Starlink generated pollution

[freddo411]

Studies flag environmental impact of reentry

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.

This isn't about the environment.   It seems to be, like a lot "regulation", about controlling other people.   

[TheRadicalModerate]

To give us a starting point that we can iterate on, I found the mineral composition of a 129g iPhone at

https://www.engineering.com/story/what-raw-materials-are-used-to-make-hardware-in-computing-devices

31g aluminium (24%)
20g carbon
19g oxygen
18g iron (14%)
8g silicon
8g copper
6g cobalt (5%)
5g hydrogen
5g chrome

Starlink satellites are 227kg according to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Satellite_hardware

If we assume 30,000 satellites with a life of 5 years, that's 6000 de-orbiting a year.

6,000 * 227 kg = 1,362,000kg = 1362 tonnes

Within 5 years, most Starlinks will be v2, which weigh 2t apiece.  So, using your cited percentages, you'll be looking at 2880t of aluminum (really aluminum oxide) aerosols per year.  However, a lot depends on the size of particles formed during reentry.  Orbital decay is a lot slower than interplanetary meteor and dust strikes, and presumably would make larger droplets, some of which won't make very good aerosols.

I found this PhD dissertation on how alumina aerosols help to catalyze the creation of free chlorine that can destroy ozone.  Can't say I've more than skimmed it, but it's on point for this discussion.  Pay special attention to Chapter IV.

Here's another reference that seems to be on point.

Seems to me that this needs investigating, but it's not time for people to get their knickers in a twist yet.  I think the basic thesis that satellites in general and Starlinks in particular will significantly increase metallic aerosols is valid.  After that, you need to do a whole bunch of research to figure out the size distribution of aerosols and their corresponding half-lives in the atmosphere.

[Nomadd]

To give us a starting point that we can iterate on, I found the mineral composition of a 129g iPhone at

https://www.engineering.com/story/what-raw-materials-are-used-to-make-hardware-in-computing-devices

31g aluminium (24%)
20g carbon
19g oxygen
18g iron (14%)
8g silicon
8g copper
6g cobalt (5%)
5g hydrogen
5g chrome

Starlink satellites are 227kg according to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Satellite_hardware

If we assume 30,000 satellites with a life of 5 years, that's 6000 de-orbiting a year.

6,000 * 227 kg = 1,362,000kg = 1362 tonnes

Within 5 years, most Starlinks will be v2, which weigh 2t apiece.  So, using your cited percentages, you'll be looking at 2880t of aluminum (really aluminum oxide) aerosols per year.  However, a lot depends on the size of particles formed during reentry.  Orbital decay is a lot slower than interplanetary meteor and dust strikes, and presumably would make larger droplets, some of which won't make very good aerosols.

I found this PhD dissertation on how alumina aerosols help to catalyze the creation of free chlorine that can destroy ozone.  Can't say I've more than skimmed it, but it's on point for this discussion.  Pay special attention to Chapter IV.

Here's another reference that seems to be on point.

Seems to me that this needs investigating, but it's not time for people to get their knickers in a twist yet.  I think the basic thesis that satellites in general and Starlinks in particular will significantly increase metallic aerosols is valid.  After that, you need to do a whole bunch of research to figure out the size distribution of aerosols and their corresponding half-lives in the atmosphere.

I'm not that confident in my 2 minutes of Google research, but I'm getting somewhere around 1,000 tons of aluminum in mostly oxide form from meteors each year.

[DanClemmensen]

To give us a starting point that we can iterate on, I found the mineral composition of a 129g iPhone at

https://www.engineering.com/story/what-raw-materials-are-used-to-make-hardware-in-computing-devices

31g aluminium (24%)
20g carbon
19g oxygen
18g iron (14%)
8g silicon
8g copper
6g cobalt (5%)
5g hydrogen
5g chrome

Starlink satellites are 227kg according to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Satellite_hardware

If we assume 30,000 satellites with a life of 5 years, that's 6000 de-orbiting a year.

6,000 * 227 kg = 1,362,000kg = 1362 tonnes

Within 5 years, most Starlinks will be v2, which weigh 2t apiece.  So, using your cited percentages, you'll be looking at 2880t of aluminum (really aluminum oxide) aerosols per year.  However, a lot depends on the size of particles formed during reentry.  Orbital decay is a lot slower than interplanetary meteor and dust strikes, and presumably would make larger droplets, some of which won't make very good aerosols.

