Satellite 'Megaconstellations' May Jeopardize Recovery of Ozone Hole (phys.org) 90
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org: When old satellites fall into Earth's atmosphere and burn up, they leave behind tiny particles of aluminum oxide, which eat away at Earth's protective ozone layer. A new study finds that these oxides have increased 8-fold between 2016 and 2022 and will continue to accumulate as the number of low-Earth-orbit satellites skyrockets. The 1987 Montreal Protocol successfully regulated ozone-damaging CFCs to protect the ozone layer, shrinking the ozone hole over Antarctica with recovery expected within fifty years. But the unanticipated growth of aluminum oxides may push pause on the ozone success story in decades to come. Of the 8,100 objects in low Earth orbit, 6,000 are Starlink satellites launched in the last few years. Demand for global internet coverage is driving a rapid ramp up of launches of small communication satellite swarms. SpaceX is the frontrunner in this enterprise, with permission to launch another 12,000 Starlink satellites and as many as 42,000 planned. Amazon and other companies around the globe are also planning constellations ranging from 3,000 to 13,000 satellites, the authors of the study said. Internet satellites in low Earth orbit are short-lived, at about five years. Companies must then launch replacement satellites to maintain internet service, continuing a cycle of planned obsolescence and unplanned pollution.
Aluminum oxides spark chemical reactions that destroy stratospheric ozone, which protects Earth from harmful UV radiation. The oxides don't react chemically with ozone molecules, instead triggering destructive reactions between ozone and chlorine that deplete the ozone layer. Because aluminum oxides are not consumed by these chemical reactions, they can continue to destroy molecule after molecule of ozone for decades as they drift down through the stratosphere. Yet little attention has yet been paid to pollutants formed when satellites fall into the upper atmosphere and burn. Earlier studies of satellite pollution largely focused on the consequences of propelling a launch vehicle into space, such as the release of rocket fuel. The new study, by a research team from the University of Southern California Viterbi School of Engineering, is the first realistic estimate of the extent of this long-lived pollution in the upper atmosphere, the authors said. [...]
In 2022, reentering satellites increased aluminum in the atmosphere by 29.5% over natural levels, the researchers found. The modeling showed that a typical 250-kilogram (550-pound) satellite with 30% of its mass being aluminum will generate about 30 kilograms (66 pounds) of aluminum oxide nanoparticles (1-100 nanometers in size) during its reentry plunge. Most of these particles are created in the mesosphere, 50-85 kilometers (30-50 miles) above Earth's surface. The team then calculated that based on particle size, it would take up to 30 years for the aluminum oxides to drift down to stratospheric altitudes, where 90% of Earth's ozone is located. The researchers estimated that by the time the currently planned satellite constellations are complete, every year, 912 metric tons of aluminum (1,005 U.S. tons) will fall to Earth. That will release around 360 metric tons (397 U.S. tons) of aluminum oxides per year to the atmosphere, an increase of 646% over natural levels. The study is published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
Aluminum oxides spark chemical reactions that destroy stratospheric ozone, which protects Earth from harmful UV radiation. The oxides don't react chemically with ozone molecules, instead triggering destructive reactions between ozone and chlorine that deplete the ozone layer. Because aluminum oxides are not consumed by these chemical reactions, they can continue to destroy molecule after molecule of ozone for decades as they drift down through the stratosphere. Yet little attention has yet been paid to pollutants formed when satellites fall into the upper atmosphere and burn. Earlier studies of satellite pollution largely focused on the consequences of propelling a launch vehicle into space, such as the release of rocket fuel. The new study, by a research team from the University of Southern California Viterbi School of Engineering, is the first realistic estimate of the extent of this long-lived pollution in the upper atmosphere, the authors said. [...]
