Author Topic: Starlink generated pollution  (Read 21831 times)

Offline dondar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 436
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 299
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: Starlink generated pollution
« Reply #20 on: 01/14/2022 10:46 am »
Current launch cycles include second stage burnouts. So you can include those as well.
:D
The numbers and effects still stay irrelevant.

To those wanting to make models, "warn about dangers" and do other "socially engaging stuff" a small word of warning: there will be discussion which would (and will) end with much father consequences than you want/expect or even think about. The already existing baggage of sudoscience is enormous. You do want to science sh^t out before even beginning.

 Musk accepts modern discourse, but others won't in this case. Just saying.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Starlink generated pollution
« Reply #21 on: 01/14/2022 01:44 pm »
I was thinking more about elements such as cobalt and chrome which are not commonly airborne

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14159
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: Starlink generated pollution
« Reply #22 on: 01/14/2022 01:52 pm »
This is not a real concern, since it's small in mass and globally distributed.

Compare this to something localized like STS SB exhaust or any smokestack in a factory or refinery and not only is the tonnage higher in the latter examples, but also the concentration gradient is centered right smack on top of population centers and local watersheds.

As folks pointed out, even on a similar track, incoming meteors (and volcanoes) also introduce larger quantities of solid particulates at a global scale.

If you want to crusade for the environment, which is a noble cause, there are much better starting points.
« Last Edit: 01/14/2022 01:54 pm by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Starlink generated pollution
« Reply #23 on: 01/14/2022 02:42 pm »
Then the same applies to non reusable vehicles.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Starlink generated pollution
« Reply #24 on: 01/14/2022 03:56 pm »
I was thinking more about elements such as cobalt and chrome which are not commonly airborne
Huh. I sort of doubt there’s much of those elements in Starlink as they’re kind of expensive, but it gave me an idea:

If non-organic materials in reentry are a problem (and I don’t think they are, to be honest), you could make satellites largely of organic materials. I.e, plastic satellites (think composites).

Wooden satellites make more sense than one might think as well. Would get a much stronger in absence of water in a vacuum (strength to weight comparable to aluminum, maybe better in certain circumstances), although they’d have to be protected from atomic oxygen, which attacks wood very successfully.
« Last Edit: 01/14/2022 06:11 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Starlink generated pollution
« Reply #25 on: 01/14/2022 04:02 pm »
I think there’s plenty of room for adjusting the design of demiseable spacecraft if a significant environmental problem is found.  Such efforts at studying issues should therefore be solutions-oriented.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline DigitalMan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1679
  • Liked: 1178
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: Starlink generated pollution
« Reply #26 on: 01/14/2022 04:11 pm »
I think the most current information is the one I quoted from, the FCC response to the ViaSat allegations that NEPA should be involved and that Starlink was not good.

Online steveleach

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2181
  • Liked: 2780
  • Likes Given: 961
Re: Starlink generated pollution
« Reply #27 on: 01/14/2022 09:46 pm »
I was thinking more about elements such as cobalt and chrome which are not commonly airborne
So about 70t of cobolt and 50t of chrome a year, using the "oversized iphone" model.

According to https://www.permanent.com/meteorite-compositions.html a meterorite might be 0.5% cobolt, so that's 250t for a middle-ish estimate of 50,000t per year.

So using those numbers, starlinks deorbiting would make a measurable difference (+20%) to the amount of cobolt entering the atmosphere from space.

For comparison, though, for CO2 where we are worried about an extra hundred parts per million, the problem is measured in gigatons.

Even if harmful cobolt levels were measured in parts per billion, 70t would be a few orders of magnitude below 1 ppb.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_poisoning it would take 20g of cobolt to give a 100kg person a 50% chance of death from cobolt.

Offline IRobot

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Portugal & Germany
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: Starlink generated pollution
« Reply #28 on: 01/15/2022 05:03 pm »
I was thinking more about elements such as cobalt and chrome which are not commonly airborne
Huh. I sort of doubt there’s much of those elements in Starlink as they’re kind of expensive,
Cobalt would mostly be used on a battery. Even Tesla batteries are moving away from Cobalt and most use zero.
Even so, older batteries use around 4kg of Cobalt for a ~480kg battery, i.e. <1%. Compared to the mass of the car, it's 0,2%.
The iPhone analogy shows 5%, which I think it's too much.