I found this PhD dissertation on how alumina aerosols help to catalyze the creation of free chlorine that can destroy ozone.  Can't say I've more than skimmed it, but it's on point for this discussion.  Pay special attention to Chapter IV.

Here's another reference that seems to be on point.

Seems to me that this needs investigating, but it's not time for people to get their knickers in a twist yet.  I think the basic thesis that satellites in general and Starlinks in particular will significantly increase metallic aerosols is valid.  After that, you need to do a whole bunch of research to figure out the size distribution of aerosols and their corresponding half-lives in the atmosphere.

I'm not that confident in my 2 minutes of Google research, but I'm getting somewhere around 1,000 tons of aluminum in mostly oxide form from meteors each year.

By comparison, each SLS SRB masses 730 t, so 1460t per launch, and 16% of the fuel mass is aluminum, so maybe 146 t per launch, which combines with oxygen from the oxidizer to form Al₂O₃ with a mass of about 280 t.

[dchill]

As another regulatory example, the US still allows lead in AVGAS, which is the fuel used by propeller airplanes.

According to this article:
https://ceh.org/air-and-water/avgas-map-californians-affected-by-lead-from-aviation-fuel

"Currently, leaded avgas is the largest source of lead air pollution in the US, responsible for over 500 tons of lead emissions per year."

I'd say lead is a much more dangerous element to have raining down on our heads than aluminum or most of the other material that's in reentering space hardware.  Of course most of that lead is coming down in populated urban areas versus over the ocean or remote areas.

Personally I'd rather see the government deal with that old technology first before they regulate an industry that's still changing and finding its legs.

Given that, however, I'd say that if the toxicity of all the elements reentering from space is less than the equivalent of 250 tons of lead per year than that's perhaps a fair cross-industry level of regulation.

[shark0302]

As another regulatory example, the US still allows lead in AVGAS, which is the fuel used by propeller airplanes.

According to this article:
https://ceh.org/air-and-water/avgas-map-californians-affected-by-lead-from-aviation-fuel

"Currently, leaded avgas is the largest source of lead air pollution in the US, responsible for over 500 tons of lead emissions per year."

I'd say lead is a much more dangerous element to have raining down on our heads than aluminum or most of the other material that's in reentering space hardware.  Of course most of that lead is coming down in populated urban areas versus over the ocean or remote areas.

Personally I'd rather see the government deal with that old technology first before they regulate an industry that's still changing and finding its legs.

Given that, however, I'd say that if the toxicity of all the elements reentering from space is less than the equivalent of 250 tons of lead per year than that's perhaps a fair cross-industry level of regulation.

Yep, and g100ul was recently certified for all  prop plane'sin the US. It's now the problem of getting it in mass production.
https://generalaviationnews.com/2022/09/03/gami-unleaded-fuel-approved-for-all-general-aviation-aircraft/#:~:text=(GAMI)%20to%20be%20used%20by,and%20IO%2D360%20piston%20engines.

But this is an example of still using 70 year old technology cause it is certified.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Given that, however, I'd say that if the toxicity of all the elements reentering from space is less than the equivalent of 250 tons of lead per year than that's perhaps a fair cross-industry level of regulation.

The issue isn't direct toxicity to humans; it's that alumina can catalyze the creation of free chlorine, which can deplete ozone.  Lead doesn't do that.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Given that, however, I'd say that if the toxicity of all the elements reentering from space is less than the equivalent of 250 tons of lead per year than that's perhaps a fair cross-industry level of regulation.

The issue isn't direct toxicity to humans; it's that alumina can catalyze the creation of free chlorine, which can deplete ozone.  Lead doesn't do that.

Which all the alumina in the 365,000t of meteorite material does really well every year. Of which the amounts of the alumina in the sats would be lost in the error margins due to the constant and widely varying atomic makeup of the meteorites every year. The meteorites are mostly oxygen, silicon, alumina, and titanium.

It is not a problem and will not be for a long time. Such that in not that far into the future companies will make fortunes on gathering up old sats and pieces to then 'melt down' and feed back into the on-orbit manufacturing market. They would also likely collect quite a bit of meteorite material as well.

Do not make it into one. Pollution is a matter of significant percentage. Even at 2,000t of sats returning in a year. It is in the margin of error of variation for the meteorite material which can vary each year by +-20%. NOTE 20%of 365,000t is 73,000t.

[TheRadicalModerate]

Given that, however, I'd say that if the toxicity of all the elements reentering from space is less than the equivalent of 250 tons of lead per year than that's perhaps a fair cross-industry level of regulation.

