3 ms·

"What’s not usual is the atmospheric fallout. The fiery re-entry of even one Gen1 Starlink satellite produces about 30 kilograms of aluminum oxide vapor, a comp

"What’s not usual is the atmospheric fallout. The fiery re-entry of even one Gen1 Starlink satellite produces about 30 kilograms of aluminum oxide vapor, a compound that erodes the ozone layer. A new study finds these oxides have increased 8-fold between 2016 and 2022, and the Great Re-entry Event increases this pollution even more. To put this into perspective: Before the first Starlink launches began in 2019, only about 40 to 50 satellites re-entered per year. SpaceX just brought down ten years' worth in only six months, adding an estimated 15,000 kilograms of aluminum oxide to the upper atmosphere." https://spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=05&month=08&year=2025 https://spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=05&month=08&... Shout out to NEKAAL for watching the skys and keeping our little speck of dust a bit safer from the vast reality of space.

terminalshort 1y ago
The fact that they quantified everything here except for the amount of ozone this actually destroys tells me that it's completely insignificant.
- ecommerceguy 1y ago
  I'll refrain my usual snark and just link the same link from the linked article you apparently read. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024JD042442 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024JD04...
  - quotemstr 1y ago
    So you're doing the same thing? Either make a meaningful argument or stop insinuating through omission that there's a real problem here. You're not only insulting the intelligence of your readers but also, thereby, undermining your cause. The article you linked is garbage. Its authors find (of course not controlling for multiple comparisons) an effect that looks statistically significant if you p-hack it just right, then juxtapose it with overdetermined and badly simulated South polar vortex behavior to create the false impression that these satellites are killing the planet. The real motivation behind pieces like this is personal enmity towards Elon Musk. It could not be more obvious. These people pollute our intellectual commons and degrade whatever remains of their intellectual honesty to run tendentious pieces that let them tell their friends they're sticking it to bad rocket man. Why are NOAA and NASA funding this stuff?
    - peterashford 1y ago
      ad hominem
    - ecommerceguy 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - quotemstr 1y ago
        > dissipated in the atmosphere...an obvious lie What do you think the word "dissipates" means? Antimatter annihilation? Some other mass to energy conversion? That atoms making up re-entering satellites obviously aren't going to disappear. > Since when did pollution from fires become a controversial topic? "Fires"? This whole discussion is like people with a hatred of religion going around saying we have to abolish the Catholic Church because votive candles produce soot. A study showing that would not motivated by earnest and dispassionate scientific curiosity about the laws of the universe, but by a desire to achieve a political end. The public should fund foundational research, not partisan apologetics.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > It's well established these oxides lead to degradation of the ozone layer, are you disputing that fact? “The ozone layer is mainly found in the lower portion of the stratosphere, from approximately 15 to 35 kilometers (9 to 22 mi) above Earth” [1]. Satellites break up around 75 km AGL [2], with most burning up “between 60 and 80 kilometers (37–50 miles)” [3]. So Idk! I don’t think anyone else does—these seem to be novel nanoparticles. We need to study it. If it’s a problem, that’s solvable—carbon composite satellite structuring could use funding. What we can’t do is just assume it’s terrible because items novel because that basically precludes space flight. > Do you always have a meltdown whenever someone brings up something that upsets your worldview? Happy to unflag once this unnecessary bit is removed. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer [2] https://www.esa.int/Space_Safety/Clean_Space/Space_debris_feel_the_burn https://www.esa.int/Space_Safety/Clean_Space/Space_debris_fe... [3] https://www.thedefensenews.com/news-details/Can-We-Solve-the-Satellite-Air-Pollution-Problem-Here-Are-Four-Promising-Solutions/ https://www.thedefensenews.com/news-details/Can-We-Solve-the...
mensetmanusman 1y ago
Earth receives ~50,000 kg/day of cosmic dust (our mid-range assumption), 30 kg is 0.06% of that daily amount.
- burnt-resistor 1y ago
  But how much of that is aluminum? Probably <0.5%. Nit: You're off by about a factor of 3 because it's 14.6 t/day. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antarctic-study-shows-how-much-space-dust-hits-earth-every-year/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antarctic-study-s...
  - lithocarpus 1y ago
    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020JA028792 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/202... Apparently around 1.4%. So the starlink satellites dissipating could increase the aluminum oxide arriving up there by ~10% - depending which numbers are correct I suppose it could be anywhere from like 3-30%.
- a_bonobo 1y ago
  This is kind of that 'climate change skeptic' argument that CO2 is only a tiny percentage in the atmosphere, 0.04%, so anything humans have done to that tiny percentage is therefore negligible. But we've had a massive impact by increasing that tiny percentage by 50% causing climate change.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
lithocarpus 1y ago
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020JA028792 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/202... Apparently earth soaks up ~400-800 kg of aluminum oxide in cosmic dust each day. So with 1-2 starlink satellites producing 30kg each dissipate each day, that's adding about 10% to this figure. I'm not sure if the cosmic dust aluminum finds itself in the same places up there as the dissipating starlink aluminum. Maybe that could be figured out from the above paper. This could have a significant effect, I don't know.
- prennert 1y ago
  wow your post gave me a bit of perspective. The distribution might really matter here. Are those ~400-800 kg of aluminum oxide in cosmic dust each day uniformly distributed, and if not how big are those clouds of aluminum oxide that the earth is travelling through? Those 30kg from the satellites are going to be extremely concentrated and therefore take longer to "soak up".
  - lithocarpus 1y ago
    Yeah, I didn't think much of it at first but you pointing out that the 400-800kg is likely spread widely (if not evenly) across much of the earth's surface while the 30kg is landing in one spot, is an interesting point. I wonder how much aluminum oxide we get though from disintegrating meteors and other impacts every day. Quick search suggests 50-100t of mass from meteors on average each day - similar total to the dust. Those might be more concentrated and analagous to the starlink satellites.
varenc 1y ago
How much ozone is being destroyed by 15000kg of aluminum oxide vapor? Is it a meaningful amount? On the scale of the Earth, my completely uninformed intuition is that 15k kg of alumina doesn't feel that significant. I'd guess that rocket production and launch emissions are way more harmful. But don't know.
casenmgreen 1y ago
IIRC there recently was a white paper about the environmental affects of the metallization of the upper atmosphere by satellites - not just those burning up, but the general emission over time of tiny particles of metal from all satellites. However, quick Google now I can find research which has determined pure rare earth metals in the upper atmosphere coming from satellites and boosters and so on, but nothing about the consequences, and I thought I recalled something about consequences.
_heimdall 1y ago
If we're really concerned with heavy metals and particulates added to the atmosphere we should also be considering all of the weather modification projects that go on effectively unregulated. NOAA collects reports[1] of what is done in the US but they don't officially regulate it. They currently have 1,113 reports publicly available. [1] https://library.noaa.gov/weather-climate/weather-modification-project-reports https://library.noaa.gov/weather-climate/weather-modificatio...

