\n<\/p>\n
On a recent mid-November evening, at precisely 7:12 p.m., a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket lifted off from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station on the Florida coast. It appeared to be a perfect launch. At an altitude of about 40 miles, the rocket\u2019s first stage separated and fell back to Earth, eventually alighting in a gentle, controlled landing on a SpaceX ship idling in the Atlantic Ocean. The mission\u2019s focus then returned to the rocket\u2019s payload: 29 Starlink communication satellites that were to be deployed in low-Earth orbit, about 340 miles above the planet\u2019s surface. With this new fleet of machines, Starlink was expanding its existing mega-constellation so that it numbered over 9,000 satellites, all circling Earth at about 17,000 miles per hour.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Launches like this have become commonplace. As of late November, SpaceX had sent up 152 Falcon 9 missions in 2025 \u2014 an annual record for the company. And while SpaceX is the undisputed leader in rocket launches, the space economy now ranges beyond American endeavors to involve orbital missions \u2014 military, scientific, and corporate \u2014 originating from Europe, China, Russia, India, Israel, Japan, and South Korea. This year the global total of orbital launches will near 300 for the first time, and there seems little doubt it will continue to climb. \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cWe are now in this regime where we are doing something new to the atmosphere that hasn\u2019t been done before,\u201d a scientist says.<\/p>\n
Starlink has sought permission from the Federal Communications Commission to expand its swarm, which at this point comprises the vast majority of Earth\u2019s active satellites, so that it might within a few years have as many as 42,000 units in orbit. Blue Origin, the rocket company led by Jeff Bezos, is in the early stages of helping to deploy a satellite network for Amazon, a constellation of about 3,000 units known as Amazon Leo. European companies, such as France\u2019s Eutelsat, plan to expand space-based networks, too.<\/p>\n
Subscribe to the E360 Newsletter for weekly updates delivered to your inbox. Sign Up.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019re now at 12,000 active satellites, and it was 1,200 a decade ago, so it\u2019s just incredible,\u201d Jonathan MacDowell, a scientist at Harvard and the Smithsonian who has been\u00a0tracking space launches for several decades, told me recently. MacDowell notes that based on applications to communications agencies, as well as on corporate projections, the satellite business will continue to grow at an extraordinary rate. By 2040, it\u2019s conceivable that more than 100,000 active satellites would be circling Earth.<\/p>\n
But counting the number of launches and satellites has so far proven easier than measuring their impacts. For the past decade, astronomers have been calling attention to whether so much activity high above might compromise their opportunities to study distant objects in the night sky. At the same time, other scientists have concentrated on the physical dangers. Several studies project a growing likelihood of collisions and space debris \u2014 debris that could rain down on Earth or, in rare\u00a0cases, on cruising airplanes.<\/p>\n
A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket at takeoff. SpaceX now has more than 9,000 Starlink satellites orbiting the Earth.<\/span> More recently, however, scientists have become alarmed by two other potential problems: the emissions from rocket fuels, and the emissions from satellites and rocket stages that mostly ablate (that is, burn up) on reentry. \u201cBoth of these processes are producing pollutants that are being injected into just about every layer of the atmosphere,\u201d explains Eloise Marais, an atmospheric scientist at University College London, who\u00a0compiles emissions data on launches and reentries.\u00a0<\/p>\n As Marais told me, it\u2019s crucial to understand that Starlink\u2019s satellites, as well as those of other commercial ventures, don\u2019t stay up indefinitely. With a lifetime usefulness of about five years, they are regularly deorbited and replaced by others. The new satellite business thus has a cyclical quality: launch; deploy; deorbit; destroy. And then repeat.\u00a0<\/p>\n The cycle suggests we are using Earth\u2019s mesosphere and stratosphere \u2014 the layers above the surface-hugging troposphere \u2014 as an incinerator dump for space machinery. Or as Jonathan MacDowell puts it: \u201cWe are now in this regime where we are doing something new to the atmosphere that hasn\u2019t been done before.