7 ms·

SpaceX's Starlink may be keeping the ozone from healing, research finds

30 points by heavyset_go 2y ago

ComputerGuru 2y ago
I was going to make a flippant remark asking the lines of “why is it never good news?” but realized it’s a good question and the obvious answer is that everything is in perfect balance after millennia of the planet’s existence. All of this is an aberration from the norm and it’s all going to be bad.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  It's a nuanced question. Comfort and convenience versus conservation.
- recursive 2y ago
  The conditions of the stable equilibrium are different from a change. But that says nothing about which one is better or worse. In some places, climate change would be welcome. But the whole system is so complicated, it's tough for us to predict all the dynamics. Probably better to not touch it. But I don't think it has to be worse.
- kaashif 2y ago
  It doesn't seem like nature is "in perfect balance" over long timescales. The formation of the Earth was not balance. The evolution of life wasn't balance - it was a clear progression from no life to life. The atmosphere becoming oxygenated wasn't balance - it hasn't gone back. Things do happen, things change. And changes can be permanent.
beambot 2y ago
> Ozone layer recovery is on track, helping avoid global warming by 0.5°C https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/ozone-layer-recovery-track-helping-avoid-global-warming-05degc https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/ozone-la...
- metaphor 2y ago
  Press release circa Jan 2023...based on a 2022 report[1]...apparently leaning into datasets spanning 2000-2020...which, to be fair, buries the following lede (my emphasis): >> The use of aerosols other than sulfate is expected to change the effects on ozone via changes in heterogeneous chemistry and dynamics and transport. Comprehensive climate model simulations to quantify these effects have yet to be performed. Other aerosol types that absorb less solar radiation would heat the tropical lower stratosphere much less than sulfate. They are also potentially more chemically inert and less impactful on stratospheric ozone. Materials that have been considered include calcium carbonate, titanium dioxide, aluminum oxide, and diamond. The effects on ozone are less certain for these alternate materials owing to the paucity of laboratory and modeling studies investigating them and the lack of natural analogs. Gotta make you wonder how many Starlink satellites were in orbit back then, and did anyone anticipate the scale that SpaceX would be deploying/decommissioning them looking forward? [1] https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/documents/Scientific-Assessment-of-Ozone-Depletion-2022-Executive-Summary.pdf https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/documents/Scientific-Ass...
cupcakecommons 2y ago
it's almost like any important new technology presents a constellation of tradeoffs
cwillu 2y ago
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024GL109280 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024GL10... is a much better link. “We consider a generic satellite reentering the mesosphere from LEO. The satellite structure is taken to be entirely aluminum, and the relevant ambient gas is molecular oxygen (COESA, 1976; Plane et al., 2021). In this study, we first carry out an atomic-scale MD simulation—a first-principle informed method for modeling physical and chemical interactions between atomic particles (Rahman, 1964)—to simulate the bond breakage between aluminum atoms (Al-Al bonds) due to the impact of oxygen molecules (O-O bonds) and the formation of aluminum oxides (Al-O bonds) during the ablation stage of reentry.”
the_real_cher 2y ago
Nothing better than research am I right? I research stuff all the time. I love research.
- givemeethekeys 2y ago
  You must be a scientist!
  - the_real_cher 2y ago
    Im researchin' as we speak.
DennisP 2y ago
The study itself was discussed here five days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40667786 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40667786 One point of discussion was making satellites out of other materials that won't deplete the ozone.
hadri 2y ago
I feel the article does a poor job at explaining the researcher's base assumptions: * What is the relationship between aluminum oxides and ozone depletion? * How long is the useful life of a satellite (when will this be a problem)? * What's the margin of error in the predictions (how confident are the scientist)? This feels like sensationalism. On the other hand, the paper itself might be underestimating the number of launches as it relies on another paper expecting "triple the count of tracked objects in low-Earth orbit (LEO) over the next century". This feels low given how much the cost of launching has been decreasing.
samatman 2y ago
> "The environmental impacts from the reentry of satellites are currently poorly understood," the researchers note in their paper. "As reentry rates increase, it is crucial to further explore the concerns highlighted in this study." In other words, they have no idea what effect, if any, some extra aluminium oxide is having on the ozone layer. Fun to play follow-the-citation though: > Dominant drivers in re-entry destruction are NO (nitrogen oxides) and chlorine emissions. Other re-entry elements play a negligible role. https://indico.esa.int/event/321/contributions/6403/attachments/4335/6538/esa-csid-21-bekki.pdf https://indico.esa.int/event/321/contributions/6403/attachme... > The results of the present study lead to the conclusion that deorbiting space debris has very little impact on stratospheric ozone https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA414310.pdf https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA414310.pdf A couple good pull quotes from the simulation study itself: > The chlorine activation reaction is catalyzed on the surface of aluminum oxide particles, with a reaction probability of 2% that boosts ozone depletion > Concerning the future mega-constellations scenario, the worst-case estimation of Organski et al. (2020) is taken The upshot here is that aluminum oxide, where present, negligibly but measurably increases the breakdown of ozone by catalyzing chlorine, where present. Keeping chlorine levels in the atmosphere low is an imperative, and one of the overall success stories of international environmental cooperation. A bit of alum is not going to move the needle, it's entirely inert to ozone chemistry on its own, and a poor catalyst of breakdown in the presence of chlorine. If enough satellites broke up in the atmosphere to provide an atom of aluminium oxide for each chlorine atom, which won't happen, that would lead to a maximum of 102% ozone damage from a baseline of 100%, if every one of those atoms collided with a chlorine molecule, which is also very much not how gas phase chemistry works. So yeah, great study. Seems the satellites are worth the nonexistent risk to ozone that they don't pose. Glad someone checked!

