Hacker News Reader

Somewhere in the ballpark of a thousand 747 flights at maximum range, maybe a little less.

The Falcon 9 carries 147 metric tons of RP-1, which is functionally the same thing as Jet A (both are kerosene), while a 747-400 carries 165 metric tons of Jet A.

For a very broad estimate, I'd say the carbon footprint of a thousand Falcon 9 rocket launches is somewhat less than the carbon footprint of a day's worth of aircraft travel, globally.

It's also relatively easy[1] to switch over to liquid hydrogen rocket fuel if you decide space lauches really must be hit with pointless double standards.

1: where "easy" means "literally rocket science"

And what's the radioactive footprint of the handful that catastrophically fail?

An interesting question, actually. Presumably very, very large.