\u201d MacDowell and some of his colleagues seem to agree that we don\u2019t yet understand how \u2014 or how much \u2014 the reentries and launches will alter the air. As a result, we\u2019re unsure what the impacts may be to Earth\u2019s weather, climate, and (ultimately) its inhabitants.\u00a0<\/p>\n A satellite component burns up in a wind tunnel as part of a test to understand how it would disintegrate upon reentering the atmosphere.<\/span> To consider low-Earth orbit within an emerging environmental framework, it helps to see it as an interrelated\u00a0system of cause and effect. As with any system, trying to address one problematic issue might lead to another. A long-held idea, for instance, has been to \u201cdesign for demise,\u201d in the argot of aerospace engineers, which means constructing a satellite with the intention it should not survive the heat of reentry. \u201cBut there\u2019s an unforeseen consequence of your solution unless you have a grasp of how things are connected,\u201d according to Hugh Lewis, a professor of astronautics at the University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom. In reducing \u201cthe population of debris\u201d with incineration, Lewis told me \u2014 and thus, with rare exceptions, saving us from encounters with falling chunks of satellites or rocket stages \u2014 we seem to have chosen \u201cprobably the most harmful solution you could get from a perspective of the atmosphere.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n The upper atmosphere is cooling, prompting new climate concerns. Read more.<\/p>\n We don\u2019t understand the material composition of everything that\u2019s burning up. Yet scientists have traced a variety of elements that are vaporizing in the mesosphere during the deorbits of satellites and derelict rocket stages; and they\u2019ve concluded these vaporized materials \u2014 as a recent\u00a0study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences\u00a0(PNAS) put it \u2014 \u201ccondense into aerosol particles that descend into the stratosphere.\u201d The PNAS study, done by high altitude air sampling and not by modeling, showed that these tiny particles contained aluminum, silicon, copper, lead, lithium, and more exotic elements like niobium. The large presence of aluminum, signaling the formulation of aluminum oxide nanoparticles, may be especially worrisome, since it can harm Earth\u2019s protective ozone layers and may undo our progress in halting damage done by chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs. A recent academic study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters concluded that the ablation of a single 550-pound satellite (a new Starlink unit is larger, at about 1,800 pounds) can generate around 70 pounds of aluminum oxide nanoparticles. This floating metallic pollution may stay aloft for decades.\u00a0<\/p>\n The layers of the atmosphere.<\/span> The PNAS study and others, moreover, suggest the human footprint on the upper atmosphere will expand, especially as the total mass of machinery being incinerated ratchets up. Several scientists I spoke with noted that they have revised their previous belief that the effects of ablating satellites would not exceed those of meteorites that naturally burn up in the atmosphere and leave metallic traces in the stratosphere. \u201cYou might have more mass from the meteoroids,\u201d Aaron Boley, an astronomer at the University of British Columbia, said, but \u201cthese satellites can still have a huge effect because they\u2019re so vastly different [in composition].\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Last year, a group of researchers affiliated with NASA formulated a\u00a0course of research that could be followed to fill large \u201cknowledge gaps\u201d relating to these atmospheric effects. The team proposed a program of modeling that would be complemented by data gleaned from in situ measurements. While some of this information could be gathered through high-altitude airplane flights, sampling the highest-ranging air might require \u201csounding\u201d rockets doing tests with suborbital flights. Such work is viewed as challenging and not inexpensive \u2014 but also necessary. \u201cUnless you have the data from the field, you cannot trust your simulations too much,\u201d Columbia University\u2019s Kostas Tsigaridis, one of the scientists on the NASA team, told me.\u00a0<\/p>\n It seems increasingly clear that rocket emission plumes, like reentries, will have a significant effect on the ozone layer.