In 2022, reentering satellites increased aluminum in the atmosphere by 29.5% over natural levels, the researchers found. The modeling showed that a typical 250-kilogram (550-pound) satellite with 30% of its mass being aluminum will generate about 30 kilograms (66 pounds) of aluminum oxide nanoparticles (1-100 nanometers in size) during its reentry plunge. Most of these particles are created in the mesosphere, 50-85 kilometers (30-50 miles) above Earth's surface. The team then calculated that based on particle size, it would take up to 30 years for the aluminum oxides to drift down to stratospheric altitudes, where 90% of Earth's ozone is located. The researchers estimated that by the time the currently planned satellite constellations are complete, every year, 912 metric tons of aluminum (1,005 U.S. tons) will fall to Earth. That will release around 360 metric tons (397 U.S. tons) of aluminum oxides per year to the atmosphere, an increase of 646% over natural levels. The study is published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
So, I read the paper (Score:5, Interesting)
And while there seems to be a lot of great effort put into the breakup modeling, there's basically no effort put into discussing what a 646%-increase over natural levels means in terms of how much ozone depletion could be expected. Many things deplete ozone, and alumium oxide is not one thing that even makes the list. How does this amount compare to, say, CFCs? HCFCs? Halons? Methyl chloroform? Hydrogen? Nitrous oxide? Chlorine and bromine from volcanic eruptions and marine sources? Solar activity? Wildfires? Exactly what does a 646% increase in alumium oxide mean for ozone depletion? They sadly don't go into that.
Note that the paper focuses solely on alumium entering Earth, while alumium is a lesser component of most natural mass influx, something like 3% or so. Most of the influx is oxygen, followed by silicon, magnesium, iron and calcium. So even the full scales of planned megaconstellations lead to relatively small increases in total influx. Still, it's very good that there's modeling work underway on this - we've certainly learned not to underestimate our ability to alter the planet by accident. And if Starship gets even close to its design launch costs, people's plans for LEO might get much, much bigger.
Honestly, I rather expect that SpaceX, once Starship gets up and running reliably, will do "Round #2" of creating business for itself (ala Starlink) by building a (potentially toroidal) space habitat made out of numerous identical segments sized for Starship's payload bay and linked end-to-end in orbit. I did the math on it a while back and real estate inside would be priced quite affordably if Starship's launch costs are as-planned. Like, a "low-end" segment potentially at "downtown apartment in a large city" per-square-meter costs. So even if cost inflation is by an order of magnitude or two, I'm sure they could occupy it.
That's a roundabout way of saying: people's plans for Low Earth Orbit may grow significantly, and so influx plans may as well.
Re: (Score:3)
"I'm sure they could occupy it."
Maybe, maybe not. So far space stations have been little more than metaphorical flag planting by the countries concerned though they justify them with some frankly risible "science". There's zero political capital to be gained for country to rent some habitat from Musk and its unlikely many commercial ventures would want or need it either unless some amazing new tech comes along that can only be developed in microgravity.
Re: (Score:2)
What do "countries" have to do with anything? I'm talking individuals. People who want to live in space (permanently, temporarily, or just as a vacation). 80 million people in the world have a net worth of ~$3M or greater. It doesn't take a very large percent to want to spend time in space to fully occupy a several-thousand-person space station.
Re: (Score:3)
Just to expand a bit more on what $10/kg to LEO enables:
* NASA's plans for a 74-passenger variant of the Space Shuttle imply 325kg mass to orbit per passenger. Going with that ratio, $10/kg implies (before profit) a ticket price of $3250.
* A typical loaf of bread is about half flour, half water (by mass), with about 400g of flour. Water is recycled. The launch cost for the flour for the loaf of bread is $2,50.
* Launching a 200t habitat ring segment (a full launch) is $2M in launch c
Re: (Score:2)
ED: The pricing figures were pre-inflation and pre-Starship expansion, so probably best to tack on another 50% for the "goal" - before tacking on whatever factor you expect for price growth beyond the goal, and profit atop that.
Re: (Score:2)
Usually you would just specify "2020 dollars" or some other fixed point that would automatically cancel out inflation so you don't have to worry about it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No sane person is going to want to live in a tin can in space and as for holidays - yeah , right. There's only so long you can stare out of a window before extreme boredom sets in. Maybe a night here or there but re-entry vehicles arn't cheap and can't be made in that quantity anyway.
To to rejoin the real world mate, not some sci fi fantasy dreamworld you seem to be living in.
Re:So, I read the paper (Score:5, Interesting)
Getting your news from TikTok is... pretty ridiculous to think of some rando on TT as a trusted news source YET apparently X number of Americans are doing just that. (based on an article posted here in the last week or two.)
So, 100%... a ton of rich dummies are going to want to vacation and live in orbit.
I know people who have spent 50,000 to 100,000 on a vacation... so whats the diff?
