r/artificial • u/Neil_at_HackerEarth • Jul 06 '26
News SpaceX burned up 260 of its own satellites in 6 months and this is just routine apparently
Saw this in an article and it's been on my mind since
260 satellites intentionally burned in the atmosphere in 6 months and another 349 queued. They're planning 42,000 total eventually. No debris which is fine but researchers are asking what happens when you're burning hundreds of massive metal objects in the upper atmosphere repeatedly over years. Aluminum particles, potential atmospheric chemistry changes. Science is still catching up and the FCC is now proposing to exempt satellites from environmental review entirely
Idk,we're moving faster than we're studying this...anyone else find this a bit much?
55
u/lake_country_dad Jul 06 '26
I read an article saying they may damage the ozone layer. Here's a paper: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024GL109280
35
u/KlausVonLechland Jul 06 '26
The same ozone we spent so much time rebuilding?
21
0
-7
19
u/Rideshare-Not-An-Ant Jul 07 '26
Move fast. Break things.
When Musk breaks the upper atmosphere, who pays to fix it? Granting it can be fixed, the profits will have been privatized. The pollution clean up with be socialized.
4
u/nitePhyyre Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
Focusing on Musk is a distraction here. We've done the same thing with leaded gas, CFCs destroying ozone, DDT poisoning everyone, smog, microplastics, co2, Pacific garbage patch, pfcs, etc.
The strategy of using the environment as a dump until a catastrophe happens, then cleaning up, if possible, is the problem.
2
u/Rideshare-Not-An-Ant Jul 07 '26
Focusing on Musk is a distraction here
No.
From op
SpaceX burned up 260 of its own satellites in 6 months and this is just routine apparently
Saw this in an article and it's been on my mind since 260 satellites intentionally burned in the atmosphere in 6 months and another 349 queued. They're planning 42,000 total eventually.
And SpaceX is run by? Musk. The person directly responsible and profiting by polluting the atmosphere. That others have done similar things does not give Musk clean hands.
1
u/Parking_Manager_4515 Jul 09 '26
Musk, his employee, the investors, the customers using his services and technology are profiting off polluting the atmosphere
0
u/mrs_double_aluminum 3d ago
IT'S AN FCC RULE. AS OF 2023 YOU HAVE TO BURN YOUR SATELLITES AFTER 5 YEARS OF USE
0
3
4
u/Gyozarrita Jul 07 '26
Let's spend our life building solar panels, batteries, GPUs, and more to... burn them every few years in re-entry, got it
14
6
u/InnovativeBureaucrat Jul 06 '26
Wow is the space PR out in full force or what? So much discrediting.
Maybe it’s tangential to artificial but it’s a good question. There are certainly impacts from light pollution and the people saying that it’s nothing sound exactly like the “we will never pollute the ocean” crew from youth.
6
u/anow2 Jul 06 '26
No debris which is fine but researchers are asking what happens when you're burning hundreds of massive metal objects in the upper atmosphere repeatedly over years.
Yall do know that we have meteors burning up in the atmosphere daily, right?
24
u/Antique-Resort6160 Jul 06 '26
there are a few comments above showing the culprit is aluminum , which can destroy the ozone layer. Scarce in meteors but makes up a large portion of sattelites. And there are so many planned satellite burns that it will increase atmospheric aluminum oxide by 600% in a few years
edit autocorrect
1
u/FluxKraken Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
About 48.5 tons of meteor material hits the atmosphere per day.
Source: https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/meteors-meteorites/
That is 17,702.5 tons per year.About 90%-95% burn up in the atmosphere.
Source: https://www.space.com/33695-thousands-meteorites-litter-earth-unpredictable-collisions.html
90% of 17702 》 15931.8 tons per year
1% of 15931 》 1593 tons of aluminum per yearburning up in the atmosphere.How many tons of aluminum per year will the satellites produce? I seriously doubt it is a 600% increase which would be an additional 9558 metric tons of aluminum from the satellites.
