Dead satellites are filling space with trash. That could affect Earth’s magnetic field | Sierra Solter
www.theguardian.com
Our ozone is pennies thick – and soon we’ll put at least an Eiffel Tower’s worth of metallic ash into the ionosphere every year

cross-posted from: https://sopuli.xyz/post/11636550

Opinion piece by Sierra Solter, “a plasma physicist, engineer, and inventor who studies the intersection of heliophysics and aerospace”. Relevant quote:

Upon investigating just how much dust in the form of satellite and rocket debris the space industry has dumped into the ionosphere during re-entry, I was alarmed to find that it is currently multiple Eiffel Tower’s worth of metallic ash. I wouldn’t have even been able to calculate that at all without a scientist’s personally run website. Our ozone is mere pennies thick, and soon we will be putting at least an Eiffel Tower’s worth of metallic ash a year directly into the ionosphere. And all of that will stay there, indefinitely.

How could we possibly think that burning trash in our atmosphere 24/7 is going to be fine?

  • wahming@monyet.ccEnglish
    4·
    8 months ago

    This was thoroughly torn apart in another thread.

    Some of the top results:

    “Meteors only contain trace amounts of highly conductive metals” Solter-Hunt said. “Satellites, on the other hand, are basically entirely made of superconductive metals.” 7% of meteorites that strike Earth are either entirely metal or partially metal. Additionally, the metallic ones are usually larger than the stony ones. I’m sure a PHD knows this, so I’m guessing the author of the article didn’t include some context.

    The link in that passage says that the newer, bigger Starlink satellites are only 800 kg in total mass. I’m not entirely sure how an 800kg object leaves 1300+ kg of “charged dust” upon re-entry.

    “Satellites are mostly made of aluminum and aluminum is a superconductor,” Solter-Hunt said. "Superconductors are used for blocking, distorting or shielding of magnetic fields.

    “Though 100 Kelvin is still pretty chilly – that’s about -280 degrees Fahrenheit – this is an enormous increase compared to bulk aluminum metal, which turns superconductive only near 1 Kelvin (-457 degrees Fahrenheit)”

    It doesn’t get that cold in LEO or GEO, so I’m not sure why the author of the paper is bringing that up. This paper and its author are looking more suspect by the minute.

    • hydropticOP
      2·
      8 months ago

      Ah, nice, some actually good criticism. I wasn’t 100% sold on the claims but it seemed like there’s some merit to it, but the “superconductor” stuff really does make the whole thing seem a bit iffy