Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Space Earth

Dying Satellites Can Drive Climate Change and Ozone Depletion, Study Finds (theguardian.com) 77

There's 9,000 satellites circling the earth, the Guardian points out, with projections over over 60,000 by 2040.

But "A new study shows that the emissions from expired satellites, as they fall to Earth and burn up, will be significant in future years, with implications for ozone hole recovery and climate." Most old satellites are disposed of by reducing their altitude and letting them burn up as they fall, releasing pollution into Earth's atmosphere such as aerosolised aluminium. To understand the impact of these growing emissions from expired satellites, researchers simulated the effects associated with an annual release of 10,000 tonnes of aluminium oxide by 2040 (the amount estimated to be released from disposal of 3,000 satellites a year, assuming a fleet of 60,000 satellites).

The results, which are published in Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, show that the re-entry material will accumulate at high latitudes and could result in temperature anomalies of up to 1.5C in the middle to upper atmosphere, reduction of wind speeds and ozone depletion, which could jeopardise ozone hole recovery.

"At present, impacts on the middle and the upper atmosphere are small," the researchers write, "but have the potential to increase." They argue that "to shed light upon the potential climate impacts of increased satellite reentry," an "expanded effort, including observations and modeling is needed."

Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader AmiMoJo for sharing the article.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dying Satellites Can Drive Climate Change and Ozone Depletion, Study Finds

Comments Filter:
  • by RightwingNutjob ( 1302813 ) on Saturday May 03, 2025 @09:45PM (#65350447)

    reentering every day, with a total mass input rate that dwarfs whatever is coming in from reentering satellites.

    https://www.researchgate.net/p... [researchgate.net]

    Link above claims something like 1e6 kg/year.

    A typical comm sat in LEO is about 1000 kg.

    So the equivalent of 1000 satellites reentering in rocks and metals naturally coming in.

    Most satellites' mass is silicon and aluminim. Maybe some steel and the batteries have some heavy metals in them.

    My first take is this study is bullshit looking to capitalize on that sweet sweet environmentalist scaremongering.

    • by TheMiddleRoad ( 1153113 ) on Saturday May 03, 2025 @10:05PM (#65350471)

      Way more meteorite mass definitely. Way more aluminum oxide? Harder to say. Meteorites have aluminum already bound in complex molecules, not big, elemental hunks waiting to oxidize.
      I'm not willing to do the research and math.

      • Way more meteorite mass definitely.

        Meteor. Meteorites are the part that hit the ground and do us the favor of not depositing those chemical components into the atmosphere.

        Way more aluminum oxide? Harder to say.

        I don't think it's that hard. Meteors have about 10kppm of aluminum, while sats are probably quite a lot closer to 1mppm.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Way more meteorite mass definitely.

        So confident. Yet zero evidence. Well clearly because it was wrong.

        I'm not willing to do the research and math.

        Or even google the most basic part before claiming your definitive conclusion.

    • by cstacy ( 534252 )

      https://www.researchgate.net/p... [researchgate.net]claims something like 1e6 kg/year.My first take is this study is bullshit looking to capitalize on that sweet sweet environmentalist scaremongering.

      Found the satellite denier!

      (Even "did his own research" and cited some crackpot conspiracy"-Gate" source...What's next, "Comet Ping Pong Pizza"?)

    • Not a lot of refined aluminium in meteorites.
    • by DamnOregonian ( 963763 ) on Saturday May 03, 2025 @11:44PM (#65350581)

      So the equivalent of 1000 satellites reentering in rocks and metals naturally coming in.

      The article literally says that it's based on an estimate of 3,000 re-entering per year by 2040.
      Triple the amount of meteoric input, with a vastly higher concentration of aluminum.

      Who knows if their analysis is correct, but any mistakes they made weren't that fucking simple. Read better.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        3,000 actually seems like a low estimate. Starlink could be 20,000 in orbit by itself, and with a 5 year lifespan that would be 4,000/year coming down. And of course Starlink isn't the only mega constellation going up. Amazon wants one, China is building one, the EU is doing one, and doubtless others will join sooner or later.