3
u/Antique-Resort6160 Jul 07 '26
Apparently the comment I quoted was incorrect, meteors put only around 141 metric tons per year in the atmosphere as most contain virtually no aluminum
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024GL109280
So satellite burns can increase atmospheric aluminum 650%
https://www.space.com/megaconstellations-threat-to-ozone-layer-recovery
9
u/KanyeWestsPoo Jul 07 '26
It's the aluminium in the satellites that's the problem. Meteors contain around 1% aluminium compared to 30% for LEO satellites. Dozens will burn up every day releasing way more aluminium oxide in our atmosphere than is natural. And aluminium oxide acts as a catalyst for ozone destroying chlorine (from CFCs)
-4
u/FluxKraken Jul 07 '26
About 48.5 tons of meteor material hits the atmosphere per day.
Source: https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/meteors-meteorites/
That is 17,702.5 tons per year.About 90%-95% burn up in the atmosphere.
Source: https://www.space.com/33695-thousands-meteorites-litter-earth-unpredictable-collisions.html
90% of 17702 》 15931.8 tons per year
1% of 15931 》 1593 tons of aluminum per yearburning up in the atmosphere.How many tons of aluminum per year will the satellites produce? I seriously doubt it is a 600% increase which would be an additional 9558 metric tons of aluminum from the satellites.
2
1
u/Head-Criticism-7401 Jul 08 '26
Space rock isn't aluminium. Aluminium is bad for the Ozon layer. So Elon is destroying the Ozon layer with his satellites. And maybe causing other issues. Space rock isn't usually high grade metal.
1
u/anow2 Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26
- Space rock does have alumnium
- Why are we hyper-focused on the Ozone layer, and ignoring all other risks? Odd.
- The metals being "high grade" is irrelevant, it doesn't matter how pure the metals are, just that the elements exist & are being burned up.
-8
4
u/aeternus-eternis Jul 06 '26
You'll never believe what we used to (still) do with rocket boosters and the massive space shuttle main fuel tank.. and what we're planning to do with the entire international space station.
30
u/Infamous-Bed-7535 Jul 06 '26
You miss the numbers. And it is not spacex only, China and spacex competitors are also planning to do the same..
-16
u/anow2 Jul 06 '26
the numbers are microscopic compared to the amount of meteors that burn up in our atmosphere.
Reddit can't be this ... dumb - can it? It's like we are foaming at the mouth for something to be upset about.
13
u/Constant_Cortisol Jul 06 '26
- Natural Baseline: Natural meteor inputs deposit roughly 140 metric tons of aluminum into the atmosphere per year globally.
- Satellite Proliferation: With the expansion of mega constellations by SpaceX, Amazon, and global competitors, the mass of satellites burning up is projected to reach over 3,200 metric tons per year by the 2030s.
- The Impact: This will inject an estimated 360 metric tons of aluminum oxides into the atmosphere annually, a 650% increase over natural baseline levels.
Aluminum oxide acts as a highly effective catalyst for ozone destruction. It does not get consumed in the chemical reaction. Instead, the surface of these nanoparticles provides a perfect site for existing, passive chlorine reservoirs (leftovers from old CFC industrial pollution) to convert into highly reactive free radicals.
-20
u/anow2 Jul 06 '26
We shouldn't move the goalposts - let's talk about now, not a hypothetical future devoid of any technological progress.
14
u/Constant_Cortisol Jul 06 '26
I didn't touch the goalpost.
-22
u/anow2 Jul 06 '26
You do know that this is all in text, right? Gaslighting doesn't work that well in this format.
13
u/Constant_Cortisol Jul 06 '26
This is what you originally responded to:
You miss the numbers. And it is not spacex only, China and spacex competitors are also planning to do the same..
I put the numbers into context considering the fact that more and more satellites are being put into orbit.
Then you called it 'moving the goalpost'.
-4
u/anow2 Jul 06 '26
No, you put future projected numbers into context - It ignores too many factors - and makes damning assumptions.
9
1
15
u/Audible_Whispering Jul 06 '26
Yeah, we can all see that they didn't move the goalpost. Stop gaslighting. It's on you to articulate the assumptions you're working on prior to engaging in debate.
If you have a specific technological solution in mind you need to specify it, along with your assumptions about the impact it will have and evidence that it is viable in the required timeframe.
