• AwesomeLowlander@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    5 months ago

    Have yet to see any of these ‘studies’ take into account and compare with natural meteorite effects, which are orders of magnitude larger than the satellites.

    • spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      5 months ago

      Are you just doing the thing where you cast doubt on journal articles because they feel wrong? You don’t think humans can affect the natural environment in such a way? This sounds oddly familiar and a bit ironic for this community…

      Meteors aren’t made out of aluminum like satellites are btw. There will be more reasearch done and we will learn more. But for now, there’s a potential issue.

      https://phys.org/news/2024-06-satellite-megaconstellations-jeopardize-recovery-ozone.amp

        • spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          That’s not the comparison at all, the comparison is what the sattelites are made of (mostly aluminum) and what the meteors are made of (mostly other stuff, like earth).

          • AwesomeLowlander@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Meteors are leftovers of the same primordial stuff that made up earth, so a cross sample of them would largely share the same ratios as earth, minus the volatiles.

            Though it looks like the community hive mind has made up its mind on this one

            • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Meteors are leftovers of the same primordial stuff that made up earth, so a cross sample of them would largely share the same ratios as earth, minus the volatiles.

              Logic would dictate that that is likely, though that statement itself isn’t scientific. Do you have any sources to back that up? I could see a possibility where, perhaps, certain elements are more likely to coalesce into planetary bodies, and others into meteoroids. It could also depend on the location in the solar system where the formation occurred — the primordial dust cloud that made up the infant solar system, I would wager, would be far from uniform.

            • Brgor@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              I did some very rough estimates and found that the amount of aluminum entering the Earth’s atmosphere each year is probably between 100 and 500 tons, which would be roughly comparable to the amount coming from these LEO comm sats like Starlink.

              These are just super ballpark figures, but it’s in the same order of magnitude. More research is definitely necessary.

    • ValenThyme@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Niobium and hafnium do not occur as free elements in nature, but are refined from mineral ores. They are used in semiconductors and superalloys.

      In addition to these two unusual elements, a significant number of particles contained copper, lithium and aluminum at concentrations far exceeding the abundance found in meteorics, or ‘space dust.’ “The combination of aluminum and copper, plus niobium and hafnium, which are used in heat-resistant, high-performance alloys, pointed us to the aerospace industry,’’ Murphy said.

      source

      they are finding elements that don’t even occur in nature, and elements that do occur but in proportions in the atmosphere that have grown significantly since we started burning up rockets.

      Armchair scientists don’t seem to give actual scientists much credit.

      • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        they are finding elements that don’t even occur in nature

        Neither of your referenced quotes claimed that the elemental makeup of the measured particulate was synthetic. If you are referring to “Niobium and hafnium do not occur as free elements in nature”, what this means is that the elements are not ever found on their own — they have only ever been found bonded to something else. Niobium makes up 0.0017% of Earth’s crust and Hafnium makes up 0.00033% [source (archive)].

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      They won’t, it’s just musk hate. I can’t stand the idiot either, but starlink has done more for rural and underserved homes than all the telcoms have in the last 30 years.

      • spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        5 months ago

        It may be true that Starlink is a great service, but that’s entirely irrelevant to the point of the article and any ozone destruction that the satellites cause.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          Way more tons of meteorites burn up entering the atmosphere than the amount of shit starlink will even remotely produce.

            • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              Meteorites do contain aluminum. The issue is with the concentration of aluminum in the atmosphere, as well as its rate of increase. If there’s an increase in the atmospheric burn up of artificial satellites accompanied by an increase in the problematic particulate in the atmosphere, then it’s certainly fair to consider that the two are correlated. This is especially so if there is no increase in the burn up of objects from any natural source — eg meteors.

    • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      Hm, while the presence of the elements in question in the atmosphere could be naturally occurring, what’s important to consider for this discussion is the rate of their increase. If there’s an increase in the problematic particulate in the atmosphere that correlates with an increase in the atmospheric burn up of artificial satellites with no related increase in the rate of meteors, then its likely that the artificial satellites were indeed the culprit.