#Starlink is deliberately de-orbiting older satellites to ‘burn up’ in the pristine upper atmosphere.
‘Burn up’ actually means ‘leave a bunch of metal vapour in the upper atmosphere’.
—————
quote
Before the first Starlink launches began in 2019, only about 40 to 50 satellites re-entered per year. SpaceX just brought down ten years' worth in only six months, adding an estimated 15,000 kilograms of aluminum oxide to the upper atmosphere.
—————
Scientists are only just studying what this may do to the atmosphere (and life on earth). Early indications are not good.
People should be *really* worried about this and keep an eye out for future updates. Especially given the #USA seems to be turning into a lawless joke.
Cc @sundogplanets
feld
in reply to Devorppa • • •> SpaceX just brought down ten years' worth in only six months, adding an estimated 15,000 kilograms of aluminum oxide to the upper atmosphere.
20 seconds of research on this:
>> meteors from space deposit 100 to 200 tons of metallic material every day across the globe
>> The meteors contain Tri-methyl aluminum, Lithium, Barium
why is 15,000kg of satellites a bigger concern than 100-200 tons of meteors (PER DAY!!)?
Prof. Sam Lawler
in reply to feld • • •feld
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •So in one year, meteoroids are expected to drop 109.5 tons of aluminum ?
How much is Starlink doing in an entire year on average?
Prof. Sam Lawler
in reply to feld • • •@feld They just dumped 500 satellites in 6 months, each one is (conservatively) 500kg, and (conservatively) half aluminum. That's 125 tons of aluminum in 6 months.
With 30,000 satellites that are 1000kg each (because they keep making them bigger) with 5 year lifetimes, they'll dump almost 6,000 tons of aluminum per year.
feld
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •also, what exactly was our plan if we just started getting bombarded with a lot more meteoroids?
We're just going to have to get used to the idea that we need to start modifying the upper atmosphere.
We're already screwed because we have a significant lack of cloud coverage due to the existing warming and it's getting worse. So we're going to need to intervene anyway. We are going to have to increase the albedo ourselves and start doing things like stratospheric aerosol injection
Jan Niklas Fingerle
in reply to feld • • •@feld
"Research".
@Devorppa @sundogplanets
feld
in reply to Jan Niklas Fingerle • • •an assertion was made. A curious mind would say "well how much is that in relation to everything else naturally entering the atmosphere?". So I found that answer, I posed a question, and I received a useful answer.
If you're trying to make some cutesy "stop being a smartass, just trust the scientists" point you can eat a bag of dicks. The scientists are wrong a *lot*.
Example: the climate models are all wrong. And not in a good way. Why? Compounding floating point errors. It's far worse than they're projecting.
Another reason: the calculations have not taken into consideration the lack of cloud coverage caused by the current amount of warming. How did they miss this? @SlicerDicer introduced this problem to me probably ... 8 years ago now? Maybe longer? Aren't the scientists supposed to be good at science? Oh wait, the lack of interdisciplinary expertise caused them to completely ignore the gas physics that rebreather diving experts know. Turns out that the warmer atmosphere affects the ability for clouds to condense. But nobody baked it into any climate models.
science.org/content/article/ea…
I am Water
in reply to feld • • •Yep, the gas physics are clear. It was about 10 years ago.
Why would they bake it into the climate models the entire thing was that more heat = more vapor. Superficial understanding says more clouds. Till you run the math of what’s actually happening to layers of the atmosphere. Then it’s very clear.
Dunno, it’s like maybe if their life depended upon the math being right and correct they’d take it serious?
Can’t say it’s incorrect when my life depended on it being 100% correct. 7 mins to dead if you are wrong.
Seven. Minutes. To. Dead.
That’s assuming everything is perfect when things go wrong and you notice it.
feld
in reply to I am Water • • •> Dunno, it’s like maybe if their life depended upon the math being right and correct they’d take it serious?
And once they realize their mistakes their research funding is probably gonna dry up if everything they've published gets retracted. It's a horrible situation.