Satellites have many chlorinated and florinated chemicals, so being vaporized means introducing large volumes to the upper atmosphere where they can catalyze the destruction of ozone molecules. I'd be interested how the volume compares to other sources of atmospheric halogens. They could hardly match the quantity of refrigerant gases released, but being deposited directly in the upper atmosphere may make them more potent.
Good catch. I doubt it's even a rounding error right now, but with the space market undergoing a rather rapid growth (good thing!), it's a good time to start tracking this and hopefully address before it turns into a problem.
>hopefully address before it turns into a problem.
Ron Howard's voice "They didn't."
But in all seriousness, there will be zero stomach for limiting launches for the ozone layer. I'm calling it now. Group 1 won't believe it's a problem. Group 2 will say it's just lefty elitists trying to ruin the economy. Group 3 will say there's no such thing as satellites.
During the peak something like a million metric tons of refrigerants were making their way into the atmosphere yearly.
Maybe one or two tons of vaguely related chemicals are making their way into the atmosphere in the form of deorbited satellite materials and there's no 1:1 guarantee they're having anything like similar effects.
So it's a number measured in parts per million of the problem we were having in the 80s.
Why do you consider the ideal point for this question absolute 0 zero reentries rather than the minimal number of reentries that don’t cause damage to the atmosphere?
SpaceX wants their Starlink constellation to crack 100,000, and there are plenty of competitors lining up who will surely want to have "the biggest and the best" at some point. None of those sats stay up terribly long, so you'll have a constant cadence of launches and reentries, both of which are a risk for their impact on the climate system, atmosphere, etc.
A largely unstudied risk, and once which will almost certainly be strenuously ignored for as long as possible.
So do incinerating satellites create tunnels of conductive plasma through the atmosphere? Perhaps they are creating short circuits in the air. Could pieces of junk reaching the lower atmosphere cause lightning strikes by creating conductive paths? When I read the title about "plasma tunnels" that's what I thought the article was going to be about, not wind tunnels.
If it turns out the junk truly disintegrates without any significant affect to the atmosphere then GP is saying that it’s not actually a problem and not actually “junk”. Space junk usually refers to stuff junking up things in the same way a rusted out sedan ruins a yard.
If the sedan disappeared it wouldn’t really be considered junk. If the sedan disappeared but left behind a puddle of poison the label would still apply.
The typical meaning of space junk is stuff orbiting around without the ability to control itself and without de-orbiting, therefore presenting a risk/nuisance to other things in orbit.
Is a Starlink sat that reaches EOL and sets itself on trajectory for rapid de-orbit ever junk by such a definition?
So... We still don't know if aluminum on satellites can be a problem or not.
Yes, it's nice that failed experiments get reported. But why another press article claiming the problem that this one research has been failing for a decade to show that exists?
Science give us knowledge rooted in hard evidence, science give us models that can be reused as is or used to refine other models. The article mentions how hard it is to monitor atmosphere at 60-80km because it is too high for weather balloons and too low for satellites, now they are doing something about it.
Money spent on science is not a waste of money, even if science come with a negative answer. If you want to find ways to slash wasteful spending, I'd urge you to look at wars: these are really eat a lot of money and give nothing back.
No, there was no a priori evidence when the big "fuss" around the ozone happened. I happen to agree with it. Why spend millions of choice your choice of first world currency to worry about 0.000000000001% of the pollution the earth, our earth is facing.
Perhaps you're not living in the same world as I, but I've both experienced the wettest and driest year on record.
Satellites have many chlorinated and florinated chemicals, so being vaporized means introducing large volumes to the upper atmosphere where they can catalyze the destruction of ozone molecules. I'd be interested how the volume compares to other sources of atmospheric halogens. They could hardly match the quantity of refrigerant gases released, but being deposited directly in the upper atmosphere may make them more potent.
Good catch. I doubt it's even a rounding error right now, but with the space market undergoing a rather rapid growth (good thing!), it's a good time to start tracking this and hopefully address before it turns into a problem.
>hopefully address before it turns into a problem.
Ron Howard's voice "They didn't."
