DAILY TRIFECTA: Lost In Space Junk

Paging Icarus...

THE SET-UP: If you dumped a bunch of debris and chemicals into the ocean and, in the process, disrupted a couple hundred commercial flights, you’d probably get yourself arrested and fined and sentenced to probation.

That is, if you were a first time offender.

If you repeated that offense? An ankle monitor? Prison? You wouldn’t just walk away without paying some price … unlike Elon Musk … because that’s essentially what happened when another SpaceX rocket exploded after liftoff … thus compounding the massive plumes of pollution it produced to get off the ground with the detritus and chemicals that rained down after the rocket exploded. That, in turn, triggered disruptions of 240 flights, according the FAA. That’s the same FAA Musk is attempting to rid of much-needed air traffic controllers … and the same FAA he’s currently hijacking for Starlink.

It’s also the same FAA that’s empowered to investigate SpaceX. But Elon need not worry like the rest of us … because he’s got a “chainsaw for bureaucracy” and, as Rolling Stone detailed, he’s using it:

Musk clashed with the previous head of the FAA, Michael Whitaker, over the agency’s regulation of Musk’s rocket company SpaceX. The agency proposed more than $600,000 in penalties for safety violations at SpaceX in September, and opened an investigation into a recent catastrophic explosion of a SpaceX rocket that sent debris showering across the Caribbean.

Musk effectively forced out Whitaker, who quit at the start of the Trump administration.

That’s just one of many ways Musk’s DOGE is functioning like a Trojan Horse … getting him past the walls so he can root out the regulators standing in-between him and his ambitions. - jp

TITLE: Rockets Are Blasting the Environment
https://nautil.us/rockets-are-blasting-the-environment-1195186/

EXCERPTS: According to a new study authored by an international team of scientists, the majority of global launch sites are located in or near fragile protected ecosystems. And the same sound, ejecta, light, and vibrations that dazzle the crowds can stress, harm, or even kill nearby wildlife and damage land, vegetation, and water: Debris strikes animals, noise impairs their hearing, shockwaves scatter nests and break eggs, exhaust and fuel spills and chemical leaks dump toxins into the earth and nearby water bodies.

The launchpads operated by Kennedy Space Center and nearby Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, for instance, are all located within or just a few miles from the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, home to 1,500 species of flora and fauna, including 33 animals and 39 plants that are threatened or endangered.

In a report detailing the ecological impacts of the 135 space shuttle launches that took place at Kennedy Space Center over the program’s 30 years, researchers found that the launches often killed droves of fish in shallow waters nearby—in some instances, they tallied over 5,000 dead fish—though populations seemed to recover well. They also found that, on occasion, the blast of exhaust from the shuttle’s engines killed or injured frogs, birds, rabbits, alligators, and armadillos.

Elsewhere, hydrochloric acid from rocket launches has leached into water leading to fish kills. Ground squirrels and house mice have suffered DNA damage due to exposure to pollutants from launch activities. Insect abundance and diversity have fallen in an area 3 miles around the Wenchang Satellite Launch Center in China after rocket launches. These effects can impact land and water up to 28 miles out from launch sites, while falling debris from separating rocket parts can extend the impact zone up to 900 miles.

Launch sites overlap with protected areas for good reason. Biodiversity tends to increase closer to the equator, so the number of protected areas does, too. But the equator happens to also be a great place for rocket launches, because the closer you are to the Earth’s center, the more kick a rocket gets from Earth’s rotation as it flies through the atmosphere, which improves efficiency and decreases fuel needs. And to protect humans from any potential injury related to rocket malfunction, a launch site “needs to be close to open water and in an uninhabited area,” says Fanhao Kong, remote sensing scientist and one of the study’s authors.

Kong is eager to focus future research on how space activities are impacting marine ecosystems. One area of particular interest to many is a stretch of water in the South Pacific that has been nicknamed the “spacecraft cemetery” because, as the most remote location on Earth, it’s where most satellites and rocket bodies are intentionally disposed of to minimize risks to people.

But with the potential for unspent fuel, lithium batteries, and other heavy metals to survive the plunge through the atmosphere into the ocean, the high-tech detritus accumulating there will likely have unexpected consequences.

TITLE: Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth: Is ozone layer at risk?
https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/science/elon-musk-starlink-satellites-are-falling-back-ozone-pollution-9867500/

EXCERPTS: In January, about 120 SpaceX Starlink satellites burnt up in Earth’s atmosphere. Reports say there were three to four re-entries each day which led to the creation of artificial meteor showers, and were visible to many around the world.

While these spectacular showers are seemingly harmless or even eye-pleasing, scientists have raised alarms about their serious threat to the environment. Scientists have raised concerns about the satellite re-entries in the upper atmosphere or mesosphere which then settle in the stratosphere that houses the Earth’s protective ozone layer. The major concern is the release of aluminium oxide particles that could, in the long run, damage the ozone layer.

