Scientists Warn Starlink Could Screw Up the Ozone Layer
from the first-do-no-harm dept
To be clear: SpaceX’s Starlink service can be a game changer for those completely out of range of broadband access. Getting several hundred megabits per second in the middle of nowhere is a decidedly good thing, assuming you can afford the $120 a month subscription cost and up front hardware costs.
But contrary to what many press outlets imply, it’s not magic. And it comes with a growing list of caveats.
The technology has been criticized for harming astronomical research via light pollution. Starlink customer service is largely nonexistent. It’s too expensive for the folks most in need of reliable broadband access. The nature of satellite physics and capacity means slowdowns and annoying restrictions are inevitable. And the company was caught abusing taxpayer subsidies to get money it didn’t deserve.
Now some scientists warn that the steady parade of smaller low-Earth orbit satellites constantly burning up in orbit could release chemicals that could undermine the progress we’ve made repairing the ozone layer. Researchers at the University of Southern California’s Department of Astronautical Engineering issued a press statement explaining the challenges in greater detail (study here):
“Aluminum oxides spark chemical reactions that destroy stratospheric ozone, which protects Earth from harmful UV radiation. The oxides don’t react chemically with ozone molecules, instead triggering destructive reactions between ozone and chlorine that deplete the ozone layer. Because aluminum oxides are not consumed by these chemical reactions, they can continue to destroy molecule after molecule of ozone for decades as they drift down through the stratosphere.”
Much like concerns about space garbage, regulators generally have been so innovation cooed that they haven’t thought much about this. Starlink alone is slated to launch 42,000 low Earth orbit satellites, and other companies like Amazon are expected to soon join the parade. All of these cheaper, smaller satellites have less than a five year life span, so they’ll be consistently falling back to Earth.
The scientists found that satellites re-entering Earth orbit have already increased aluminum in the atmosphere by 29.5% over natural levels. They also say that by the time satellite constellations are complete, every year, 1,005 U.S. tons of aluminum will fall to Earth, releasing 397 U.S. tons of aluminum oxides per year to the atmosphere, an increase of 646% over natural levels.
Stripping away the Earth’s protection from harmful UV radiation is, to be clear, bad.
You might recall that the Trump administration tried to give Musk’s Starlink nearly a billion dollars in subsidies in exchange for delivering Starlink to some traffic medians and airport parking lots. The Biden FCC backtracked on a large chunk of those awards, noting that if taxpayers are going to fund broadband expansion, they should prioritize non-capacity constrained, affordable fiber access as much as possible.
Telecom experts say truly “bridging the digital divide” mostly involves deploying fiber as deeply into rural America as is practical, then filling in the remaining gaps with 5G and fixed wireless. Increasingly that’s involving communities building their own open access fiber networks to spur competition, whether a municipal network, cooperative, public-private partnership, or extension of the city’s electrical utility.
Services like Starlink certainly do play a niche role in this quest to fill in whatever access gaps remain (especially during emergencies or military campaigns), but it’s a growing question whether the growing list of trade offs are going to be worth it.
Filed Under: 5g, broadband, elon musk, environment, fiber, high speed internet, leo, low earth orbit, ozone layer, satellite, telecom
Companies: spacex, starlink


Comments on “Scientists Warn Starlink Could Screw Up the Ozone Layer”
The satellites leave a trail of chemicals upon entering the atmosphere, perhaps we shall call these .. ChemTrails?
Re:
Elontrails.
Re:
Musktrails.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
TECHNOLOGY is dangerous; 15th Century BCE was much safer
Re:
Misuse of tech is even more dangerous, film at eleven.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
This is basically made up.
Not that Al2O2 could be a catalyst, it’s just a miniscule amount of it and there’s already plenty of it up there. (it’s the smoke you get from thermite, for instance, and also just a common mineral in general) It’s inconsequential.
This is just someone finding an excuse to whine about something they don’t like.
As for light pollution…lol, no you can’t stop innovation just cuz you want to look at the stars. That’s just nonsense, and I say that as a big astronomy fan.
Re:
TIL: pollution is innovative.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
This is a perfect encapsulation of shitlibs.
No no, I realize you don’t get it.
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t agree with a lot of what you say, Sir, but I agree that Starlink is pretty awesome.
Haters gonna hate.
Re: Re: Re:2
TIL: pollution is for lovers, don’t hate pollution ’cause it is here forever thanks to the chemical engineering of super geniuses.
Re: Re: Re:3 But what about Hillery
The Space Shuttle boosters were
70% ammonium perchlorate (Perc: NH4ClO4) or 208,000,000 pounds, exhausting hydrogen chloride and
“Anatomized Aluminum Powder” 16% or 47,500,000 pounds exhausting aluminum oxide…..
all into the Earth’s stratosphere.
The LA Times published a story 30 years ago that the Shuttle (with 62 of the 135 launched) was responsible for 10% of our loss of stratospheric OZone.