Offline Michael S

  • Member
  • Posts: 80
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 86
Re: Starlink generated pollution
« Reply #29 on: 01/15/2022 10:57 pm »
Would it be more appropriate to ask how the dust of the burned up satellites will affect the upper atmosphere?
I recall statements about vapor being increased at higher altitudes due to aircraft and how that was creating a very small but noticeable difference in reflectivity.

Honestly, considering that there are tons of asteroid and cometary debris burning up in the atmosphere every year, I would think that as long as we are not introducing elements like lead and arsenic, other highly toxic elements, life at the surface might be ok.

However, I found this forum because I wanted to ask Jim if he thought that a satellite burning up completely in the atmosphere was better than some of it making to the ocean.  If Jim is the one now ask this question….
Should we be concerned?

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: Starlink generated pollution
« Reply #30 on: 01/16/2022 05:33 am »
100% demisable was a FCC requirement for granting the Starlink license. With the number of satellites deorbiting there would be a non zero risk of some debris hitting humans on the ground.

SpaceX had to redesign the Hall thrusters, the laser mirrors and the reaction wheels to meet this requirement.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Starlink generated pollution
« Reply #31 on: 01/16/2022 12:38 pm »
This is a relevant article, it looks like it's mainly an Aerospace Corp team studying this: Aerospace Corp. raises questions about pollutants produced during satellite and rocket reentry

Martin Ross talked about this in a Space Show episode: https://thespaceshow.com/show/08-jun-2021/broadcast-3702-dr.-martin-ross

Online steveleach

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2181
  • Liked: 2780
  • Likes Given: 961
Re: Starlink generated pollution
« Reply #32 on: 01/16/2022 03:07 pm »
This is a relevant article, it looks like it's mainly an Aerospace Corp team studying this: Aerospace Corp. raises questions about pollutants produced during satellite and rocket reentry

Martin Ross talked about this in a Space Show episode: https://thespaceshow.com/show/08-jun-2021/broadcast-3702-dr.-martin-ross
I was hoping to see some actual information in that SpaceNews article, but it did at least lead me to this paper (abstract)...

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AGUFMGC0420004H/abstract

Does anyone have access to the paper itself?

Offline cdebuhr

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 845
  • Calgary, AB
  • Liked: 1435
  • Likes Given: 592
Re: Starlink generated pollution
« Reply #33 on: 01/16/2022 03:28 pm »
This is a relevant article, it looks like it's mainly an Aerospace Corp team studying this: Aerospace Corp. raises questions about pollutants produced during satellite and rocket reentry

Martin Ross talked about this in a Space Show episode: https://thespaceshow.com/show/08-jun-2021/broadcast-3702-dr.-martin-ross
I was hoping to see some actual information in that SpaceNews article, but it did at least lead me to this paper (abstract)...

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AGUFMGC0420004H/abstract

Does anyone have access to the paper itself?
That looks like a conference abstract so that may be all there is (unless you happened to go the the Fall 2020 AGU meeting and see the associated talk).  That said, if the research was something one or more of these authors is was actually pursuing, and not just a sideshow/distraction for them, they may have published a real, peer-reviewed paper on the topic.  If you can find a webpage for one or more of the authors, they'll likely include a list of significant contributions.

Offline vsatman

Re: Starlink generated pollution
« Reply #34 on: 01/16/2022 04:48 pm »
it is strange that everyone forgot about the F9 second stage, which weighs 4 tons, that is, like 15 satellites

Offline matthewkantar

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2076
  • Liked: 2506
  • Likes Given: 2211
Re: Starlink generated pollution
« Reply #35 on: 01/16/2022 08:05 pm »
it is strange that everyone forgot about the F9 second stage, which weighs 4 tons, that is, like 15 satellites

Second stages are not relevant because all lunch vehicles burn them up in the atmosphere. Only SpaceX specific concerns shall be raised.