When satellites re-enter and burn up, many of the metals on the satellites get oxidised, including aluminium. Small Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites like Starlink have aluminium in abundance, and they have a lifetime of about five years, according to reports. There is a constellation of such satellites that enable Starlink to operate its SpaceX satellites. Since the first batch of 60 satellites took place in May 2019, many of them have been coming down regularly.

According to scientists, this burning-up process is not ‘environmentally neutral.’ During the process, the metals in the satellite undergo chemical transformations, especially concerning aluminium, which usually constitutes about 40 per cent of a satellite’s mass. Research shows that a typical Starlink satellite weighs around 250 kg and produces about 30 kg of aluminium oxide particles upon re-entry to the atmosphere. They are not huge debris but microscopic nanoparticles that stay suspended in the upper atmosphere.

The re-entries usually happen in the mesosphere, which is around 50 to 80 km above Earth’s surface. Reportedly, the aluminium oxide nanoparticles emitted during the burn-up stay afloat in this region for long periods before they descend into lower altitudes. The scientific concern here is about what happens when these particles eventually reach the stratosphere, which is home to the ozone layer that protects all life from harmful ultraviolet radiation.

According to researchers from the University of Southern California’s Department of Astronautical Engineering, aluminium oxide can act as a catalyst for chemical reactions that involve chlorine, much like the process that led to ozone depletion from chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the past. CBFs are capable of destroying ozone molecules.

Unlike the CFCs, which were banned under the 1987 Montreal Protocol, the aluminium oxide particles do not consume ozone directly. However, as per the research, they act as catalysts or substances that can enable chemical reactions without being consumed themselves. Reportedly, one aluminium oxide particle could potentially contribute to the destruction of thousands of ozone molecules over decades.

Several recent studies have suggested a significant increase in aluminium oxide in the atmosphere related to the re-entry of satellites. In February 2023, Nasa conducted high-altitude test flights over Alaska at about 60,000 feet. Closer examination of the aerosols collected revealed the presence of 10 per cent of stratospheric sulphuric acid particles, which were larger than 120 nanometres in diameter, containing aluminium and other metals emitted from satellite and rocket re-entries. These tests confirmed that space hardware was leaving what scientists call a detectable chemical signature in the atmosphere.

According to researchers, the rate of increase is more concerning. Researchers from the University of Southern California Department of Astronautical Engineering suggested that aluminium oxides in the atmosphere increased eightfold between 2016 and 2022. This coincides with the rapid proliferation of satellite constellations during this period. In 2022 alone, re-entries released an estimated 41.7 metric tonnes of aluminium into the atmosphere, which is about 30 per cent more than natural inputs from micrometeoroids (tiny space rocks leading to 16.6 metric tonnes of aluminium oxide in the mesosphere). Researchers say if the pace of current satellite deployment persists, aluminium oxide releases could reach 360 metric tonnes annually — a 646 per cent increase over natural atmospheric levels.

When it comes to impact, there is a time delay involved, making the situation particularly grave. Based on molecular dynamic simulations, the particles created in the mesosphere may take around 20 to 30 years to descend into the ozone layer, meaning the environmental impact of today’s satellite re-entries will not be apparent for decades. Scientists claim that by the time measurable ozone depletion is detected, the mesosphere could already be overflowing with aluminium oxide particles that will likely continue to affect ozone chemistry for years to come, till some regulatory changes are implemented. These modelling studies also suggested that in the extreme case, these particles could contribute to an additional 0.05 per cent ozone loss over Antarctica each year. Although this percentage seems small, it could likely delay or reverse the ozone layer’s expected recovery.

TITLE: Straight out of science fiction : Elon Musk estimates it would take 1,000 rockets and 20 years of launches to establish a city on Mars
https://jasondeegan.com/straight-out-of-science-fiction-elon-musk-estimates-it-would-take-1000-rockets-and-20-years-of-launches-to-establish-a-city-on-mars/

EXCERPTS: The key to Musk’s Mars plan lies in Starship, SpaceX’s next-generation fully reusable rocket. Capable of carrying over 100 tons of cargo, each Starship launch costs approximately $2 million—a fraction of traditional rockets like the Falcon Heavy, which can cost up to $100 million per mission.

SpaceX’s strategy is as daring as it is ambitious:

• Three launches per day, scaling up to 1,000 launches per year

• Transporting supplies, equipment, and colonists to Mars

• Delivering 1 million tons of cargo over two decades to establish a functional city

Unlike previous Mars exploration missions, which relied on one-way trips and robotic landers, Starship’s reusability means rockets can return to Earth, refuel, and continue transporting settlers and materials—making Mars colonization economically viable.