Northrop’s current “SLS Moon rocket” solid strap-ons are 25% larger, same fuels.
America’s ICBM arsenals use the same fuels, and 6-10 ICBM’s are launched (tested) each year.
Biden signed a $130b contract to replace all US ICBMs, with new & improved rockets, same fuels
P.S. Unlike Bezos’ latest big rocket booster, Elon will not use solids, what a cad
P.P.S. Until SpaceX ran everyone out of the orbital launch market, 60% of launches used solid strap-ons.
Re: Re: Re:4
Yup, and with the future of education on the chopping block, who is going to figure out how to finesse payloads into orbit without riding a controlled explosion? Thinking outside the box is not something that just occurs out of the blue.
Re: Re: Re:
Perfect encapsulation of someone who does not care about the world they leave to their children because they need all that god given money for their superboats and supercars and superhouses and superblowjobs …..
Let’s use supercheap satellites and when they fail, simply shoot more up there, what could possibly go wrong? The more the merrier, never mind all the pollution caused by them burning up in the air you breath.
Re:
Oh look, bratty Matty’s back to pretend that he knows more on a subject than actual experts.
Please keep going, I could use the laugh.
Re:
The same reasoning have been used on numerous occasion, “It’s miniscule and tooootally inconsequential”. Ever heard of tetraethyllead for example?
You stupid fuckers can’t even grok simple things like a > b when it’s inconvenient.
Re: Re: Its funny
That for all the Crap Humans put in the ground, air, Water, and TRY NEVER to clean up after themselves.
You have this idea that ‘JUST CAUSE’ should be fine.
Take the thought that it would be better to KEEP the planets Balance, BALANCED. And doing something abit different, MAY cause more problems as we have seen in the past.
There are more then 1 reason ALUMINUM, Isnt up in the air. Do you want to learn the easy way or the HARD way?
PS, Im not even counting the idea of ‘What goes up’.
Re:
I imagine you could have taken a dumber stance, but I’m hard pressed to see how.
Re:
Yeah, and the amount of lead paint chips you ate as a kid was miniscule but here you are spewing shit like this.
Re:
Quiet down everyone and listen to the man who knows more about chemistry, satellites and astronomy than any of these silly scientists!
'A burned out husk of a planet sounds like a problem for future me.'
Modern corporations and their owned politicians: Who cares about what might happen a couple decades down the line, all that matters is how much money we’re making right now and ensuring that that number is always going up no matter what!
Re:
money when money will not matter decades later when everything is dying
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Cmon man, be real. Life is pretty darn awesome right now, and there’s no indication that it’s gonna be anything than even better for us in America in 20 years. You doomscrollers should spare us all and self-terminate.
Re: Re:
Yeah, telling people to off themselves when they aren’t as blissfully ignorant like you are definitely paints a picture of how heart life is.
Re: Re:
I guess that depends on where you live. If you, say, live in southern Florida, your home may be underwater in 20 or so years.
Also, I don’t think the fact that doubling the minimum wage would only barely make buying a house affordable is awesome. Nor the lack of snow or increased temperatures in my area (I prefer “too cold” over “too hot”, personally).
I’m not trying to be a downer here; I’m just saying you’re drastically overstating your case to say there’s no indication that life won’t be better in 20 years, and that how awesome life s currently is largely subjective and depends on how you measure how good life is.
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t think minimum wage workers should be able to buy houses with their income from unskilled labor.
Re: Re: Re:2
“Unskilled labor” is an oxymoron. If it truly doesn’t involve skill, then it doesn’t involve labor. Standing for hours is a skill. Punching buttons on a register is a skill. Putting up a friendly mask to pretend you give a damn about what Karen thinks of the store displays is a skill. Stocking shelves is a skill. And it’s all a lot harder than what many people get paid significantly more to do.
It’s not unskilled labor. It’s underappreciated labor.
At this point, who even cares? We’re all well on our way past the point of no return when it comes to preventing environmental disaster. No one who has the power to do anything about it gives anything resembling a shit about it.
Just enjoy the ride to the end.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
OMG shut up, shitlib! Life is awesome now and it’s gonna be even better in 10-20-30 years!
Why don’t you time-machine back to pre-Industrial Revolution era if you hate 2024 so much? Idiot.
Re: Re:
“Why don’t you time-machine back to pre-Industrial Revolution era if you hate 2024 so much?”
Uhh, because time machines aren’t real?…
Re: Re: Re:
And neither is man-made climate change!!
Re: Re: Re:2
No, manmade climate change is real.
Re: Re:
Because that’s physically impossible, and there is no reason to believe it ever will be.
Re:
Shut up, doomscroller.
Remeber us, the world of red and brown crabs with cancer and Alzheimer’s.
Building up 5G networks has other advantages, like ensuring that people who are traveling have cell service. Fixed wireless is pretty good tech too and may share some infrastructure with the cell towers.