Dying Satellites Can Drive Climate Change and Ozone Depletion, Study Finds (theguardian.com) 62
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.
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.
Isn't there a shit ton of micrometeorites (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
They argue that "to shed light upon the potential climate impacts of increased satellite reentry," an "expanded effort, including observations and modeling is needed."
Translation: Give us grant money.
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds like a rather consequential phenomenon that warrants further study to me.
So that's not at all how science works (Score:5, Insightful)
So for the record actual scientists of the kind that would be working on this sort of research get paid like crap. Especially relative to their skills and their ability to do math. There are literally thousands of other jobs they could be doing to pay anywhere from 2 to 10 times what they can make off of all that sweet sweet grant money Fox News is always warning you about.
It is so depressing to see so much anti-science bullshit. All because of a handful of oil companies, religious nut jobs, scam artists taking advantage of those religious nut jobs and of course want to be Kings.
I mean Jesus fucking Christ the state of Texas just sued toothpaste manufacturers over fluoride. That's the level we're at now people
Re: So that's not at all how science works (Score:2)
https://www.univstats.com/sala... [univstats.com]
Idunno dude. 172k for a full professor isn't peanuts.
But of course it's not the salary, it's also having the fate of the staff and postdocs working on your grants that lights a fire in some people's souls.
Scientists are people, they're not any better or any worse than anyone else and they're subject to the same frailties and the same pervese incentives anyone else is.
Do you know any university researchers. For better or worse I know many. The "publish or perish" is quite rea
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with this very pro regulation and pro Federal funding stance, we need do more federal funding and some rules changes to dis-incentivize this type of behavior. We should do best to free science from the shackles of force capital competitiveness at the sake of the science.
Re: So that's not at all how science works (Score:1)
"Federal funding" to university researchers is doled out in individual dribs and drabs to individual scientists who prove their suitability to conduct research worthy of federal funding by spending the first decade and a half of their careers playing these publication and grant writing games as junior members of these little fiefdoms that exist in universities under the name of "Lab" or "Research group" under the charge of one senior researcher (usually a tenure-track faculty).
This siloed structure (a resul
Re: (Score:2)
Private sector research has very short time horizon. With la Presidenta's cutbacks in research, the U.S. can expect its research prowess to evaporate, and that doesn't even count other countries who aren't as stupid as the U.S. poaching U.S. based scientists.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a lot of sentences to say "research is still a job and jobs have hierarchies" groundbreaking stuff. You use a lot of normative words (worthy, fiefdom, games) to sway opinion but there's no substance to that argument.
And then you cap it off by equating the researchers with the Feds???
there are also people on the management side whose job is to do the bullshitting and the salesmanship so that researchers don't have to.
Oh, you don't actually know how this works. Universities have those people too.
Yeah, you've said actually nothing here, you just have an anti-illectualism streak and you weakly try to do the "private > public" withou
Re: So that's not at all how science works (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Idunno dude. 172k for a full professor isn't peanuts.
I dunno dude. None of the authors of the paper are professors. Most work for NOAA and one works for The Aerospace Corporation.
It seems like you just posted a bunch of shit that sounded good to you without taking even one second to verify that it was relevant.
Re: So that's not at all how science works (Score:1)
Those places pay pretty good too. Better than universities on average. Glassdoor is your friend.
So the median income for a university professor (Score:2)
That same professor can walk into a job at Wall Street and make $500k a year.
Now mind you their job will be draining the life force from human civilization instead of advancing science. But I mean you would think they would take the half million dollars a year.
Publisher or perish is yet an
Great firewall? (Score:4, Interesting)
And Jesus fucking Christ what the hell happened to this website that that nonsense right-wing talking point of money hungry scientists is even a thing?
The US estimated that the China's great firewall employs 50,000 people.
With that assumption, you might reasonably conclude that a few of those 50,000 lurk on slashdot and try to direct the conversation in the comments section. It wouldn't take much, a single person could reasonably read all story posts and watch over the comments section.
Much of the analysis could be done by AI, so that no one has to pay attention... just wait for the AI to pop up an alert, verify by hand, and address the issue.
I would also assume that they have banks of automated slashdot logins, so that whenever something comes up that they don't like they can find a login that has mod points.
And perhaps several tiers of responders, so that the "no it isn't" response can be entered by a low-level employee with limited understanding of English, and perhaps a more nuanced fluent speaker for some of the more insightful posts.
And also, perhaps they have files on the individual commenters here, so that they can try out different techniques and see which ones tend to get the commenter angry. Has anyone noticed that responses to their posts have a sort of "tide" to them, where there will be a time period where everyone just contradicts, then a time period where people insult, then a time period where they all say that you (the commenter) aren't qualified? Perhaps they are searching for the correct way to get you so pissed off and leave slashdot.
I know, probably a conspiracy theory, but it doesn't take much of an imagination to visualize what resources *might* be used against various sources on the internet. I mean, if *you* were one of these people, what automated systems would you use to amplify the effective reach of your message?