The issue isn't direct toxicity to humans; it's that alumina can catalyze the creation of free chlorine, which can deplete ozone.  Lead doesn't do that.

Which all the alumina in the 365,000t of meteorite material does really well every year. Of which the amounts of the alumina in the sats would be lost in the error margins due to the constant and widely varying atomic makeup of the meteorites every year. The meteorites are mostly oxygen, silicon, alumina, and titanium.

It is not a problem and will not be for a long time. Such that in not that far into the future companies will make fortunes on gathering up old sats and pieces to then 'melt down' and feed back into the on-orbit manufacturing market. They would also likely collect quite a bit of meteorite material as well.

Do not make it into one. Pollution is a matter of significant percentage. Even at 2,000t of sats returning in a year. It is in the margin of error of variation for the meteorite material which can vary each year by +-20%. NOTE 20%of 365,000t is 73,000t.

I've got a reference that says 30t of cosmic dust per day, 1.4% of which is elemental aluminum.  So that's about 11,000t of meteors/meteorites/dust per year, with 153t of it being aluminum.  6000 Starlinks/year, each 2t, with maybe 25% being aluminum, would be 3000t/year.

However, it's really the surface area of the Al₂O₃ that's the issue.  I'd expect most meteors to completely vaporize, then re-condense as extremely fine particles, therefore with very high surface/volume ratio.  On the other hand, reentering satellites will likely produce droplets with considerably lower surface/volume ratios. 

Given what the actual ratios for both cosmic and satellite aluminum are, this could be anything from a nothingburger to a big problem.  Not a slam-dunk answer either way.  Sounds to me like something that needs some investigation.

I do think that the Nature piece's title, “Atmospheric impacts of the space industry require oversight”, is inflammatory.  I'm not sure if that's the author's title or whether the editors juiced it up for controversy.  "Oversight" with our current state of knowledge isn't warranted.  But improving the current state of knowledge is warranted.

[steveleach]

I do think that the Nature piece's title, “Atmospheric impacts of the space industry require oversight”, is inflammatory.  I'm not sure if that's the author's title or whether the editors juiced it up for controversy.  "Oversight" with our current state of knowledge isn't warranted.  But improving the current state of knowledge is warranted.

I don't think it would be particularly unreasonable for mega-constellation operators to be required to do an environmental assessment in this area as part of the overall licensing process.

It is probably a non-issue, but let's have the operators prove that it is,

[TheRadicalModerate]

I do think that the Nature piece's title, “Atmospheric impacts of the space industry require oversight”, is inflammatory.  I'm not sure if that's the author's title or whether the editors juiced it up for controversy.  "Oversight" with our current state of knowledge isn't warranted.  But improving the current state of knowledge is warranted.

I don't think it would be particularly unreasonable for mega-constellation operators to be required to do an environmental assessment in this area as part of the overall licensing process.

It is probably a non-issue, but let's have the operators prove that it is,

This gets back to the whole question of whether the FCC or some other agency can force an Environmental Impact Statement for space operations.  Several of SpaceX's competitors tried to force this on them, unsuccessfully.  I can't remember the entire set of bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo involved, but it basically boiled down to on-orbit satellite operations having a class exemption from EIS requirements.

Beyond that, it would be incredibly difficult for an operator to prove that its operations were not harmful.  I think the burden is on the government to set regulations for the amount of various materials, of various sizes, that get left in the atmosphere as aerosols, and cite the research.

This isn't going to be a problem that destroys the ozone layer next year, or even next decade.  If the international community is worried about this, then they should fund the research, and then we can do something like modify the Montreal Protocol if it turns out to be an issue.

[Robotbeat]

“Environmental assessment” is just the same thing as a time tax. It doesn’t change the out outcome, just makes it take years longer. We’d be better off just charging them a fee.

I think an EA is an absolutely terrible idea.

[RedLineTrain]

It is probably a non-issue, but let's have the operators prove that it is,

I don't think any of our environmental laws are based on the precautionary principle.  If they were, nothing would get done or built.

[Robotbeat]

It is probably a non-issue, but let's have the operators prove that it is,

I don't think any of our environmental laws are based on the precautionary principle.  If they were, nothing would get done or built.

Well…

[steveleach]

It is probably a non-issue, but let's have the operators prove that it is,

I don't think any of our environmental laws are based on the precautionary principle.  If they were, nothing would get done or built.

Straying off topic and into politics here, but maybe environmental laws could stand being a little more precautionary. 