terminalshort 1y ago

The fact that they quantified everything here except for the amount of ozone this actually destroys tells me that it's completely insignificant.

ecommerceguy 1y ago
I'll refrain my usual snark and just link the same link from the linked article you apparently read. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024JD042442 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024JD04...
- quotemstr 1y ago
  So you're doing the same thing? Either make a meaningful argument or stop insinuating through omission that there's a real problem here. You're not only insulting the intelligence of your readers but also, thereby, undermining your cause. The article you linked is garbage. Its authors find (of course not controlling for multiple comparisons) an effect that looks statistically significant if you p-hack it just right, then juxtapose it with overdetermined and badly simulated South polar vortex behavior to create the false impression that these satellites are killing the planet. The real motivation behind pieces like this is personal enmity towards Elon Musk. It could not be more obvious. These people pollute our intellectual commons and degrade whatever remains of their intellectual honesty to run tendentious pieces that let them tell their friends they're sticking it to bad rocket man. Why are NOAA and NASA funding this stuff?
  - peterashford 1y ago
    ad hominem
  - ecommerceguy 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - quotemstr 1y ago
      > dissipated in the atmosphere...an obvious lie What do you think the word "dissipates" means? Antimatter annihilation? Some other mass to energy conversion? That atoms making up re-entering satellites obviously aren't going to disappear. > Since when did pollution from fires become a controversial topic? "Fires"? This whole discussion is like people with a hatred of religion going around saying we have to abolish the Catholic Church because votive candles produce soot. A study showing that would not motivated by earnest and dispassionate scientific curiosity about the laws of the universe, but by a desire to achieve a political end. The public should fund foundational research, not partisan apologetics.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > It's well established these oxides lead to degradation of the ozone layer, are you disputing that fact? “The ozone layer is mainly found in the lower portion of the stratosphere, from approximately 15 to 35 kilometers (9 to 22 mi) above Earth” [1]. Satellites break up around 75 km AGL [2], with most burning up “between 60 and 80 kilometers (37–50 miles)” [3]. So Idk! I don’t think anyone else does—these seem to be novel nanoparticles. We need to study it. If it’s a problem, that’s solvable—carbon composite satellite structuring could use funding. What we can’t do is just assume it’s terrible because items novel because that basically precludes space flight. > Do you always have a meltdown whenever someone brings up something that upsets your worldview? Happy to unflag once this unnecessary bit is removed. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer [2] https://www.esa.int/Space_Safety/Clean_Space/Space_debris_feel_the_burn https://www.esa.int/Space_Safety/Clean_Space/Space_debris_fe... [3] https://www.thedefensenews.com/news-details/Can-We-Solve-the-Satellite-Air-Pollution-Problem-Here-Are-Four-Promising-Solutions/ https://www.thedefensenews.com/news-details/Can-We-Solve-the...