Anyway, just a thought. Maybe foreign actors are inserting politically charged opinions here just to give the appearance of infighting and to goad people into anger.
(And as a thought problem, if you had access to Slashdot's internal system, what metrics would you use to detect various forms of system abuse?)
Re: Great firewall? (Score:2)
Would that be really necessary given that some people shill for the ccp of their own volition?
Re: (Score:2)
And they're utterly dwarfed by the free thinking MAGAs repeating your anti-China spiels constantly.
Which, since we're talking conspiracy theories, could be some percentage Russian trolls. Or, for that matter, Chinese trolls. What better way to fight anti-Chinese prejudice than with ridiculous examples, on a board where people love to point out logical fallacies?
Re: (Score:2)
And Jesus fucking Christ what the hell happened to this website that that nonsense right-wing talking point of money hungry scientists is even a thing?
I like science, but that does not mean I am not a realist. Realism and science go quite well together actually.
Re: So that's not at all how science works (Score:3, Interesting)
You want to know what happened to science? What is a woman then, rsilvergun?
It's almost like scientists advancing nakedly political goals and INSISTING they they're incontestable "because it's science and I'm a scientist" would eventually run out of the moral capital they've been drawing on for decades. Huh.
And notice, I post in your threads under my own ID not scurrying like a bitch behind AC.
Re: (Score:2)
What are people supposed to do? Just sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all our precious bodily fluids?!
Re: (Score:2)
I mean Jesus fucking Christ the state of Texas just sued toothpaste manufacturers over fluoride. That's the level we're at now people
No they did not.
Texas sent a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) to Protcor & Gamble and Colgate-Palmolive. The exact wording of the CIDs is not public, but looks to be geared toward advertising and marketing materials.
Fluoride can be an unpleasant substance when taken beyond therapeutic does levels. The dose makes the poison and all that. Both the CDC and the American Dental Association call for reduced use of fluoride toothpaste for young children. Texas is looking to see how the companies are marke
Re: So that's not at all how science works (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: Give us grant money.
Would be nice to know one way or the other.
We've given worse people taxpayer money for worse reasons.
Re:Isn't there a shit ton of micrometeorites (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. He is spending government money via SpaceX and previously with his failing car company which only exists because of government money
SpaceX has never received a dime in government grants. More than that, SpaceX has never done even a single cost plus contract: They've always been fixed. Which is in stark contrast to literally every single other contractor NASA has worked with, including Boeing, Lockheed, et al. In fact, it turns out that SpaceX is actually negative cost for the government. See for yourself:
https://www.fool.com/investing... [fool.com]
(That was two years ago, by the way, the gap has only grown since then.)
Besides, everything that the
Re: (Score:2)
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"?)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Isn't there a shit ton of micrometeorites (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: Isn't there a shit ton of micrometeorites (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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
It's sand!! (Re:Climate change!) (Score:1, Insightful)
Is there nothing it canâ(TM)t do?
It can't account for sand in the air apparently.
The concern is of aluminum oxide in the air as satellites burn up on entering the atmosphere, or at least that is what I gathered from the fine article. Aluminum oxide is a large component of most sand on the surface of Earth. I'm sure sand that's been blown up into the air impacts climate but just how much added sand could their be in the air because of satellites burning up upon entering the atmosphere?
This is a bunch of nonsense. This is either technolog
Re:It's sand!! (Re:Climate change!) (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not the sand exactly, it's where the aluminum oxide actually is located in the stratosphere and higher.
Remember Freon as in R-12? Harmless at ground level, a superb catalyst at decomposing ozone at high altitude. As heavy as it is you wouldn't think it could get up that high, but it did.
Re:It's sand!! (Re:Climate change!) (Score:5, Informative)
It can be a larger component of some sands, like bauxite sands, but even then, it's dwarfed by silicon dioxide.
I'm supposed to believe that satellites in orbit pose some kind of hazard to Earth's climate?
No, you're supposed to believe that friction disintegration of ~3k sats per year of average mass into the atmosphere will have a measurable impact on the climate, being they'll outmass all meteoric input by a factor of 3, with a vastly higher aluminum content.
This isn't a very extraordinary claim at all. Maybe the 3k sats per year never comes to pass- they're just saying what will happen if it does.
Such studies undermine their own cause (Score:3, Insightful)
At this point, everything causes global warming/climate change/climate justice.
If everything is at fault then nothing is at fault.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
How many ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If 10 of something didn't kill us, then 10.1 probably won't.
When did education fail liberals so badly?
Are (Score:2)
>"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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
this is stupid (Score:2)
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
Change Materials (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
What if I told you, the Japanese recognized this problem earlier [slashdot.org] and has been developing [slashdot.org] a solution. [slashdot.org]
Submitter missed an obvious "over 9000" reference (Score:2)
clam ate my climate (Score:2)
Articles about climate change produce so much hot air that they directly drive climate change.