecieron sin rendir cuentas al planeta.
En el programa de radio Serendipias, la física Isabel Moreno abordó una pregunta que la expansión del turismo espacial comercial hace cada vez más urgente: ¿qué le ocurre a la atmósfera cuando los cohetes comienzan a despegar con regularidad? Moreno, especialista en meteorología y geofísica y autora de obras sobre cambio climático y desinformación ambiental, señaló que obtener datos precisos de emisiones por lanzamiento es sorprendentemente difícil, ya que la industria aeroespacial carece de un registro centralizado. Sin embargo, las estimaciones basadas en relaciones estequiométricas revelan una realidad inquietante: cada lanzamiento emite entre cientos y miles de toneladas de CO2 equivalente, dependiendo del tamaño del cohete y el tipo de combustible. No en vano, el 95% de la masa de un cohete es propelente.
El daño ambiental no se circunscribe al instante del encendido. Moreno trazó el ciclo completo: emisiones durante la fabricación, el transporte hasta la plataforma de lanzamiento y el consumo extraordinario de agua necesario para amortiguar las vibraciones que podrían dañar la estructura del cohete. Las instalaciones de SpaceX, por ejemplo, han registrado incendios provocados por el rencendido de motores, un coste colateral que rara vez ocupa titulares.
Pero el núcleo de su advertencia apunta más alto, literalmente. La nube visible que deja un lanzamiento no se queda en la troposfera. El cohete sigue ascendiendo y libera dióxido de carbono, carbono negro y aerosoles en la estratosfera y la mesosfera, las capas donde reside la capa de ozono. Algunas de esas sustancias contribuyen activamente a su destrucción. Aunque las partículas individuales no persisten indefinidamente, la frecuencia creciente de lanzamientos multiplica el efecto acumulativo. Moreno concluyó que, sin regulación ni monitoreo sistemático, lo que hoy es un impacto significativo pero contenido podría convertirse, en un futuro no lejano, en un problema atmosférico de consecuencias mucho más graves.
On a recent episode of the radio program Serendipias, physicist Isabel Moreno sat down to discuss a question that has grown harder to ignore: what happens to the atmosphere when rockets start launching regularly from Earth? The conversation centered on something most people never think about—the hidden environmental cost of commercial space travel, measured not in dollars but in tons of carbon dioxide and ozone-depleting particles released into the upper atmosphere.
Moreno, who holds a master's degree in meteorology and geophysics and has written books on climate change and atmospheric misinformation, explained that finding precise emissions data for individual rocket launches is surprisingly difficult. The aerospace industry doesn't maintain a centralized inventory of these figures. But the estimates, calculated through stoichiometric relationships, paint a sobering picture: each launch releases somewhere between hundreds and thousands of tons of CO2 equivalent, depending on the rocket's size and fuel type. To put this in perspective, 95 percent of a rocket's mass is fuel.
The environmental impact doesn't begin and end at the moment of ignition. Moreno outlined the full lifecycle: emissions occur during manufacturing, during transport to the launch site, and from any crew members aboard. But the most immediate and visible damage happens during the launch itself. SpaceX facilities, for instance, have experienced fires triggered by engine reignition. The industry also requires enormous quantities of water to suppress vibrations and sound waves that could otherwise damage the rocket—another environmental cost that rarely makes headlines.
What Moreno emphasized most forcefully, however, is what happens after the rocket clears the lower atmosphere. When a rocket launches, observers see a cloud. That cloud doesn't linger in the troposphere, the lowest layer of air where weather happens. Instead, the rocket continues climbing, releasing carbon dioxide, black carbon particles, and aerosols as it ascends. The real problem emerges when these emissions reach the stratosphere and mesosphere—the upper layers of the atmosphere where the ozone layer resides.
At those altitudes, the rocket releases substances that have no business being there. Some of these particles actively contribute to ozone layer destruction. While individual particles don't persist in the atmosphere for extended periods, the concern multiplies with frequency. If commercial space launches continue accelerating—and all signs suggest they will—the cumulative effect could shift from a manageable environmental footnote to a genuinely serious atmospheric problem. Moreno concluded that the aerospace industry's impact is already significant across multiple dimensions, but the future could bring consequences that are far more troubling if the trend continues unchecked and unmonitored.
Citações Notáveis
The aerospace industry's impact is already significant, but could become far more concerning in the future as launch frequency increases— Isabel Moreno, physicist and meteorology expert
These are substances that shouldn't be there, and in some cases they contribute to ozone layer destruction— Isabel Moreno, on stratospheric rocket emissions
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
When you say hundreds to thousands of tons per launch, how does that compare to what a typical person understands about carbon emissions?
It's hard to visualize, but think of it this way—a single rocket launch can emit as much CO2 as thousands of cars driving for a year. And that's just one launch. The scale is enormous.
You mentioned that 95 percent of the rocket is fuel. Does that mean almost nothing else is actually going to space?
Essentially, yes. The payload—the satellite, the crew, whatever is actually useful—is a tiny fraction. The rest is burned to get that small thing off the ground.
The water requirement for launch seems like a separate problem entirely. Why do they need so much?
The sound and vibrations from ignition are so violent they can destroy the rocket itself. Water dampens those forces. It's necessary, but it's another environmental cost people don't see.
You said these particles are short-lived in the atmosphere. So why is frequency the real issue?
Because short-lived doesn't mean harmless. If you're releasing ozone-depleting substances once a year, the ozone layer recovers. If you're doing it dozens of times a year, recovery becomes impossible. The damage accumulates faster than nature can repair it.
Is there any regulation of these emissions currently?
That's the gap. There's no centralized tracking, no mandatory reporting. We don't even have reliable data on what each rocket actually emits. It's a blind spot in environmental policy.
What would change if we had that data?
Everything. You can't regulate what you don't measure. Once we know the real numbers, we can make informed decisions about whether every launch is necessary, or whether we need cleaner propellants, or stricter limits on frequency.