Abstract from the paper in the article:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024GL109280
Large constellations of small satellites will significantly increase the number of objects orbiting the Earth. Satellites burn up at the end of service life during reentry, generating aluminum oxides as the main byproduct. These are known catalysts for chlorine activation that depletes ozone in the stratosphere. We present the first atomic-scale molecular dynamics simulation study to resolve the oxidation process of the satellite’s aluminum structure during mesospheric reentry, and investigate the ozone depletion potential from aluminum oxides. We find that the demise of a typical 250-kg satellite can generate around 30 kg of aluminum oxide nanoparticles, which may endure for decades in the atmosphere. Aluminum oxide compounds generated by the entire population of satellites reentering the atmosphere in 2022 are estimated at around 17 metric tons. Reentry scenarios involving mega-constellations point to over 360 metric tons of aluminum oxide compounds per year, which can lead to significant ozone depletion.
PS: wooden satellites can help mitigate this https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01456-z
Yes it went so well with innovation from NASA’s existing practice.
At least they’re not blowing their budget exploding rockets…
No they’re somehow managing to blow it neither launching nor exploding rockets.
They’re blowing it on extra helium to make up for all the blowing helium
And the lesson is that they probably should’ve blown up more rockets on purpose rather than lose them on accident.
The Falcon 9 has the largest number of successful launches of any rocket ever by a large margin.
lol
I mean you can giggle at the turn of phrase, but clearly what is meant is to be more willing to tolerate risk. Very clearly that’s been a much shorter path to success than the one NASA took.
You can be more direct with it. Going out and doing something you know will fail is failing on purpose. SpaceX fails on purpose sometimes. They don’t just tolerate the risk of it; they set up cameras and other sensors and push their systems to failure on purpose.
Another example of failing on purpose is when you do push-ups until the point of collapse.
I am pretty sure they are making lots of money. You know based on the little bit of financial information leaking out.
Lots of people are experts on this topic it seems. They should form their own launch provider and show how it is done. Because results generally speak for themselves. They went from nothing to controlling over half the launches of the human race as a whole in about a decade. Did they get government money? Oh you betcha. Did they get as much as their rivals did? Not even close.
Reusability makes sense, this technique of rapid trial and error also makes sense.
deleted by creator
That might be true. But every organisation has to achieve its goals in the context that it exists. And to be fair to NASA they’ve realised it’s better to outsource development because it’s less prone to porn barrel politics.
“Porn barrel politics” I’m intrigued.
Wow 🤣 I am not sure what happened there. Should have been PORK barrel politics.
I’m also intrigued. Clearly things are more exciting at NASA than I thought.