this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2024
696 points (95.8% liked)

Technology

73037 readers
3284 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Abstract from the paper in the article:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024GL109280

Large constellations of small satellites will significantly increase the number of objects orbiting the Earth. Satellites burn up at the end of service life during reentry, generating aluminum oxides as the main byproduct. These are known catalysts for chlorine activation that depletes ozone in the stratosphere. We present the first atomic-scale molecular dynamics simulation study to resolve the oxidation process of the satellite's aluminum structure during mesospheric reentry, and investigate the ozone depletion potential from aluminum oxides. We find that the demise of a typical 250-kg satellite can generate around 30 kg of aluminum oxide nanoparticles, which may endure for decades in the atmosphere. Aluminum oxide compounds generated by the entire population of satellites reentering the atmosphere in 2022 are estimated at around 17 metric tons. Reentry scenarios involving mega-constellations point to over 360 metric tons of aluminum oxide compounds per year, which can lead to significant ozone depletion.

PS: wooden satellites can help mitigate this https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01456-z

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 71 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Before anyone jumps on the Anti-Musk train, read the article, please. They admit that they don't understand the complications that could arise and that they don't have any hard figures for the damage being caused. I'll be the first to jump in and say that it's probably a bad thing to just let metals burn in in atmo, but let's make sure we discuss the facts, and not just the politics of the potential polluter.

[–] nevemsenki@lemmy.world 48 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Ah yes, the usual method of waiting until the issue becomes confirmed and also way too severe to fix instead of acting on precaution and harming profits of private companies. What could go wrong?

[–] puchaczyk@lemmy.blahaj.zone 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, PFAS comes to mind. It took decades to confirm it's harmful to humans but at this point it is everywhere and hard to get rid of. Worst part is they try to use other chemicals to replace PFAS, but again how harmful they are we don't know and we will learn that decades later too because companies don't want to make long term research before releasing the product. Enviroment shouldn't be a billionaire's testing ground.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

So if moving from PFAS to alternate chemicals means moving foolishly into untested chemicals, why didn’t they wait to test them? Were they forced to make the change?

[–] nialv7@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is a line somewhere I think. Like people weren't 100% sure the atomic bomb won't ignite the atmosphere (it's only very unlikely), but they still tested it. Similarly the probability of creating micro blackholes at LHC is not zero either, yet they still ran it.

If we have to make sure everything is 100% safe before we can do anything, we will be stuck with the status quo.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

We will die of starvation because nothing is 100% safe, so waiting until we find that level of safety means we just won’t do anything.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I don't know how that is usual in your mind. Since from my perspective I see it constantly.

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

As opposed to acting before you understand the effects of your actions? Neither seem like good choices.

Probably the best option would be to research harder. Make the polluter fund a much larger scale research program to understand the problem and viable solutions as quickly as possible.

[–] Gsus4@programming.dev 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I was actually reviewing the O3 depletion process https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_monoxide and Cl only stops reacting with O3 when it ends up as ClO2, but that is rare, because ClO usually is too short-lived to react with another Cl into Cl2O, so it may be possible that a catalyst like Al2O3 could actually clean up Cl interfering with the ozone layer along with the effect of speeding up the nefarious reaction with O3 :D

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The irony of a wikipedia expert agreeing with a tabloid skeptic.

[–] Gsus4@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Why did you write that? What do you gain or anyone reading from that comment? Who are you performing for? Where is the audience? Are you bored and I'm your little punching bag? If you know, contribute and tell us if and why I am wrong and I will welcome it, if you don't or it is not worth the effort, just stfu, nobody needs your shit snark.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wanted to reinforce good behavior, punish bad behavior.

[–] Gsus4@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Nah man, that's just toxic hurtful criticism. Let people brainstorm and just let go of the gavel.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Sure I admit that your mistakes were purely imaginary and we can all pretend you never made them to hide your shame.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

You didn’t mention any mistakes though

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Guys, let's not jump into conclusions. I'd say that it is not a real issue until at least a billion people have died from it.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If they don't have grounds to accuse SpaceX then SpaceX can sue them for defamation. SpaceX doesn't need YOU to defend them.

OP listed the referenced study in the description, it has "hard numbers" from simulations and citations to many other studies as well.