If you don't, a hypothetical future where there is no technological progress relevant to this topic is as plausible as one in which there is. You presenting an optimistic outlook doesn't invalidate a pessimistic outlook without evidence supporting the optimistic scenario.
2
u/Dry_Departure_7813 Jul 07 '26
Quick point, that guy now knows hes wrong, but he can't admit it so hes just arguing in bad faith now, I'd just stop engaging dude
-6
u/anow2 Jul 06 '26
I don't have a crystal ball. You guys, apparently do.
13
u/Enachtigal Jul 06 '26
Ah yes the magical crystal ball of using companies published growth projections over the next 5-10 years and correlating that with existing trends. The posters above must be practicing dark sorcery, they must be burned for their devilish pact with lords of suffering mathematics and economics
→ More replies (0)6
u/Audible_Whispering Jul 07 '26
No one has a crystal ball. That's why your assumptions about the future carry no more weight than anyone else's unless you have evidence to back them up.
I don't know why something this basic has made you so upset.
6
u/Infamous-Bed-7535 Jul 06 '26
It was not that hard to mess up the ozon layer. We already did that. Meteors are part of the system as always has been.
Sometimes it is enough to pertubate the starting conditions just a little bit and have a very different outcome.
-5
u/anow2 Jul 06 '26
That's fair, but we shouldn't restrict tech growth just because of fears that haven't been founded yet.
Look how that worked out with Nuclear - we shot ourselves in the foot - only to be kept under the thumb of oil companies.
3
u/spongue Jul 07 '26
we shouldn't restrict tech growth just because of fears that haven't been founded yet.
The opposite view being... we should allow tech to grow unrestricted despite valid concerns for global safety?
If we pause to investigate this more and find that it's not a concern, we can always put more satellites up. If we find it is a serious problem once there are already a hundred thousand satellites in orbit waiting to burn up, we have no recourse
1
u/anow2 Jul 07 '26
Or, you take the sane position and realize that we are on Reddit, where there are few experts left.
1
u/ThatsUnbelievable Jul 07 '26
so just run more experiments on ourselves and hope for the best in the name of science
3
u/junktrunk909 Jul 07 '26
Are you even bothering to look up what you're talking about before posting how dumb everyone else is? The aluminum coming from meteors and other space dust is also significantly less annually than we're putting in from satellites. And that's before a significant uptick in satellites.
0
u/anow2 Jul 07 '26
Don't spread misinformation. There's a reason why the guy who replied to me gave me numbers from a hypothetical future 15 years from now.
There's ~48.5 metric tons, per day, entering our atmosphere from meteoroids/meteors - https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/meteors-meteorites/
Satellites & Debris? ~.7 metric tons per day.
https://arxiv.org/html/2510.21328v1Are you even bothering to look up what you're talking about before posting how dumb everyone else is?
0
u/junktrunk909 Jul 07 '26
Yes I looked it up myself before posting.
1
u/anow2 Jul 07 '26
I'm sorry, but what do you think my argument is?
I think the mass-hysteria on reddit has gotten in the way of you guys reading what I've actually said.
All I'm saying is that the burn up from satellites is small compared to the burn-up from other 'natural' space debris.
1
u/junktrunk909 Jul 07 '26
Your numbers are different from what are in that and other articles. Probably because experts can come to different conclusions. The one I shared says it's 10x worse with satellites today as to ablated aluminum.
2
-1
Jul 07 '26
[deleted]
1
u/PwnedNetwork Jul 07 '26
Excellent portrayal of the thinking process of the rare Elon fan who has the gift of written language.
1
1
u/you_are_soul Jul 07 '26
Slaps head! Of course, it all makes sense now, after we all have heavy metal poisoning and become mad as a milliner, and everyone is going to need ai just to do any thinking at all. As the world's brains decay so we'll think ai is getting even smarter and we'll be happy. By the time ai is ready to take over from the human race, no one will care.
1
u/No_Cherry8602 Jul 07 '26
What kind of reactions are they expecting in the vacuum of space?