The novelty alone will attract lots of people with that kind of disposable money.
Sanity isn't as popular as it once was.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's a huge difference between a long stay and a couple of days.
Going up, floating around in zero g and returning after 1-2 'nights' could be interesting but after that? To do what? Going on vacation means seeing new things all day every day, new people, food, sights, sounds, experiences. After, say, the first 12 hours in space in a big can, what more can a civilian experience?
Re: (Score:2)
There's going to be the novelty for sure.. but you have a good point.. from what I've read you get headaches and swelling in the legs and stuff like that... doesn't sound very attractive to me.. and I suspect you're right that once you experience that.. you may find it not so great.
I won't be going thats' for sure, would have been interested when I was younger, but theres no novelty in suffering for me anymore
Re: (Score:3)
A toroid can be spun to create artificial gravity. Of course there's a balance to be struck, since there's two main things people want from space: seeing the Earth / space from above (check), and zero-G (not check). This can however be addressed by adding spokes to the design and a central hub, which also simplifies transport and docking, with the hub at low-to-zero G. Spokes also simplify movement and increase livable space, since you don't have to leave hallways / crawlways within the toroid.
Indeed, I t
Re: (Score:2)
Zero-G sex. Lots and lots of zero-G sex. It's like asking "what are you gonna do on Spring Break for a whole week, can't you get in all your partying in two or three days?"
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I understood that to be a key part of the experience but even spring breakers do more than just fuck all week.
Re: (Score:3)
"I know people who have spent 50,000 to 100,000 on a vacation... so whats the diff?"
Given each time someone comes back it uses up a launch module I'd put the price somewhere between $10^7 and $10^8 even if 2 people share the ride back.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure when they were proposing, but the rocket cos are keen to get the price down and blow alot of pollutants into the atmosphere on a daily basis.
Re: (Score:2)
Virgin use a rocket powered plane to go sub orbital for 20 mins. Its not comparable.
Re: (Score:2)
save your money and buy a house
well... down payment anywyas
Re: (Score:2)
Starship doesn't get "used up". It is completely reusable.
That's exactly how SpaceX plans to bring spaceflight costs down by a couple orders of magnitude. They won't be throwing any part of the rocket away.
Re: So, I read the paper (Score:3)
I woulding climb into a submarine that some idiot built and pilots himself. But there are enough rich people lacking in basic self preservation to make even insane projects profitable. And at the very least thereis some solid engineering behind SpaceX, even if the marketing concept is looney.
Re: (Score:2)
We work IN technology, and know the so many flaws, bugs, the drawbacks... a ton of people have blind acceptance of all new stuff... the submarine thing gives me the shivers! aaeeeeeeeee. But we have AI all over the tech news and there seems to be a lot of blind agreement over there too. I doubt it's going well, beyond the fund raising. The predators are leading the willing sheep hungry for something new. I basically only trust what I built, because that's what works, and I can de
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm understanding the chemistry right, all this does is frontload the damaging effects of the various chlorine-based compounds while removing them from the ozone layer faster.
Re: (Score:2)
LEO is not very prone to Kessler Syndrome, and wouldn't be even if we hadn't gotten far better about deliberate disposal rates, which we have. Starlink satellites have to nearly continuously thrust with ion thrusters in order to maintain their altitudes. Their lifespans are so short because they run out of propellant to do so.
Re:So, I read the paper (Score:4, Insightful)
LEO is not very prone to Kessler Syndrome, and wouldn't be even if we hadn't gotten far better about deliberate disposal rates, which we have. Starlink satellites have to nearly continuously thrust with ion thrusters in order to maintain their altitudes. Their lifespans are so short because they run out of propellant to do so.
And nothing you’ve stated addresses the parents point, since it is all based on assumptions that every other sat around the globe will behave the same as a single known model. Or that America will even know it goes up, or in what quantities before NORAD starts tracking another 1,000 unplanned objects.
Disposal rates might increase as the number of companies throwing shit into LEO increases, but that assumes they give a shit enough to dispose. Also haven’t dealt with a mini-sat company going bankrupt yet and leaving all their shit behind, or the laws we need to prevent shit being left behind. You know what happens when we assume..
