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

  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    108
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    SpaceX has been receptive to design changes to starlink in the past to minimize impact, like decreasing reflectivity and reflection angles for astronomers. They might be receptive to moving to different alloy for the body construction.

    Magnesium comes to mind that would be light but expensive. Steel alloys might be cheap and heavy options for later when starship is operational. Would those have similar effects on ozone, or is it only the aluminum oxides?

    • Gsus4@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Magnesium oxides can also serve as a catalyst for lots of reactions, but I’m not sure if it will have the same effect in this specific context, I’d guess it would.

      That’s why I added the link to the wooden satallites, that also reduces the metal debris somewhat and reduces other effects like radio interference.

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Wood is interesting, but the article doesn’t address off gassing at all, which is a huge problem for communication satellites. Is there a way to keep the wood from off gassing? For 3d prints in vacuum, they metal coat them to keep the gas inside. Or maybe you could resin soak them? With hopefully an extremely UV stable resin. But I didn’t know what the weight trade looks like then, resin is heavy.

        But if you’re looking composites anyway, carbon fiber would be another great option. Lightweight but with a few manufacturing constraints. But should burn up to carbon dioxide on reentry.

        • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          I just read an interesting research article from NASA that shows that carbon fiber survives reentry better than our previous scientific consensus claimed.

          Some carbon fiber will burn up into carbon dioxide, but a good chunk of it will surprisingly survive reentry conditions. I think you are very right that it should be a better material to use for starlink.

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I feel like it shouldn’t even have to be said out loud that gravity and weight correlate, but their orbit would be heavily impacted by replacing aluminium with five times as much steel for the same durability. You might be able to get away with slightly less if you consider the steel has more heat resistance, but idk.

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah you’d need to put up fewer sats per launch. But they might still have enough lift capacity on starship to do that.

      • Malfeasant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Weight does not affect orbit. It affects the amount of fuel needed to reach orbit, and therefore cost, but not the orbit itself.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        When there’s drag involved it’s different, but in vacuum there’s no relationship between weight and orbit.

        Are you referring to the effects of upper atmospheric drag on the orbital maintenance requirements?