Want less carbon from launches and satellite operations? The fuel you choose matters more than most people think. Traditional kerosene and toxic monopropellants create big emissions and messy soot. Low carbon propellants aim to cut lifecycle CO2, reduce toxic handling, and make rockets easier to reuse. That’s good for the planet and for operations that want predictable maintenance and lower regulatory hassle.
Liquid hydrogen (LH2) burns to water, so the exhaust has no CO2. But production matters: hydrogen made from natural gas still creates emissions. Green hydrogen from electrolysis using renewable electricity is the clean choice, though it adds cost and needs new supply chains.
Methane (liquid CH4) is becoming the practical low-carbon pick for many launch companies. It burns cleaner than kerosene, produces less soot, and supports rapid reuse of engines and nozzles. If the methane is produced from renewable sources or biogas, the lifecycle carbon drops a lot.
Green monopropellants such as hydroxyl ammonium nitrate blends replace toxic hydrazine for satellite thrusters. They’re less hazardous on the ground and often offer better mass or volume efficiency for some designs. Electric propulsion (ion or Hall thrusters) uses noble gases like xenon or krypton; those systems emit no CO2 during operation and are ideal for long-duration station-keeping and deep-space legs.
There’s no one-size-fits-all. Think mission first: do you need highest thrust for liftoff, or efficient, low-thrust long burns? Then add lifecycle emissions: calculate CO2 from production, transport, and ground operations, not just the engine exhaust. Match fuel choice to infrastructure — LH2 needs big cryo systems, methane is simpler, green monopropellants cut handling costs for small satellites.
Consider trade-offs: LH2 gives top performance but higher complexity and cost; methane balances performance and reusability; electric propulsion minimizes operational emissions but requires electricity and time. Also factor regulatory and safety wins: less toxic fuels reduce ground risks and permit simpler fueling procedures at launch sites.
Practical moves companies can make now: switch upper stages or in-space thrusters to green monopropellants, adopt methane for reusable first stages, invest in green hydrogen production where LH2 fits, and electrify ground operations. Track emissions with a lifecycle approach and be transparent — customers and regulators will ask for numbers.
Low carbon propellants are not just a trend. They cut costs tied to maintenance and compliance, improve reusability, and lower real emissions when paired with clean fuel production. Pick the propellant that fits your mission and the cleaner fuel pathway that fits your budget—small choices now add up to big carbon savings over many launches.
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) is pioneering the shift towards sustainable healthcare by initiating phase III trials for a low carbon Ventolin inhaler. This move could significantly reduce the environmental impact of metered dose inhalers, which are a substantial part of GSK's carbon footprint.
Read more