I'd personally like to see all (public) businesses be required to publicly report the environmental impact of their operations and products, the same way they have to report their finances, so for me the impact of deorbiting satellites is just one aspect of that.

[su27k]

This gets back to the whole question of whether the FCC or some other agency can force an Environmental Impact Statement for space operations.  Several of SpaceX's competitors tried to force this on them, unsuccessfully.  I can't remember the entire set of bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo involved, but it basically boiled down to on-orbit satellite operations having a class exemption from EIS requirements.

Worth pointing out that just because something falls under NEPA categorical exclusion does not mean there's no environmental review for it, per 47 CFR § 1.1307 (c):

(c) If an interested person alleges that a particular action, otherwise categorically excluded, will have a significant environmental effect, the person shall electronically submit to the Bureau responsible for processing that action a written petition setting forth in detail the reasons justifying or circumstances necessitating environmental consideration in the decision-making process. ... The Bureau shall review the petition and consider the environmental concerns that have been raised. If the Bureau determines that the action may have a significant environmental impact, the Bureau will require the applicant to prepare an EA (see §§ 1.1308 and 1.1311), which will serve as the basis for the determination to proceed with or terminate environmental processing.

In case of Starlink, interested persons did raise allegation that Gen2 has significant environmental effect, including the environmental impact of the re-entry. And FCC did perform a review of the petition and considered environmental concerns raised, so an environmental review is indeed performed, and FCC's conclusion regarding satellite reentry is that:

Based on the record, we are not convinced that reentering SpaceX Gen2 Starlink satellites may have a significant environmental impact necessitating an EA. As SpaceX states, the European Space Agency (ESA) initiated two studies, looking into specifically the atmospheric impact of spacecraft demise upon reentry and concluding that the impact was negligible compared to other anthropogenic activities.451

[steveleach]

This gets back to the whole question of whether the FCC or some other agency can force an Environmental Impact Statement for space operations.  Several of SpaceX's competitors tried to force this on them, unsuccessfully.  I can't remember the entire set of bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo involved, but it basically boiled down to on-orbit satellite operations having a class exemption from EIS requirements.

Worth pointing out that just because something falls under NEPA categorical exclusion does not mean there's no environmental review for it, per 47 CFR § 1.1307 (c):

(c) If an interested person alleges that a particular action, otherwise categorically excluded, will have a significant environmental effect, the person shall electronically submit to the Bureau responsible for processing that action a written petition setting forth in detail the reasons justifying or circumstances necessitating environmental consideration in the decision-making process. ... The Bureau shall review the petition and consider the environmental concerns that have been raised. If the Bureau determines that the action may have a significant environmental impact, the Bureau will require the applicant to prepare an EA (see §§ 1.1308 and 1.1311), which will serve as the basis for the determination to proceed with or terminate environmental processing.

In case of Starlink, interested persons did raise allegation that Gen2 has significant environmental effect, including the environmental impact of the re-entry. And FCC did perform a review of the petition and considered environmental concerns raised, so an environmental review is indeed performed, and FCC's conclusion regarding satellite reentry is that:

Based on the record, we are not convinced that reentering SpaceX Gen2 Starlink satellites may have a significant environmental impact necessitating an EA. As SpaceX states, the European Space Agency (ESA) initiated two studies, looking into specifically the atmospheric impact of spacecraft demise upon reentry and concluding that the impact was negligible compared to other anthropogenic activities.451

Ah, that's good info there, thanks. Sounds like the process I was hoping for already exists, and was already followed.

[RedLineTrain]

It is probably a non-issue, but let's have the operators prove that it is,

I don't think any of our environmental laws are based on the precautionary principle.  If they were, nothing would get done or built.

Straying off topic and into politics here, but maybe environmental laws could stand being a little more precautionary. 

I'd personally like to see all (public) businesses be required to publicly report the environmental impact of their operations and products, the same way they have to report their finances, so for me the impact of deorbiting satellites is just one aspect of that.

SpaceX is not a public business.

[meekGee]

This entire notion started circulating the web a couple years ago. It's akin to "Electric cars are dirty since they actually burn coal" - an obviously preposterous proposition that is just put out there to see if it will stick.

The basic numbers don't hold up even on first scrutiny, and in this case I'm glad they got debunked quickly and clearly.

Sadly, give it another year, and there will be a new one.

[TheRadicalModerate]

The basic numbers don't hold up even on first scrutiny, and in this case I'm glad they got debunked quickly and clearly.

Please provide said numbers that don't hold up to scrutiny.