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the point. Kessler syndrome is about junk staying in orbit. Things as low as Starlink satellites don't stay in orbit. They rapidly enter and are lost. Whether you're talking about whole satellites or random bits of space junk.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You missed the point. Kessler syndrome is about junk staying in orbit. Things as low as Starlink satellites don't stay in orbit. They rapidly enter and are lost. Whether you're talking about whole satellites or random bits of space junk.
We are putting things into orbit for a purpose, which gets refreshed constantly with new inventory and will continue to grow in unknown numbers (read “other companies”). It obviously stays in orbit long enough to be worth the effort to put it there. Kessler syndrome is a problem that is more and more relying on sheer luck to avoid the more we push it. That problem can manifest whether it’s too much viable equipment, too much junk, or both. We’re doing little to prevent it other t
Re: (Score:2)
By means of continuous thrusting to stay in orbit. And even then, only a few years.
Kessler syndrome isn't about "junk stays in orbit for a few months to a couple years before decaying". It's about junk lasting decades, centuries, or longer.
Correct, it's many orbits. And these constellations are by and large going in particularly low orbits. 2/3ds of Starlink satellites are in 340-360km orbits. Things
Re: (Score:2)
By means of continuous thrusting to stay in orbit. And even then, only a few years.
Kessler syndrome isn't about "junk stays in orbit for a few months to a couple years before decaying". It's about junk lasting decades, centuries, or longer.
Wrong. Kessler was worried that too much volume in orbit could cause collisions that would increase up to an exponential problem preventing anything from getting through or even operating in orbit if the Event grew large enough. That could be triggered by any one object in orbit hitting another object. Thrust or longevity has nothing to do with playing those odds, because ALL space hardware still flies within the orbit of Shit Happens.
Kessler is synonymous with World War III. It isn’t about measur
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What part of "it's all gone in a couple months to a couple years even if you were to let it build up to that level, which is extremely hard in the first place given how quickly debris is dragged to lower than your orbit" is hard for you?
Re: (Score:2)
What part of "it's all gone in a couple months to a couple years even if you were to let it build up to that level, which is extremely hard in the first place given how quickly debris is dragged to lower than your orbit" is hard for you?
What part of “other companies” being an unknown variable is hard on the math? Who is stopping it from getting to “that” level (meaning who has the power to stop others)? Do you hold the now-known finite limit on Greed? Please share. A few thousand years of humanity has shown it quite ignorantly infinite.
Allow me to simplify. Humans absolutely suck at predicting the future. See history and hindsight. Unknown variables just make it that much harder. All Kessler requires, is tha
Re: (Score:2)
And nothing you’ve stated addresses the parents point, since it is all based on assumptions that every other sat around the globe will behave the same as a single known model.
Except that assumption is very well founded. The behaviour of this single model is not some arbitrary design decision, but an engineering necessity of keeping a satellite in low earth orbit. Most traditional satellites are not in low earth orbit for this reason. Anything in low earth orbit will de-orbit itself without continuous thrust due to the drag of earth's atmosphere. It's not a question of shits given, disposal rates *definitely will increase* as the number of companies throwing shit to LEO increases
Re: (Score:2)
Other communications providers so far have opted to use fewer satellites in higher orbits, yielding the latency crown to Starlink but keeping their own costs considerably lower.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that low levels of ozone were measured in Antarctica in the winter reported by the researchers who made the conducted the observations was not a lie
The claims made by politicians and mass media platforms that the conditions which produced those outcomes could be replicated outside the very specific circumstances of Antarctica in the winter were entirely fabricated.
Re: (Score:1)
They were there, these articles? So you could reference them in an argument like this on
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You heard it here first folks: there's no such thing as permanent night/twilight north of the arctic circle during northern hemisphere winter.
Details are wrong [Re:So, I read the paper] (Score:4, Insightful)
They don't go into it because ozone depletion is a fake problem that never existed in the first place.
Incorrect. It seems like a "fake" problem because we solved it .
(Do remember that when the ozone-destroying properties of chlorofluorocarbon compounds was first understood, the main use of CFCs wasn't in air conditioners-- it was in spray cans. We sprayed literally millions of tons of CFCs directly into the atmosphere.)
If they go too deeply into details that will draw more attention to the issue they'll give the game away. Ozone is formed by the interaction between ultraviolet light and regular oxygen and depleted (turned back into regular oxygen) when it interacts with ultraviolet light.
