Abstract from the paper in the article:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024GL109280

Large constellations of small satellites will significantly increase the number of objects orbiting the Earth. Satellites burn up at the end of service life during reentry, generating aluminum oxides as the main byproduct. These are known catalysts for chlorine activation that depletes ozone in the stratosphere. We present the first atomic-scale molecular dynamics simulation study to resolve the oxidation process of the satellite’s aluminum structure during mesospheric reentry, and investigate the ozone depletion potential from aluminum oxides. We find that the demise of a typical 250-kg satellite can generate around 30 kg of aluminum oxide nanoparticles, which may endure for decades in the atmosphere. Aluminum oxide compounds generated by the entire population of satellites reentering the atmosphere in 2022 are estimated at around 17 metric tons. Reentry scenarios involving mega-constellations point to over 360 metric tons of aluminum oxide compounds per year, which can lead to significant ozone depletion.

PS: wooden satellites can help mitigate this https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01456-z

  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Quite possible. Let’s fix our ISPs so that all of humanity has access to bandwidth priced to a value that they can afford for their area. A huge project that means lots of union jobs and an economic payoff for decades. If we pull this off Starlink won’t have any customers except very marginal cases.

    Fix the problem directly instead of fixing the solution unintended side effects

    • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Gee, where are the boatload of billions that the US congress passed for nationwide broadband?

      Fucking ripoff telecon companies.

  • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    You would think space engineers would‘ve run those numbers before sending tens of thousands of them in orbit. It‘s really annoying that we can only hope for the best at this point.

    • Peppycito@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I fully expect they did. I think this is partly why Elon went from “there’s no planet B” to a Saudi simp. Way to much money to be made to waste time on the concerns of scientists and the welfare of the planet.

  • Rhaedas@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    At least the article came with the numbers. Given what I regularly read about all the pollutants we daily pump into the atmosphere, the numbers in this article for the materials being atomized is…well, they’re very small in scale.

    Basically, if a few hundred tons per year is hurting the ozone (and other things), just imagine what the billions of tons per year of emissions does.

  • rbesfe@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    So they take 17 tons of emissions (from all satellites, not just starlink), which are basically nothing on an atmospheric scale, then extrapolate that to 360 and start freaking out. Peak quality journalism.

  • Hadriscus@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    damn, starlink is my only way to access the internet. I wish there were an alternative that’s usable. Traditional access providers don’t work and cell data is extremely slow and there’s no coverage where I live. I pay for Starlink with a bitter taste

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Might I enquire as to where this remote location might be?

      Like on a general basis, no need for addresses.

      As a Finn I’m forever spoiled in terms of wireless coverage. We got tons of solitary forests. But you can get an internet connection in literally all of them.

      97% of the country gets 4g. And not of the people. The country.

      • Hadriscus@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        We’re in Mayotte. Two undersea cables connect us to nearby continents (cf submarinecablemap.com) but they’re down most of the time. We haven’t had a connection in the last six months so we finally subbed to Starlink. Well, strictly speaking there was a connection but it would take anywhere between 5mn to 15mn to load the text of a static webpage, no images or anything else… forget about sending data, using forums… I had to get out and walk uphill for a minute or two to use my phone’s cell data

      • enbyecho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I live in rural California. We only just this year are able to pick up a faint LTE signal. I think it might get us a very unstable 1-2 Mbps if we hold the phone just right. We have no cable, DSL or other land-based options and because of the topography can’t pick up the local wireless provider, which is very expensive anyway - like $175/month for 50/5

        So without Starlink our only options are crappy regular satellite providers like Hughesnet which impose very low quotas - 10 GB monthly for day time usage - and have insane latency.

        It bugs the shit out of me I have to give money to that fuckwit but without it we live in the dark ages.

  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    SpaceX has been receptive to design changes to starlink in the past to minimize impact, like decreasing reflectivity and reflection angles for astronomers. They might be receptive to moving to different alloy for the body construction.

    Magnesium comes to mind that would be light but expensive. Steel alloys might be cheap and heavy options for later when starship is operational. Would those have similar effects on ozone, or is it only the aluminum oxides?

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I feel like it shouldn’t even have to be said out loud that gravity and weight correlate, but their orbit would be heavily impacted by replacing aluminium with five times as much steel for the same durability. You might be able to get away with slightly less if you consider the steel has more heat resistance, but idk.

      • Malfeasant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Weight does not affect orbit. It affects the amount of fuel needed to reach orbit, and therefore cost, but not the orbit itself.

  • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Before anyone jumps on the Anti-Musk train, read the article, please. They admit that they don’t understand the complications that could arise and that they don’t have any hard figures for the damage being caused. I’ll be the first to jump in and say that it’s probably a bad thing to just let metals burn in in atmo, but let’s make sure we discuss the facts, and not just the politics of the potential polluter.

    • nevemsenki@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Ah yes, the usual method of waiting until the issue becomes confirmed and also way too severe to fix instead of acting on precaution and harming profits of private companies. What could go wrong?

      • puchaczyk@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah, PFAS comes to mind. It took decades to confirm it’s harmful to humans but at this point it is everywhere and hard to get rid of. Worst part is they try to use other chemicals to replace PFAS, but again how harmful they are we don’t know and we will learn that decades later too because companies don’t want to make long term research before releasing the product. Enviroment shouldn’t be a billionaire’s testing ground.

    • Gsus4@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I was actually reviewing the O3 depletion process https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_monoxide and Cl only stops reacting with O3 when it ends up as ClO2, but that is rare, because ClO usually is too short-lived to react with another Cl into Cl2O, so it may be possible that a catalyst like Al2O3 could actually clean up Cl interfering with the ozone layer along with the effect of speeding up the nefarious reaction with O3 :D

        • Gsus4@programming.devOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Why did you write that? What do you gain or anyone reading from that comment? Who are you performing for? Where is the audience? Are you bored and I’m your little punching bag? If you know, contribute and tell us if and why I am wrong and I will welcome it, if you don’t or it is not worth the effort, just stfu, nobody needs your shit snark.

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      If they don’t have grounds to accuse SpaceX then SpaceX can sue them for defamation. SpaceX doesn’t need YOU to defend them.

      OP listed the referenced study in the description, it has “hard numbers” from simulations and citations to many other studies as well.

  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    About 48 tons of meteorites enter the atmosphere every day. I couldn’t find the elemental distribution, but I’d guess there is some aluminum in there. How much of an increase is 14 tons aluminum per year over the many tons of aluminum entering the atmosphere already? That might be good to get a rough estimate of how impactful this is.