Online steveleach

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2181
  • Liked: 2780
  • Likes Given: 961
Re: Starlink generated pollution
« Reply #36 on: 01/16/2022 10:38 pm »
it is strange that everyone forgot about the F9 second stage, which weighs 4 tons, that is, like 15 satellites

Second stages are not relevant because all lunch vehicles burn them up in the atmosphere. Only SpaceX specific concerns shall be raised.
Not for much longer  ;D

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Starlink generated pollution
« Reply #37 on: 01/17/2022 03:05 am »
it is strange that everyone forgot about the F9 second stage, which weighs 4 tons, that is, like 15 satellites

Some of the models do include launch vehicle re-entry, it's mentioned in the SpaceNews article (although there may be a typo here): "If all those constellations materialize, the annual mass of satellites reentering Earth’s atmosphere eventually could rise from a current level of roughly 100 metric tons to between 800 and 3,200 metric tons. Launch vehicles reentries could account for another metric ton per year."

But this is not a concern for Starlink since they'll be using Starship.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Starlink generated pollution
« Reply #38 on: 10/22/2022 04:21 am »
In the latest response to Viasat, SpaceX quoted 3 studies to show satellite reentry has negligible effect on the environment:

Quote
Similarly, two independent studies that the European Space Agency (“ESA”) commissioned in 2019—the ATISPADE and ARA studies—show that satellite reentry has a “negligible” effect on the environment.18

The ATISPADE study looked at the effect of reentering satellites on the ozone layer. It found that, in the worst case analyzed, the additional yearly ozone reduction was “negligible when compared to the impact of anthropogenic activities,” only between 0.0006% and 0.0008% of global annual ozone loss.19 While the worst case used in the study assumed an average of 450 tons worth of satellites reentering every year and a peak of 650 tons per year,20 the fundamental conclusion—that the impact to the ozone is “negligible” compared to other sources—remains valid even when extrapolating to one order of magnitude more mass per year, as Viasat aggressively assumes would occur.21

But Viasat presents no justification for its allegations that these extremely aggressive scenarios will come to pass. Indeed, one leading study raises questions about Viasat’s fundamental premise, finding that the chemical reactions that take place during meteorite reentry do not create alumina at all, even though meteorites contain aluminum.22 In fact, no alumina has ever been detected using rocket-borne spectrometry specifically looking for all aluminum species precipitated by reentering meteorites.

The ESA-commissioned ARA study undercuts Viasat’s overblown claims—parroted by NRDC/IDA and others—about the climate effects of the Gen2 satellites. The study found the climate effects of satellite reentry to be minute compared to other man-made sources. For instance, in the worst-case scenario, the annual impact of satellite reentry was 290,000 times less than the annual impact of the aviation sector and 650,000 times less than the annual impact of the road transportation sector.23 Again, even when extrapolated to an order of magnitude greater than the worst case evaluated in the ARA study, the effect would remain negligible relative to other man-made sources. Similarly, assuming the extremely aggressive reentry figures that Viasat touts, the annual impact of reentering Gen2 satellites on Earth’s albedo—the fraction of solar radiation that is reflected away from Earth—will be negligible compared to natural sources (i.e., just 0.005% of the amount of mineral dust created annually through naturally occurring dust storms from the Sahara Desert alone).24

FCC filing: https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=17743215

Reference #22 is the paper Meteor-Ablated Aluminum in the Mesosphere-Lower Thermosphere

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: Starlink generated pollution
« Reply #39 on: 12/24/2022 03:14 am »
Studies flag environmental impact of reentry

Quote from: SpaceNews
Space hardware tumbling out of orbit may lead to unforeseen environmental and climate impacts. Due to the growing scale and pace of launch activities, what is needed is better monitoring of the situation, as well as regulation to create an environmentally sustainable space industry.

Making that case is Jamie Shutler, associate professor of Earth observation at the University of Exeter, Cornwall.

Shutler and colleagues authored the research paper “Atmospheric impacts of the space industry require oversight” in the August issue of the journal Nature Geoscience.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1