Musk estimates that it will take 1,000 Starship launches over a 20-year period to create the necessary infrastructure. The first critical missions will focus on:

• Building habitats capable of sustaining human life

• Deploying life-support systems, including water extraction and oxygen production

• Constructing energy sources, such as solar farms for long-term power

• Setting up agriculture to provide a sustainable food supply

These launches will leverage the 26-month window when Earth and Mars are closest, maximizing efficiency and minimizing travel time.

If the first wave of missions starts by 2028, Musk envisions a fully operational Martian city by 2050. While the timeline may seem ambitious, SpaceX’s track record of turning once-impossible ideas into reality suggests that this goal, while challenging, is within reach.”

PER THE VERGE from August 2024, there’s a big difference between “within reach” and within reason:

[T]he biggest obstacle to crewed exploration of Mars might be something that’s totally invisible and often overlooked: the space radiation that can wreak havoc on the human body.

Space radiation comes from two main sources: solar activity in the form of solar flares, and energetic particles called galactic cosmic rays. “Galactic cosmic rays come from stars that are dying, and that radiation is part of the void of space when you travel,” explained radiobiologist and radiation expert Eleanor Blakely.

The health risks from space radiation are many, but poorly understood. It is thought to raise cancer risk, affect the central nervous system, increase degenerative effects like heart disease and cataracts, and change the immune system. Finding a way to mitigate these effects will determine whether astronauts can ever visit Mars safely or whether the health detriments make it too dangerous for people to ever set foot there.

Most of the data we have looks at the health effects of radiation like gamma rays and X-rays, which cause damage across the body in a “uniform, spray-bottle kind of pattern,” explained radiation biologist Greg Nelson, who advises NASA on radiation health research. But galactic cosmic rays move through the body in a straight line, like a track. “So you concentrate damage on a microscopic scale, and that damage, because it’s so concentrated, is much more difficult for the body to repair,” Nelson said.

This type of space radiation isn’t like the low-dose exposure of a chest X-ray. Instead, imagine a charged particle traveling at nearly the speed of light, firing straight through your brain, perturbing 10,000 cells all in a row, all within a microsecond. It’s not necessarily damaging those cells, but it is activating them in a highly unusual way. And we don’t yet know what that does.

While most radiation on Earth can cause cancer by breaking apart DNA, the latest research suggests these charged particles could be damaging the brain in an entirely different way, such as by disrupting the connections between neurons or the mitochondria within neurons.

AND, according to Kelly and Zach Weinersmith, winners of the 2024 Royal Society Trivedi Science Book Prize for A City on Mars: Can We Settle Space, Should We Settle Space, and Have We Really Thought This Through?:

The planet’s thin atmosphere, intense radiation, and perchlorate-laden toxic soil present significant risks to human health. Prolonged exposure, they argue, could disrupt hormones and cause developmental issues, particularly in children.

Mars’ weak gravity, only 40% of Earth’s, presents significant challenges, potentially exacerbating bone loss and muscle degradation. This makes biological processes, including childbirth, highly risky. “We have very little relevant data for how adults will fare, let alone how having babies would work out,” explains Kelly Weinersmith.

The authors also highlight the lack of a strong magnetic field and the planet’s thin atmosphere, which provide minimal protection from cosmic and solar radiation. Prolonged exposure could increase cancer risks and contribute to cognitive decline. Additionally, Mars is plagued by global dust storms, extreme temperature fluctuations, and hazardous airborne particles like regolith, which can damage equipment and pose risks to human health.

Mars’ vast isolation an average of 225 million kilometres from Earth adds another layer of complexity. Communication delays of up to 24 minutes each way could hinder emergency responses and exacerbate mental health challenges, making survival even more precarious.

Then there’s the absence of water and oxygen and the sub-zero temperatures. None of that dissuades Musk, though, who’s found a champion in President Trump. Trump regularly throws his dog a bone by promising to plant an American flag on the Red Planet. It’s smart politics for Trump. It’s a messianic delusion for Musk. He believes leaving Earth is humankind’s only path to salvation. The dark irony is that his ambitions are built on a self-fulfilling prophecy of environmental destruction … from SpaceX to carbon-spewing, water-guzzling data centers. Then there’s the ease with which he’s discarded the science of anthropogenic climate change to embrace a man who isn’t just denying climate change, but actively erasing it and the science that proves it. That matters little to Musk … the 1000 launches he’ll need to send up to Mars, coupled with thousands of Starlink satellites polluting the atmosphere on the way down, could make the barren, irradiated landscape of Mars decidedly preferable to the toxic hothouse Musk and the Tech Broligarchs will bequeath the teeming masses who cannot afford to buy their way off a world they are willing to sacrifice on the altar of their Objectivist-fueled narcissism. - jp