<\/p>\n Tsigaridis explains that lingering uncertainty about NASA\u2019s future expenditures on science has slowed U.S. momentum for such research. One bright spot, however, has been overseas, where ESA, the European Space Agency, held an international\u00a0workshop in September to address some of the knowledge gaps, particularly those relating to satellite ablations. The ESA meeting resulted in a commitment to begin field measurement campaigns over the next 24 months, Adam Mitchell, an engineer with the agency, said. The effort suggests a sense of urgency, in Europe, at least, that the space industry\u2019s growth is outpacing our ability to grasp its implications.<\/p>\n The atmospheric pollution problem is not only about what\u2019s raining down from above, however; it also relates to what happens as rockets go up. According to the calculations of Marais\u2019 UCL team, the quantity of heat-trapping gases like CO2 produced during liftoffs are still tiny in comparison to, say, those of commercial airliners. On the other hand, it seems increasingly clear that rocket emission plumes from the first few minutes of a mission, which disperse into the stratosphere, may, like reentries, have a significant effect on the ozone layer.\u00a0<\/p>\n A test flight of a SpaceX Starship.<\/span> The most common rocket fuel right now is a highly refined kerosene known as RP-1, which is used by vehicles such as SpaceX\u2019s Falcon 9. When RP-1 is burned in conjunction with liquid oxygen, the process releases black carbon particulates into the stratosphere. A recent\u00a0study led by Christopher Maloney of the University of Colorado used computer models to assess how the black carbon absorbs solar radiation and whether it can warm the upper atmosphere significantly. Based on space industry growth projections a few decades into the future, these researchers concluded that the warming effect of black carbon would raise temperatures in the stratosphere by as much as 1.5 degrees C, leading to significant ozone reductions in the Northern Hemisphere.<\/p>\n It may be the case that a different propellant could alleviate potential problems. But a fix isn\u2019t as straightforward as it seems. Solid fuels, for instance, which are often used in rocket boosters to provide additional thrust, emit chlorine \u2014 another ozone-destroying element. Meanwhile, the propellant of the future looks to be formulations of liquefied natural gas (LNG), often referred to as liquid methane. Liquid methane will be used to power SpaceX\u2019s massive Starship, a new vehicle that\u2019s intended to be used for satellite deployments, moon missions, and, possibly someday, treks to Mars.\u00a0<\/p>\n SpaceX executives have said they would like to build a new Starship every day, readying for a near-constant cycle of launches.<\/p>\n The amount of black carbon emissions from burning LNG may be 75 percent less than from RP-1. \u201cBut the issue is that the Starship rocket is so much bigger,\u201d UCL\u2019s Marais says. \u201cThere\u2019s so much more mass that\u2019s being launched.\u201d Thus, while liquid methane might burn cleaner, using immense quantities of it \u2014 and using it for more frequent launches \u2014 could undermine its advantages. Recently, executives at SpaceX\u2019s Texas factory have\u00a0said they would like to build a new Starship every day, readying the company for a near-constant cycle of launches.<\/p>\n One worry amongst scientists is that if new research suggests that space pollution is leading to serious impacts, it may eventually resemble an airborne\u00a0variation of plastics in the ocean. A more optimistic view is that these are the early days of the space business, and there is still time for solutions. Some of the recent work at ESA, for instance, focuses on changing the \u201cdesign for demise\u201d paradigm for satellites to what some scientists are calling \u201cdesign to survive.\u201d Already, several firms are testing satellites that can get through an reentry without burning up; a company called\u00a0Atmos, for instance, is working on an inflatable \u201catmospheric decelerator\u201d that serves as a heat shield and parachute to bring cargo to Earth. Satellites might be built from safer materials, such as one tested in 2024 by Japan\u2019s space agency, JAXA, made mostly from\u00a0wood.\u00a0<\/p>\n An inflatable heat shield developed by ATMOS Space Cargo to help return payloads safely to Earth.<\/span> More ambitious plans are being discussed: Former NASA engineer Moriba Jah has\u00a0outlined a design for an orbital \u201ccircular economy\u201d that calls for \u201cthe development and operation of reusable and recyclable satellites, spacecraft, and space infrastructure.\u201d In Jah\u2019s vision, machines used in the space economy should be built in a modular way, so that parts can be disassembled, conserved, and reused. Anything of negligible worth would be disposed of responsibly.