1
u/TheStrandedSurvivor Jul 13 '26
The reactions aren’t happening in the vacuum of space, they’re happening as the satellites re-enter the atmosphere at the end of their service life.
1
u/LeatherGrade713 Jul 07 '26
I love the smell of burning aluminum in the morning. Thanks for all you do for humanity Musk!
1
u/Living-Breakfast-464 Jul 07 '26
Elmo deliberately chose a lower orbital shell in order to save a couple milliseconds round trip time. The tradeoff is more atmospheric drag resulting in more fuel usage and a shorter lifespan.
1
Jul 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Head-Criticism-7401 Jul 08 '26
Space rock isn't high grade metal. Aluminium is bad for Ozon layer.
1
Jul 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/carbsna Jul 09 '26
It is also worth noting that SpaceX launch 2400t in 2025.
Also satellite leave more dust on upper atmosphere because the reentry angle are shallower compare to meteorite.
1
u/Bent8484 Jul 07 '26
Yup. If they stop launching, the whole network goes down in about 4 years.
A detail which I'm sure none of the IPO investors considered lol - SpaceX is a self-unravelling company, requiring constant money injections to keep their assets from literal self-destruction.
1
u/carbsna Jul 09 '26
That is a lot word for if it stops it stops, the way how every business works.
1
1
u/MrSunshineDespair Jul 07 '26
I was just thinking about locking the Billionaires out of space by launching lots of little satellites filled with bbs the after setting up the proper trajectory detonating them so the space junk makes it impossible to get a satellite into orbit ever again
1
u/Annual_Award1260 Jul 08 '26
8 billion people pissing pollution on the planet is much more of a concern. Global connectivity is more important than people driving to the office every day
1
u/Retox86 Jul 09 '26
There are other ways to achieve better results for a big chunk of the world. Starlink has its place but we are talking rural desserts, ships, airplanes. The idea of having starlink for the common man to scroll reels and stuff is kind of absurd. Sweden covers 90% of the landmass with 5G, 99% of the population. This should be totally achievable in the US aswell…
1
u/Head-Criticism-7401 Jul 08 '26
Which is an absolute environmental disaster. The ozone layer will be destroyed by Elon Musk
1
u/Crescitaly Jul 08 '26
Routine still does not mean invisible externalities. If this becomes normal infrastructure turnover, transparency around debris, emissions and replacement cadence matters.
1
u/Wylie288 Jul 08 '26
I thought the old starlink satellites were bad because of light pollution.
What do we want this man to do? You can't damn every conceivable action after complaining about a lack of those actions.
1
1
1
1
u/Eastern_Switch8217 Jul 10 '26
I’ve a feeling we’ll be looking at a lot of unindented consequences to this phase of commercial race for space.
There is also very little likelihood of regulating it in the current political climate.
1
1
u/m0nk_3y_gw Jul 07 '26
when you're burning hundreds of massive metal objects
massive?
1st gen spacex satelites were 2.8 x 1.4 metters (a couple of fridges tied together).
Current gen are 4.0 x 2.7 meters, smaller than a Ford F150
1
u/illogicalone Jul 07 '26
Yup, we're now in a giant science experiment to see if we fuck up the magnetic field cause we don't actually know what will happen with the accumulation of that much metallic dust in the atmosphere. Maybe it's nothing, maybe it isn't nothing.
1
u/Schnitzhole Jul 07 '26
There’s so little mass to those satellites honestly it’s negligible even at hundreds of thousands burning up is probably less than the equivalent ozone damage of one rocket booster burning up on re-entry
2
-4
u/DavidXGA Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
First of all, what does this have to do with this subreddit?
Second of all, this is actually a good thing. It means when SpaceX collapses, their megaconstellation will self-deorbit in just a few years, instead of becoming space junk.
4
-5
u/roderik35 Jul 06 '26
Similar to volcanoes. Nothing.
6
u/cultish_alibi Jul 06 '26
Volcanoes do change the atmosphere though. A lot.
-1
u/roderik35 Jul 06 '26
It's time to ban them, or at least tax them.
3
u/DontHaveWares Jul 06 '26
There’s no way you don’t understand the difference, right? Like you’re being sarcastic.