Close. So the amount in the atmosphere depends directly on the rate at which it is produced divided by the rate at which it is destroyed.
But you are leaving out key details, for example, it depends on the wavelength of the UV, and the second half of your sentence should be "depleted (turned back into regular oxygen) when it interacts with ultraviolet light in the presence of catalysts.
It's an equilibrium reaction that can only be stopped by either removing the oxygen or removing the ultraviolet light.
Close. It's an equilibrium reaction where the equilibrium depends on the rate at which it is produced divided by the rate at which it is destroyed.
When there are chemicals promoting the ozone breakdown side of the equation all that means is the UV light penetrates slightly deeper and the ozone-forming interactions occur at a slightly lower altitute.
Unfortunately, leaving out all the details leaves out the ability to do the correct calculation. Oxygen absorbs UV and creates zone, ozone blocks UV, and ozone is destroyed by UV (in the presence of catalyst), but they are different wavelengths of UV, and there is a strong pressure dependence.
But more simply, you're ignoring the fact that the amount of ozone is proportional to the creation rate divided by the destruction rate. If you increase the destruction rate, the amount is reduced. Saying "the ozone is produced at a slightly lower altitude" does not change that.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the main uses of CFCs, after they stopped being produced but while some businesses still had licenses to use their existing stocks, was as the delivery gas for asthma inhalers. They got considerably less effective when the CFC reserves ran out, although the people relying on inhalers did get a couple years' warning about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry I committed heresy against your religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I would like to see your math (Score:1)
The real problem with starlink is that not every one of those satellites comes down and we are in a real danger of trapping ourselves on this planet because we've just put too much junk in space and we can't launch anything anymore. But is a spec
Thou shalt not speak ill (Score:2)
I got some Karma to burn, so I'm just gonna have a nice laugh right now at all the Muskheads who are gonna lose their shirts in a few years when Tesla collapses. Don't believe me? What do you think happens to a car company that needs a $7500 gov't subsidy to make a profit when that subsidy goes away and their CEO has extracted $55b from the company right when it needs it most to update their 5 year old platform following a disastrous Truck launch?
Her
Re: (Score:2)
Please short Tesla. You'll definitely do better than all the TSLAQ people who have been writing the same thing for the past decade ;)
On a side note, if you do take the tongue-in-cheek advice above: don't short via puts or short shares. By stock and then write covered calls well below the current SP. Why? It's also a short position (it's a bet that the stock is on route to being approximately the strike price of whatever calls you wrote around the expiry date of those calls), but the latter gets you a lo
Re: (Score:2)
If it's acting as a catalyst, it wouldn't be on the list because it doesn't have a direct effect on its own. What it's doing is speeding up reactions that were already happening. Whether this has an ongoing effect or just one-time as the levels of the other chemicals that react with it reach a new equilibrium is probably unknown.
Re: (Score:2)
It’s worth noting that SpaceX could completely remove aluminum from the satellites if this turns out to be a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless building a "ring habitat" is in the cards, there might be push back against further satellite launches unless the launcher is willing to commit to changing the material's it's made of that affect the ozone layer.
sky (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The damage is on a 30-year delay. That's how long it takes from the time the satellite deorbits until the particles reach the ozone layer. Also, taking the satellites down is kinda what the problem is.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they last 5 years because that's when they run out of fuel. Somebody might eventually figure out a way to re-fuel them. It's is currently cheaper to just let them crash I think.
Re: (Score:2)
There are 6078 Starlink satellites in orbit. How much does the night's sky look like a static moving grid to you?
At an optimal position for reflecting light to you, Starlink satellites are about magnitude 6; the average Starlink satellite will appear 1-2 magnitudes higher than that at any given point in time.
To even have a chance at seeing a mag 6 Starlink satellite (excluding those recently launched which are heading to their orbits, which are much brighter), assuming you have excellent vision, you first
Re: (Score:2)
ED: sorry, not a trillion - magnitudes aren't log10, they're 2.512x. 12 orders of magnitude difference is 63130.