<\/p>\n Most scientists I spoke with believe that a deeper recognition of environmental responsibilities could rattle the developing structure of the space business. \u201cRegulations often translate into additional costs,\u201d says UCL\u2019s Marais, \u201cand that\u2019s an issue, especially when you\u2019re privatizing space.\u201d A shift to building satellites that can survive reentry, for instance, could change the economics of an industry that, as astronomer Aaron Boley notes, has been created to\u00a0resemble the disposable nature of the consumer electronics business.<\/p>\n Boley also warns that technical solutions are likely only one aspect of avoiding dangers and will not address all the complexities of overseeing low-Earth orbit as a shared and delicate system. It seems possible to Boley that in addition to new fuels, satellite designs, and reentry schemes, we may need to look toward quotas that require international management agreements. He acknowledges that this may seem \u201cpie in the sky\u201d; while there are treaties for outer space, as well as United Nations guidelines, they don\u2019t address such governance issues. Moreover, the emphasis in most countries is on accelerating the space economy, not limiting it. And yet, Boley argues that without collective-action policy responses we may end up with orbital shells so crowded that they exceed a safe carrying capacity.\u00a0<\/p>\n Source: Jonathan McDowell.<\/span> That wouldn\u2019t be good for the environment or society \u2014 but it wouldn\u2019t be good for the space business, either. Such concerns may be why those in the industry increasingly discuss a set of principles, supported by NASA, that are often grouped around the idea of \u201cspace sustainability.\u201d University of Edinburgh astronomer Andrew Lawrence told me that the phrase can be used in a way that makes it unclear what we\u2019re sustaining: \u201cIf you look at the mission statements that companies make, what they mean is, we want to sustain this rate of growth.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n But he doesn\u2019t think we can. As one of the more eloquent academics\u00a0arguing for space environmentalism, Lawrence perceives an element of unreality in the belief that in accelerating space activity we can \u201cmagically not screw everything up.\u201d He thinks a goal in space for zero emissions, or zero impact, would be more sensible. And with recent private-sector startups suggesting that we should use space to\u00a0build big data centers or\u00a0increase sunlight on surface areas of Earth, he worries we are not entering an era of sustainability but a period of crisis.<\/p>\n The \u2018internet of animals\u2019 could transform what we know about wildlife. Read more.<\/p>\n Lawrence considers debates around orbital satellites a high-altitude variation on climate change and threats to biodiversity \u2014 an instance, again, of trying to seek a balance between capitalism and conservation, between growth and restraint. \u201cOf course, it affects me and other professional astronomers and amateur astronomers particularly badly,\u201d he concedes. \u201cBut it\u2019s really that it just wakes you up and you think, \u2018Oh, God, it\u2019s another thing. I thought, you know \u2014 I thought we were safe.\u2019\u201d After a pause, he adds, \u201cBut no, we\u2019re not.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" On a recent mid-November evening, at precisely 7:12 p.m., a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket lifted off from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station on the Florida coast. It appeared to be a perfect launch. At an altitude of about 40 miles, the rocket\u2019s first stage separated and fell back to Earth, eventually alighting in a gentle,<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":35793,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[50],"tags":[191,982,15519,384,2229,1952],"class_list":{"0":"post-35792","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-environment","8":"tag-emissions","9":"tag-risks","10":"tag-satellites","11":"tag-scientists","12":"tag-surge","13":"tag-warn"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35792","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=35792"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35792\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/35793"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=35792"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=35792"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=35792"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n SpaceX<\/span><\/p>\n
\n European Space Agency<\/span><\/p>\n
\n NASA \u2022 SpaceX \u2022 Adapted by Yale Environment 360<\/span><\/p>\n
\n SpaceX<\/span><\/p>\n
\n ATMOS Space Cargo<\/span><\/p>\n
\n Yale Environment 360<\/span><\/p>\n