But in all seriousness, there will be zero stomach for limiting launches for the ozone layer. I'm calling it now. Group 1 won't believe it's a problem. Group 2 will say it's just lefty elitists trying to ruin the economy. Group 3 will say there's no such thing as satellites.
Check back in 40 years. I bet I'm right.
7 replies →
During the peak something like a million metric tons of refrigerants were making their way into the atmosphere yearly.
Maybe one or two tons of vaguely related chemicals are making their way into the atmosphere in the form of deorbited satellite materials and there's no 1:1 guarantee they're having anything like similar effects.
So it's a number measured in parts per million of the problem we were having in the 80s.
What would be the number of reentries in the near future?
5-20 satellites daily?
At first glance, it seems negligible.
On the hand, given the intentional nature if disposable low-orbit, 20 more than ideal.
Why do you consider the ideal point for this question absolute 0 zero reentries rather than the minimal number of reentries that don’t cause damage to the atmosphere?
[flagged]
2 replies →
SpaceX wants their Starlink constellation to crack 100,000, and there are plenty of competitors lining up who will surely want to have "the biggest and the best" at some point. None of those sats stay up terribly long, so you'll have a constant cadence of launches and reentries, both of which are a risk for their impact on the climate system, atmosphere, etc.
A largely unstudied risk, and once which will almost certainly be strenuously ignored for as long as possible.
100 tons of whatever enter the Earth every single day. Are you freaking out about that?
6 replies →
I presume dead orbiting satellites will become a source of valuable refined materials in orbit in not a particularly long time.
So do incinerating satellites create tunnels of conductive plasma through the atmosphere? Perhaps they are creating short circuits in the air. Could pieces of junk reaching the lower atmosphere cause lightning strikes by creating conductive paths? When I read the title about "plasma tunnels" that's what I thought the article was going to be about, not wind tunnels.
> However, the rapidly increasing numbers of launches to low Earth orbit now threaten to increase the levels of space junk reentering the atmosphere.
Isn't it not space junk if it is burning up in the atmosphere? Kinda conflating two different concerns here that are somewhat mutually exclusive.
It's space junk and then it enters the atmosphere and burns up, I don't think it's too hard to figure out.
If it turns out the junk truly disintegrates without any significant affect to the atmosphere then GP is saying that it’s not actually a problem and not actually “junk”. Space junk usually refers to stuff junking up things in the same way a rusted out sedan ruins a yard.
If the sedan disappeared it wouldn’t really be considered junk. If the sedan disappeared but left behind a puddle of poison the label would still apply.
1 reply →
The typical meaning of space junk is stuff orbiting around without the ability to control itself and without de-orbiting, therefore presenting a risk/nuisance to other things in orbit.
Is a Starlink sat that reaches EOL and sets itself on trajectory for rapid de-orbit ever junk by such a definition?
So... We still don't know if aluminum on satellites can be a problem or not.
Yes, it's nice that failed experiments get reported. But why another press article claiming the problem that this one research has been failing for a decade to show that exists?
100 tons of metal-based rock falls to earth daily from the solar system.
Waste of fucking money. The X that fall per year is nothing compared to the millions of tons of other pollution.
Science give us knowledge rooted in hard evidence, science give us models that can be reused as is or used to refine other models. The article mentions how hard it is to monitor atmosphere at 60-80km because it is too high for weather balloons and too low for satellites, now they are doing something about it.
Money spent on science is not a waste of money, even if science come with a negative answer. If you want to find ways to slash wasteful spending, I'd urge you to look at wars: these are really eat a lot of money and give nothing back.
Nice strawman. I did not say spending money on science is a waste of money. Spending a bunch of money which is quantifiably not an issue.
It is the same daft shit as trying to colonise Mars. Fuck off. If you cannot tame earth, its deserts, its extremes, why, why?!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_problem
2 replies →
This kind of thinking is exactly what led to the ozone hole in the first place. Let's actually investigate our assumptions this time.
No, there was no a priori evidence when the big "fuss" around the ozone happened. I happen to agree with it. Why spend millions of choice your choice of first world currency to worry about 0.000000000001% of the pollution the earth, our earth is facing.
Perhaps you're not living in the same world as I, but I've both experienced the wettest and driest year on record.
Exactly.. If I have only few hundreds car in the world, will that lead to air pollution ?