But still, 12 orders of magnitude is a lot: there's only 6 orders of magnitude difference between ISS's peak magnitude and the full moon, and 14,2 between the full moon and the sun.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you're seeing is almost certainly not Starlink satellites, if they're bright enough to be noticeable. Starlink satellites are - except shortly after launch** - "strain your eyes in an optimal location to try to catch the faintest of glimpses of them". If that's not what you're describing, you're seeing something else. For example, BlueWalker 3 - an experimental cell phone communication satellite - has ~60 square meters of solar panels which can reflect light straight at Earth, and when doing so is br
Re: sky (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we could do something like run fiber optic cables and set up cell towers.
I'm not saying it's aliens, but... (Score:2)
> If you see something bright moving across the night's sky, it's almost certainly not Starlink
It's aliens.
Re: (Score:2)
Anything that prevents them from blotting out the stars and making the sky into a bunch of statically moving grids is a good thing.
Capitalist Greed, doesn’t even acknowledge Profit or Purpose in astronomy, and offers about as much respect or concern. Maybe a multi-trillionaire will find Guilt on their death bed so that they may donate a few dollars to the stars they covered for profit.
Quite an odor of concern trolling. (Score:1, Troll)
The media screamed its 90-IQ heads off about satellite albedo interfering with astronomy, which led almost immediately to the entire issue being obviated. Then it started fantasizing about Kessler syndromes, so orbits were lowered to reduce the likely downtime of disabled sats. Now the problem is reentr
Re:Quite an odor of concern trolling. (Score:5, Informative)
Reentry pollution is a real problem if the numbers increase as they are projected to do. There are however some efforts to decrease it, for instance experimenting with using wooden cases [directindustry.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Astronomy IS interfered with. They just have to have a massive list of all the satellites and track their position to avoid recording bad data.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're doing great on not reflecting as much sunlight, but that still doesn't change the fact that they literally have to transmit data in a frequency range that interferes with actual data being gathered. This is not something that can be fixed with the design. You have to specifically ignore sensor data for pixels during the time the satellite is passing over. There's plenty of sensor data ignoring that brief moment, but if you don't ignore it it will contaminate the results.
Decoding and tracking satel
Compare with meteorites and space dust infall (Score:3, Interesting)
The first point that is not discussed should be to compare the daily mass of satellites burning in the upper atmosphere with the daily 5-300 tons of meteorites and interplanetary dust that do the same.
Re: Compare with meteorites and space dust infall (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Come-on, dont confuse the matter with facts.
What fact? The point is being discussed and deubunked right in TFS. Rather than jumping on any comment regardless of how ignorant that you agree with, try reading the summary or... (yeah I know, Slashdot) the fucking article. You may learn something and look less like someone who is "me too!"'ing ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they have clearly no idea how much more meteoritic material is added to the atmosphere, of order of 100 times more what they estimate.
Re: (Score:2)
Good to hear from yet another contrarian f^ckwit who wouldn't even bother to read the summary, much less the actual article it links to.
Re: (Score:2)
Typical space rocks are mostly iron-nickel, not much aluminum.
Re: (Score:2)
From TFA:
Re: (Score:2)
You think the apocalypse will be caused by Starlink?
Why not by packs of angry kittens? Just as likely.
Re: (Score:2)
You think the apocalypse will be caused by Starlink?
Why not by packs of angry kittens? Just as likely.
And just as likely to be launched into orbit by Musk, too...
Nature (Score:2)
It's the Chlorine. (Score:2)
Our current bans on the production of CFCs is aimed at reducing a class of molecules that are responsible for transporting chlorine into the upper atmosphere. Where UV radiation breaks it down, releasing chlorine atoms which in turn destroy ozone. Bans in place, everyone has been patting themselves on the back over the reduction of CFCs, upper atmosphere chlorine and ozone destruction.Job well done.
Now, it appears that aluminum oxide from satellite re-entries can catalyze (Please, not "spark". We're all ad
Montreal Protocol is a coverup (Score:2)
Now analyze the consequences to Ozone from atmospheric nuclear detonations with mushroom clouds billowing up into this stratosphere.
I think it is 5 kilotons of Nitric oxide per megaton of explosive yield.
NO + O3 --> NO2 + O2
NO2 + O --> NO + O2
net O + O3 --> 2O2
Enough tonnage was detonated to destroy every molecule of Ozone 4x over in this catalytic reaction.
One way to mitigate the damage might be to crack down on Nitric oxide emissions from automobiles, to ban chlorofluorocarbons (and pin it on the