    • 1e6 kilogram per year from meteors equals about 1,000 tons per year. The OP research is saying that satellite decay is expected to contribute 10,000 tons of aluminum per year by 2040.

    • A conservative estimate of the amount of extraterrestrial aluminum being deposited in the atmosphere is about 50 tons per year by meteoroids, micrometeorites, and cosmic dust. The high estimate is ~5,100 tons of aluminum entering Earth's atmosphere yearly. The large disparity in estimates stems from size distribution complexity, detection limitations, geographic coverage gaps, and natural variability.

      I am not a climate change denier. Humans certainly need to stop pumping various green house gasses into the

  • by shm ( 235766 ) on Saturday May 03, 2025 @11:37PM (#65350565)

    At this point, everything causes global warming/climate change/climate justice.

    If everything is at fault then nothing is at fault.

    • If everything is at fault then nothing is at fault.

      If everything is at fault then we are fucking up with everything, but that doesn't mean we can't improve everything. Everything has always been improving in some regard since it began.

    • Somehow the narrative is now that pointing out all the things that influence climate is anti-climate? Look science doesn't care about your feelings on the topic. It turns out, that yes, everything humans do is damaging. You can either get on board and categorise it all then help determine the relative impact, or you can support doing nothing, or potentially doing the wrong thing.

      Science doesn't care, it's only there to help you make an informed decision.

  • ... tons of meteorites enter the Earth's atmosphere each year? What are we going to do about those?

  • >"There's 9,000 satellites circling the earth"

    There *are* 9,000, not there "is". Sorry, pet peeve of mine; this misuse of "there's" seems to be expanding exponentially.

    I will point out the article (not the summary) is correct: "Right now there are more than 9,000 satellites circumnavigating overhead"

    In any case, what they are projecting sounds a bit sensationalistic/alarmist to me. There are meteorites falling to earth all the time.

    https://science.nasa.gov/solar... [nasa.gov] : "Scientists estimate that about 48

    • Even as the sun slowly sets on this website, it's heartwarming to see that there's still a few grammar pedants posting their objections, just like in the good old days.

  • There seems to be a high variability in the conclusions (5000t/yr-40000t/yr https://skyandtelescope.org/as... [skyandtelescope.org]) but what's irrefutable is that thousands of tons of debris already naturally falls on this planet every year.

    I'm not saying the satellite deorbiting is inconsequential; I simply don't know.

    That such a study (which, if you read it, boils down to "we don't know what the fuck happens as this stuff enters but we are going to assume it's terrible") fails to even MENTION that fact, or attempt to measure

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Lets have the MAGA version instead.
      rocks fall down so aluminum must be the same so it's all ok. Don't check though or it will make baby Jesus cry.
  • Change Materials (Score:4, Interesting)

    by techmage ( 72232 ) <joe DOT latrell AT quub DOT space> on Sunday May 04, 2025 @08:03AM (#65350959) Homepage

    Is satellite disposal a problem? It is. But there is a better way to solve the issue than eliminate capabilities or mandating further studies. Change materials. Today, most satellites use aluminum, steel, tungsten, and other exotic metals. Stop building with them. Instead use carbon fiber structures, other composites, copper, etc. It requires a shift in thinking away from just the mission an into a total lifecycle process.

    It helps to think smaller too. Satellites don't need to be as massive as they are today. Smaller is better. Focus more on CubeSats as opposed to school bus sized spacecraft.

  • Articles about climate change produce so much hot air that they directly drive climate change.

  • There's 9,000 satellites

    How even the most illterate can manage to get something posted on /.

    The actual linked piece even has this correctly stated as "are" .... Yet here we am. Doing word bad things in excitmints.

  • It's the same. We don't do that any more, except when scumbag CEOs refuse to spend money on wasteful (pun intended) things like maintenance and upgrades.

    Same with burn things, and just dump unfiltered smoke in the air.

    Bad idea. Now, a *WORKING*, not research space station, that you send things up to, they install it on a wing, and when it's time to retire it, they send it back down.... But no, it's all disposable trash.

Felson's Law: To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research.

Working...