{"id":9824,"date":"2026-02-27T16:00:18","date_gmt":"2026-02-27T21:00:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/spaceandplanetarynewswire.com\/?p=9824"},"modified":"2026-02-27T16:00:18","modified_gmt":"2026-02-27T21:00:18","slug":"a-new-space-race-could-turn-our-atmosphere-into-a-crematorium-for-satellites","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/spaceandplanetarynewswire.com\/?p=9824","title":{"rendered":"A New Space Race Could Turn Our Atmosphere into a \u2018Crematorium for Satellites\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

Alan Dyer\/Getty Images<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

When we look up at the night sky and see a satellite glide past, we might not consider climate change or the ozone layer.<\/p>\n

Space may feel separate from the environmental systems that sustain life on Earth. But increasingly, the way we build, launch and dispose of satellites is starting to change that.<\/p>\n

Over the past few years, the number of satellite launches has skyrocketed<\/a>. There are now nearly 15,000 active satellites<\/a> in orbit around the Earth, most of them part of \u201cmega-constellations\u201d in which each satellite has a service life of only a few years.<\/p>\n

New satellites must be quickly launched as replacements. To avoid leaving old, dead satellites in Earth\u2019s already-crowded low orbits, most satellite operators deliberately de-orbit them into Earth\u2019s upper atmosphere.<\/p>\n

Here, they burn up or break apart into smaller pieces: a process known as \u201cdemisability\u201d. In effect, satellites have become part of throwaway culture.<\/p>\n

That approach is now being taken to a vastly larger scale. We are concerned about the implications for Earth\u2019s climate and atmosphere.<\/p>\n

A sleeper risk for our climate and ozone layer<\/strong><\/p>\n

Last month, SpaceX applied<\/a> to the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for permission to launch one million more satellites for untested<\/a> \u201cAI data centres\u201d.<\/p>\n

That sheer number isn\u2019t the only issue. SpaceX\u2019s Starlink V2 \u201cmini\u201d satellites<\/a> happen to weigh about 800 kilograms (kg) \u2013 roughly the mass of a small car \u2013 with later versions expected to reach around 1,250 kg. The planned V3 satellites are larger still<\/a>, comparable in scale to a Boeing 737 airliner.<\/p>\n

Rocket launches already contribute to climate change and ozone depletion<\/a>. Scaling them up to deploy a million aircraft-sized satellites would push upper-atmosphere heating and ozone loss far beyond previous estimates<\/a>, with the steady burn-up of dead satellites compounding the impacts.<\/p>\n

This comes as burnt satellite dust is already being found in the atmosphere. In 2023, scientists studying aerosols in the upper atmosphere found metals from re-entering spacecraft<\/a>. Just recently, lithium has been detected<\/a> from the uncontrolled re-entry of a Falcon 9 rocket.<\/p>\n

This is just a fraction of what is to come if planned megaconstellations go ahead \u2013 and SpaceX is far from the only player. Other operators worldwide have already asked for a combined total of over one million satellites<\/a>.<\/p>\n

All the while, the full environmental consequences remain poorly understood because satellite builders rarely disclose what their spacecraft are made of.<\/p>\n

Scientists assume a large fraction is aluminium<\/a>, which burns up into alumina particles, but the exact mix of materials \u2013 and the size of the particles produced \u2013 remains poorly constrained.<\/p>\n

But we know the very smallest particles, finer than a human hair, can stay suspended in the atmosphere for years, contributing<\/a> to ozone depletion and climate change.<\/p>\n

Following similar assumptions to a previous study<\/a>, we estimate that a million satellites could mean that a teragram (one billion kgs) of alumina accumulates in the upper atmosphere \u2013 enough, alongside launch emissions, to significantly alter atmospheric chemistry and heating in dramatic ways we do not yet understand.<\/p>\n

There is no public mandate for a single company in one country to make changes on that scale to the planet\u2019s atmosphere.<\/p>\n

