this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2024
3 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59361 readers
4354 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
3
SpaceX's Starlink May Be Keeping the Ozone From Healing, Research Finds (futurism.com)
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by Gsus4@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (3 children)

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 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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 1 points 5 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.dev 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The irony of a wikipedia expert agreeing with a tabloid skeptic.

[–] Gsus4@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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 -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I wanted to reinforce good behavior, punish bad behavior.

[–] Gsus4@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Nah man, that's just toxic hurtful criticism. Let people brainstorm and just let go of the gavel.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -1 points 5 months ago

Sure I admit that your mistakes were purely imaginary and we can all pretend you never made them to hide your shame.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 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.