30 points by heavyset_go 2y ago

I was going to make a flippant remark asking the lines of “why is it never good news?” but realized it’s a good question and the obvious answer is that everything is in perfect balance after millennia of the planet’s existence. All of this is an aberration from the norm and it’s all going to be bad.

HPsquared 2y ago
It's a nuanced question. Comfort and convenience versus conservation.
recursive 2y ago
The conditions of the stable equilibrium are different from a change. But that says nothing about which one is better or worse. In some places, climate change would be welcome. But the whole system is so complicated, it's tough for us to predict all the dynamics. Probably better to not touch it. But I don't think it has to be worse.
kaashif 2y ago
It doesn't seem like nature is "in perfect balance" over long timescales. The formation of the Earth was not balance. The evolution of life wasn't balance - it was a clear progression from no life to life. The atmosphere becoming oxygenated wasn't balance - it hasn't gone back. Things do happen, things change. And changes can be permanent.

beambot 2y ago

> Ozone layer recovery is on track, helping avoid global warming by 0.5°C https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/ozone-layer-recovery-track-helping-avoid-global-warming-05degc https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/ozone-la...

metaphor 2y ago
Press release circa Jan 2023...based on a 2022 report[1]...apparently leaning into datasets spanning 2000-2020...which, to be fair, buries the following lede (my emphasis): >> The use of aerosols other than sulfate is expected to change the effects on ozone via changes in heterogeneous chemistry and dynamics and transport. Comprehensive climate model simulations to quantify these effects have yet to be performed. Other aerosol types that absorb less solar radiation would heat the tropical lower stratosphere much less than sulfate. They are also potentially more chemically inert and less impactful on stratospheric ozone. Materials that have been considered include calcium carbonate, titanium dioxide, aluminum oxide, and diamond. The effects on ozone are less certain for these alternate materials owing to the paucity of laboratory and modeling studies investigating them and the lack of natural analogs. Gotta make you wonder how many Starlink satellites were in orbit back then, and did anyone anticipate the scale that SpaceX would be deploying/decommissioning them looking forward? [1] https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/documents/Scientific-Assessment-of-Ozone-Depletion-2022-Executive-Summary.pdf https://ozone.unep.org/system/files/documents/Scientific-Ass...

cupcakecommons 2y ago

it's almost like any important new technology presents a constellation of tradeoffs

cwillu 2y ago

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024GL109280 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024GL10... is a much better link. “We consider a generic satellite reentering the mesosphere from LEO. The satellite structure is taken to be entirely aluminum, and the relevant ambient gas is molecular oxygen (COESA, 1976; Plane et al., 2021). In this study, we first carry out an atomic-scale MD simulation—a first-principle informed method for modeling physical and chemical interactions between atomic particles (Rahman, 1964)—to simulate the bond breakage between aluminum atoms (Al-Al bonds) due to the impact of oxygen molecules (O-O bonds) and the formation of aluminum oxides (Al-O bonds) during the ablation stage of reentry.”

the_real_cher 2y ago

Nothing better than research am I right? I research stuff all the time. I love research.

givemeethekeys 2y ago
You must be a scientist!
- the_real_cher 2y ago
  Im researchin' as we speak.

DennisP 2y ago

The study itself was discussed here five days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40667786 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40667786 One point of discussion was making satellites out of other materials that won't deplete the ozone.

hadri 2y ago

I feel the article does a poor job at explaining the researcher's base assumptions: * What is the relationship between aluminum oxides and ozone depletion? * How long is the useful life of a satellite (when will this be a problem)? * What's the margin of error in the predictions (how confident are the scientist)? This feels like sensationalism. On the other hand, the paper itself might be underestimating the number of launches as it relies on another paper expecting "triple the count of tracked objects in low-Earth orbit (LEO) over the next century". This feels low given how much the cost of launching has been decreasing.

samatman 2y ago

> "The environmental impacts from the reentry of satellites are currently poorly understood," the researchers note in their paper. "As reentry rates increase, it is crucial to further explore the concerns highlighted in this study." In other words, they have no idea what effect, if any, some extra aluminium oxide is having on the ozone layer. Fun to play follow-the-citation though: > Dominant drivers in re-entry destruction are NO (nitrogen oxides) and chlorine emissions. Other re-entry elements play a negligible role. https://indico.esa.int/event/321/contributions/6403/attachments/4335/6538/esa-csid-21-bekki.pdf https://indico.esa.int/event/321/contributions/6403/attachme... > The results of the present study lead to the conclusion that deorbiting space debris has very little impact on stratospheric ozone https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA414310.pdf https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA414310.pdf A couple good pull quotes from the simulation study itself: > The chlorine activation reaction is catalyzed on the surface of aluminum oxide particles, with a reaction probability of 2% that boosts ozone depletion > Concerning the future mega-constellations scenario, the worst-case estimation of Organski et al. (2020) is taken The upshot here is that aluminum oxide, where present, negligibly but measurably increases the breakdown of ozone by catalyzing chlorine, where present. Keeping chlorine levels in the atmosphere low is an imperative, and one of the overall success stories of international environmental cooperation. A bit of alum is not going to move the needle, it's entirely inert to ozone chemistry on its own, and a poor catalyst of breakdown in the presence of chlorine. If enough satellites broke up in the atmosphere to provide an atom of aluminium oxide for each chlorine atom, which won't happen, that would lead to a maximum of 102% ozone damage from a baseline of 100%, if every one of those atoms collided with a chlorine molecule, which is also very much not how gas phase chemistry works. So yeah, great study. Seems the satellites are worth the nonexistent risk to ozone that they don't pose. Glad someone checked!