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

  • nevemsenki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    9 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?

    • nialv7@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      There is a line somewhere I think. Like people weren’t 100% sure the atomic bomb won’t ignite the atmosphere (it’s only very unlikely), but they still tested it. Similarly the probability of creating micro blackholes at LHC is not zero either, yet they still ran it.

      If we have to make sure everything is 100% safe before we can do anything, we will be stuck with the status quo.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        We will die of starvation because nothing is 100% safe, so waiting until we find that level of safety means we just won’t do anything.

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      As opposed to acting before you understand the effects of your actions? Neither seem like good choices.

      Probably the best option would be to research harder. Make the polluter fund a much larger scale research program to understand the problem and viable solutions as quickly as possible.

    • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      9 months ago

      Nah, this is a different method. It’s the one where we get all of the facts before we take action. Maybe you aren’t up on it, but knee-jerk is so 1700s.

      • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        We don’t have to wait until it’s “fully confirmed” to start being concerned about it. Remember climate change denial? We were in the “we don’t know if humans are causing it” phase for a while.

        I also agree, let’s not jump on the anti-Musk team for this, but satellites burning up has always been a rather obvious source of pollution, and it’s good to see more discussion on it

        • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          We were in the “we don’t know if we’re causing it” phase for a long time because big oil knew about global warming and deliberately ran disinformation campaigns so they could keep profiteering. Had Exxon done the right thing in the 70s we wouldn’t have this looming crisis.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yeah, and now despite what the scientists say, everyone believes climate change is going to render Earth uninhabitable, and we are taking massive steps to avoid the problem as if it were an existential threat, which the science again does not support.

          We’re treating climate change as if it were as serious as a planet killer asteroid, and we’re massively violating people’s rights as if it were.

      • nevemsenki@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        Sure, PFAS were also considered a nonsignificant issue until they weren’t, only it’s too late to unfuck it now. Well, no harm in generating more potential ticking time bombs I guess.

      • gaael@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Like maybe wait a few years and finance some science to check that your mega constellation of satellites (built to fail after only a few years to make sure your rocket company never goes out of work) won’t be a fucking nuisance on so many levels before you actually launch them ?
        This “get all the facts before taking action” ?

        Edit: I think I knee-jerked

        • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          Oh, you mean a study on the Satellite Internet Constellations that have been in orbit since the 1990s, a full 30 years before Starlink launched? As with nearly everything else, Musk isn’t the first to do whatever he does, he’s just the loudest. If Starlink hadn’t launched we would still be facing the same problems. Thankfully, he’s a big enough ass that he makes a easy target for these kinds of things.

          • gaael@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            Maybe I didn’t get my facts straight, but iirc there are around 7.5k satellites up there, with starlink current count about 5.5k. And I think I read they got the greenlight for the 7.5k gen 2 sats launches.
            That looks like a scale change to me. Associated with the short lifespan (which contrasts with the situation 30 years ago, where launches were more expensive), it’s kind of a new situation and should have warranted a more careful approach.

            So musk isn’t the first one to launch satellites, I agree. But the way it’s done is kinda new, and mostly on the worse side. And I’m not saying the old way was good, and not absolving previous actors from responsability in the pollution.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        “All the facts” is counterfactual, superstitious thinking. There is no such thing as “all the facts”, except in game theory examples like tic-tac-toe.

        In all realms other than small mathematical models, there’s no circumstance under which one has all the facts.