mensetmanusman 1y ago

Earth receives ~50,000 kg/day of cosmic dust (our mid-range assumption), 30 kg is 0.06% of that daily amount.

burnt-resistor 1y ago
But how much of that is aluminum? Probably <0.5%. Nit: You're off by about a factor of 3 because it's 14.6 t/day. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antarctic-study-shows-how-much-space-dust-hits-earth-every-year/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antarctic-study-s...
- lithocarpus 1y ago
  https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020JA028792 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/202... Apparently around 1.4%. So the starlink satellites dissipating could increase the aluminum oxide arriving up there by ~10% - depending which numbers are correct I suppose it could be anywhere from like 3-30%.
a_bonobo 1y ago
This is kind of that 'climate change skeptic' argument that CO2 is only a tiny percentage in the atmosphere, 0.04%, so anything humans have done to that tiny percentage is therefore negligible. But we've had a massive impact by increasing that tiny percentage by 50% causing climate change.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

lithocarpus 1y ago

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020JA028792 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/202... Apparently earth soaks up ~400-800 kg of aluminum oxide in cosmic dust each day. So with 1-2 starlink satellites producing 30kg each dissipate each day, that's adding about 10% to this figure. I'm not sure if the cosmic dust aluminum finds itself in the same places up there as the dissipating starlink aluminum. Maybe that could be figured out from the above paper. This could have a significant effect, I don't know.

prennert 1y ago
wow your post gave me a bit of perspective. The distribution might really matter here. Are those ~400-800 kg of aluminum oxide in cosmic dust each day uniformly distributed, and if not how big are those clouds of aluminum oxide that the earth is travelling through? Those 30kg from the satellites are going to be extremely concentrated and therefore take longer to "soak up".
- lithocarpus 1y ago
  Yeah, I didn't think much of it at first but you pointing out that the 400-800kg is likely spread widely (if not evenly) across much of the earth's surface while the 30kg is landing in one spot, is an interesting point. I wonder how much aluminum oxide we get though from disintegrating meteors and other impacts every day. Quick search suggests 50-100t of mass from meteors on average each day - similar total to the dust. Those might be more concentrated and analagous to the starlink satellites.

varenc 1y ago

How much ozone is being destroyed by 15000kg of aluminum oxide vapor? Is it a meaningful amount? On the scale of the Earth, my completely uninformed intuition is that 15k kg of alumina doesn't feel that significant. I'd guess that rocket production and launch emissions are way more harmful. But don't know.

casenmgreen 1y ago

IIRC there recently was a white paper about the environmental affects of the metallization of the upper atmosphere by satellites - not just those burning up, but the general emission over time of tiny particles of metal from all satellites. However, quick Google now I can find research which has determined pure rare earth metals in the upper atmosphere coming from satellites and boosters and so on, but nothing about the consequences, and I thought I recalled something about consequences.

_heimdall 1y ago

If we're really concerned with heavy metals and particulates added to the atmosphere we should also be considering all of the weather modification projects that go on effectively unregulated. NOAA collects reports[1] of what is done in the US but they don't officially regulate it. They currently have 1,113 reports publicly available. [1] https://library.noaa.gov/weather-climate/weather-modification-project-reports https://library.noaa.gov/weather-climate/weather-modificatio...