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
    49
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    3 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
      19
      ·
      3 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.

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 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.

    • gian @lemmy.grys.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 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.

      No, but as even them don’t understand what the complications are and how much the damages could be, maybe to wait to have at least some hard number looks like a good idea.

      What could go wrong?

      And what could go wrong if we start to fight a problem that we don’t understand how big it is, maybe using the wrong solution on a wrong scale ?

      • Peppycito@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        maybe to wait to have at least some hard number looks like a good idea.

        Good plan. So they’re holding off on starlink launches to let the science catch up, right?

    • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      3 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
        23
        ·
        3 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
          4
          ·
          3 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.

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

            And now we’re in the “is burning up thousands of satellites bad?” phase of space exploration. I’ll be waiting for spacex to do the right thing.

            • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Don’t get me wrong. I’m not defending corporations here. I’m simply stating the fact that climate change denial wasn’t the case of waiting until it’s “fully confirmed”, it was pretty much confirmed back in the 70s. They even had predictions for the next century on how things will go bad if nothing is done and the last time I checked we were pretty on course with their predictions. When it came to the scientific consensus, it was pretty much “fully confirmed”. It was simply the public opinion where it wasn’t “fully confirmed” because corporations deliberately ran disinformation to make it seem like scientists didn’t know what they were talking about.

              But this paper isn’t really confirming anything. The paper itself says that the model does not account for all the factors and to literally quote the paper:

              As reentry rates increase, it is crucial to further explore the concerns highlighted in this study.

              This paper is not presenting a final conclusion, it’s presenting concerns that need further studies. let’s wait for further studies and if there’s scientific consensus about it being an issue I’m all for bringing out the pitchforks. In the mean let’s keep calm and dread over the doom and gloom that is climate change.

      • gaael@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 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
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 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
            6
            ·
            3 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.

      • nevemsenki@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 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.