The consequences are not confined to the atmosphere. Not all re-entering satellites burn up; debris is already hitting the ground<\/a> and the chance of a casualty from megaconstellation re-entries is now about 40% per five-year cycle<\/a> \u2013 rising for both people and aircraft<\/a> as more satellites are added to orbit.<\/p>\n

\n
\"Five
These pieces of shredded debris, which came from an expendable trunk module attached to one of SpaceX\u2019s Dragon spacecraft, fell on farmland in Saskatchewan, Canada, in April 2024. Samantha Lawler, CC BY-NC<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/figure>\n

In space, the picture is no less stark: the Outer Space Institute\u2019s CRASH Clock<\/a> suggests a collision would occur within 3.8 days if satellites stopped avoiding each other.<\/p>\n

Many experts agree<\/a> we are in the early stages of the Kessler Syndrome<\/a>: a cascading chain reaction of collisions that multiplies space debris.<\/p>\n

Our skies are not a dumping ground<\/strong><\/p>\n

Our night sky, especially cherished in New Zealand<\/a>, is one of the few things everyone on Earth still shares.<\/p>\n

According to simulations<\/a> built by astronomers, constellations on the scale proposed by SpaceX would fill the sky with many thousands of satellites visible to the naked eye anywhere on Earth. Eventually, there could be more visible satellites than visible stars<\/a>.<\/p>\n

For scientists, observing the deaths of stars<\/a> and searching for new planets<\/a> would become much harder. Stargazing, astrotourism and cultural astronomy<\/a> would similarly be disrupted worldwide.<\/p>\n

All of this means the FCC\u2019s ruling on the SpaceX proposal<\/a>, now open to public submissions<\/a>, could affect everyone \u2013 whether through changes to the atmosphere, growing collision risks in orbit or the loss of an unspoilt night sky.<\/p>\n

One solution being discussed is to dispose of dead satellites in orbits away from Earth. But this would require much more fuel per satellite to escape Earth\u2019s gravity, increasing both payload and the environmental impact of rocket launches. Some debris would still return to Earth<\/a>.<\/p>\n

With SpaceX and others planning rapid expansion, global regulation is needed: in an uncapped system, regulating one firm just shifts the problem elsewhere. As the largest operator, SpaceX is best placed to lead on an environmentally sustainable solution, just as Du Pont did with phasing out CFCs<\/a> in the 1980s.<\/p>\n

A first step is to define a safe atmospheric carrying capacity for satellite launches and re-entries. Environmental assessments should cover the full lifecycle, including atmospheric effects, and address both orbital safety and impacts on cultural and research astronomy<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Whatever the regulatory outcome, using the atmosphere as a crematorium for satellites at this scale cannot be a solution.\"The<\/p>\n

Laura Revell<\/a>, Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry, University of Canterbury<\/a><\/em>; Michele Bannister<\/a>, Associate Professor in Planetary Astronomy, University of Canterbury<\/a><\/em>, and Samantha Lawler<\/a>, Associate Professor, Astronomy, University of Regina<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

When we look up at the night sky and see a satellite glide past, we might not consider climate change or the ozone layer. Space may feel separate from the environmental systems that sustain life on Earth. But increasingly, the way we build, launch and dispose of satellites is starting to change that. Over the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":71,"featured_media":9826,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/images.theconversation.com\/files\/720329\/original\/file-20260225-57-s0sb9m.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[213],"tags":[222],"class_list":["post-9824","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-impact","tag-thedailybrieffriday"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/spaceandplanetarynewswire.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9824","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/spaceandplanetarynewswire.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/spaceandplanetarynewswire.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spaceandplanetarynewswire.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/71"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spaceandplanetarynewswire.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9824"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/spaceandplanetarynewswire.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9824\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9827,"href":"https:\/\/spaceandplanetarynewswire.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9824\/revisions\/9827"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spaceandplanetarynewswire.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/9826"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/spaceandplanetarynewswire.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9824"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spaceandplanetarynewswire.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9824"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spaceandplanetarynewswire.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9824"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}