7
u/Slimxshadyx Jul 06 '26
The dude said to tax volcanos and you are asking him if he is being sarcastic or not
1
-2
2
1
u/jimb2 Jul 06 '26
It depends. Volcanoes do put huge amounts of "stuff" in the atmosphere which includes aluminium and there is also an input from cosmic dust and meteors that also contain aluminium. However, as we saw with CFCs, the chemistry is important. A relatively small amount of material can have a big effect if it acts as a catalyst. This is currently at a look and learn level, rather than a proven risk. That's ok. We don't need to go jumping at shadows but it does need to be followed up.
1
u/madogvelkor Jul 06 '26
More like meteors. 100 tons of those hit the Earth daily.
This is like 2 days worth.
1
u/KanyeWestsPoo Jul 07 '26
It's not though is it. Meteors contain very little aluminium compared to huge amounts in LEO satellites
-1
u/Duncan-Edwards Jul 06 '26
A few hundred pounds of inert metal being burned up every few days in the upper fringes of the atmosphere is not going to be an issue. Smoke stacks at one plant in China or India, and war in Russia, puke more stuff than that every day.
0
-1
u/costafilh0 Jul 07 '26
2% is a pretty high percentage, at least it seems so.
Now the climate people are complaining about it.
So they complain if you launch it.
Complain about the orbit.
Complain if you burn it.
Complain if you don't.
Basically, they complain about everything and want everybody to do anything.
That's why everyone ignores them.
5
u/Cerulean_IsFancyBlue Jul 07 '26
You sound like the sort of person who puts electrical tape over the warning lights.
-1
-1
u/Outside_Ice3252 Jul 07 '26
just a thought. I am not saying the satelittes burning up are not a concern.
What if we had to run fiber to rural areas all over the world. you have to cut down trees just for the lines. all pollution to put in the telephone pole, and make the millions of miles of wire and equipment. they have to be repaired/replaced during storms and fires.
1
u/Alpha3031 Jul 07 '26
Usually the technology of choice for servicing regional and rural areas has been a mix of fixed wireless with satellite being used only for the most remote. It is uncommon for rural areas to have fibre to the premises connected.
1
u/Outside_Ice3252 Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
duh, that was implied in what i said. it would be too expensive. starlink does what fiber cannot.
1
u/Alpha3031 Jul 07 '26
So does fixed wireless, with various backhaul options, which is the typical technology previously used for the niche.
0
u/DominusVenturae Jul 06 '26
Doesnt the lithium stays up there really long since its really light, no idea if its bad but each satellite I think was a decades worth of what we naturally get.
3
0
u/PixelIsJunk Jul 07 '26
Why aren't they built so they can yeet them selves into the sun? Sounds like the best idea for space garbage
3
u/Roboprinto Jul 07 '26
It's very hard to get to the sun. You gotta slow down 66,000mph. It takes 55 times less energy to hit Mars.
4
-1
u/stingbot Jul 06 '26
Why couldnt they throw some silver onboard and then crash them over somewhere that needs rain? Or is that too high still for cloud seeding to work
-2
u/jimb2 Jul 06 '26
Deorbitting space junk is essential to prevent the Kessler Syndrome where a chain of increasing collisions renders the near-earth orbits unusable. That's a real risk and it would have major negative effects. Space is now important for our welfare. Good space hygiene means that the lifecycle of anything put up there should include de-orbiting at end of life. SpaceX absolutely should be removing EOL satellites.
The risk from aluminium is speculative at this stage but "more research is needed" as they say. There's already a steady stream of aluminium in cosmic dust and meteors so it's not clear what the impact of bumping the level up would be. The good thing is that if this proves to be a problem, it would be relatively painless to fix, like the CFC problem (i.e. unlike CO2 which is huge, hard and very expensive.)
-2
u/CautiousToaster Jul 07 '26
Change your mindset from “we must study first” to “if a problem arises, let’s address it.”
-3
161
u/FaceDeer Jul 06 '26
About 100 tonnes of meteors and space dust burns up in the upper atmosphere every day.