Starlink Is Burning Up One or Two Satellites a Day in Earth's Atmosphere
Posted3 months agoActive3 months ago
theregister.comResearchstory
calmmixed
Debate
60/100
StarlinkSatellite TechnologySpace DebrisAtmospheric Re-Entry
Key topics
Starlink
Satellite Technology
Space Debris
Atmospheric Re-Entry
Starlink is experiencing a high rate of satellite re-entry and vaporization, raising concerns about the sustainability of their megaconstellation and potential environmental impacts.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Active discussionFirst comment
34m
Peak period
15
0-1h
Avg / period
5.1
Comment distribution36 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 36 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 9, 2025 at 12:37 AM EDT
3 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 9, 2025 at 1:11 AM EDT
34m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
15 comments in 0-1h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 9, 2025 at 10:10 AM EDT
3 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45523553Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 7:50:26 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
> What that means for our planet isn't entirely clear
100 tons of meteors hit Earth every day[1], so it seems fairly clear the 800kg Starlink v2 mini satellites[2] don't amount to much. Maybe once a dozen providers are deorbiting a similar amount of mass daily, we might notice. But even then I'm not sure there would be any negative effects. This seems like clickbait scare mongering at the moment.
1: https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/astronomybc/chapter/14-1-m...
2: https://dishycentral.com/how-big-are-starlink-satellites
> The total mass of meteoric material entering Earth’s atmosphere is estimated to be about 100 tons per day
On average, something like 17 meteors large enough to strike the ground hit earth daily.
They also contain other siderophilic metals, including cobalt, chromium, gold, platinum, iridium, and tungsten. The high concentration of these metals, especially precious metals like gold and platinum, is due to their affinity for sinking to the core of early planets and asteroids, which are remnants of the primordial solar system.
Estimates I've seen are that the amount of Al in the upper atmosphere will be dominated by satellite demise. And we don't know how that will affect things.
The history of CFC and the ozone layer suggests caution.
> ... the satellites are mostly aluminum; most meteoroids, in contrast, contain less than 1% Al by mass 25 . Thus, depending on the atmospheric residence time of material from reentered satellites, each mega-constellation will produce fine particulates that could greatly exceed natural forms of high-altitude atmospheric aluminum deposition, particularly if the full numbers of envisaged satellites are launched. Anthropogenic deposition of aluminum in the atmosphere has long been proposed in the context of geoengineering as a way to alter Earth’s albedo 26 . These proposals have been scientifically controversial and controlled experiments encountered substantial opposition 27 . Mega-constellations will begin this process as an uncontrolled experiment 28 .
Or from https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adr9689
> Concerns are mostly focused on aluminum, the most common component in satellites. If the disintegrated metal ends up as aluminum oxide or hydroxide, it can react with hydrogen chloride — the main reservoir of chlorine in the stratosphere, a hangover from the days of chlorofluorocarbons — to produce aluminum chloride. Hydrogen chloride is a relatively safe repository for chlorine, but aluminum chloride is easily split apart by light, freeing the chlorine to destroy ozone. Metal aerosols could also seed the creation of more polar stratospheric clouds, which catalyze reactions that liberate destructive forms of chlorine. “One can speculate, but without critical laboratory measurements of the chemistry, it’s very hard to know [the effects],” says John Plane, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Leeds. ... “You have to wonder whether [SpaceX] is creating a major problem 30 years from now,” Lionnet says.
You're right that it's released into the lower atmosphere, though I'm sure smoke stacks loft that significantly in many cases. And it's difficult for me to believe that a few hundred kg per day, even if all of it ended up in the upper atmosphere, is anything more than a blip in comparison to what lofts up from industry.
The difference would have to be many thousands of times worse for upper atmosphere releases for it to even register.
It must be nice believing that your personal views are always correct.
To know that those geoengineers who want to disperse aluminum oxide to reduce the Earth's albedo clearly don't know how insignificant those aircraft deployed aerosols are compared to the byproducts of aluminum smelting.
To understand that conclusions like 'We find that the population of reentering satellites in 2022 caused a 29.5% increase of aluminum in the atmosphere above the natural level, resulting in around 17 metric tons of aluminum oxides injected into the mesosphere' can be ignored because 17 metric tons should be a blip compared to what lofts up from industry. (Quoting https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.102... )
That statements like "The natural entry of aluminum (Al) into Earth's atmosphere, primarily from meteoroids, is estimated at 141.1 metric tons (Mg) per year" is a deliberate obfuscation because it doesn't include antropogenic ground contributions. (Quoting https://www.viasat.com/content/dam/us-site/corporate/documen... )
That people looking into wood-composite alternatives to aluminum, due to concerns about "increased metallic aerosols in the stratosphere" (https://conference.sdo.esoc.esa.int/proceedings/sdc9/paper/8... ) are wasting their time.
Well that's needlessly confrontational.
> That statements like "The natural entry of aluminum (Al) into Earth's atmosphere, primarily from meteoroids, is estimated at 141.1 metric tons (Mg) per year" is a deliberate obfuscation because it doesn't include antropogenic ground contributions.
Completely baffled as to who said this, and who you're accusing of deliberate obfuscation. The quote certainly wasn't pulled from any of my comments.
> That people looking into wood-composite alternatives to aluminum, due to concerns about "increased metallic aerosols in the stratosphere" (https://conference.sdo.esoc.esa.int/proceedings/sdc9/paper/8... ) are wasting their time.
And you seem to have assumed a position here which I haven't taken. I have made no statements positive or negative about whether or not aluminum aerosols are harmful. Only that industry dwarfs satellite re-entry. And only after looking up stats.
I hope you're able to have a less angry day! Maybe take a walk?
you're the one who said "scaremongering".
Follow the URL after "Quoting", on the line immediately following what you quoted. I gave URLs so you could read what actual experts are saying and doing.
> Only that industry dwarfs satellite re-entry.
You have made a hand-wavy gut-feeling conjecture about the amount of human-produced ground sources of aluminum in the upper atmosphere. You have given no stats.
I have linked to several papers and articles by people whose research (scientific and journalistic) say that, yes, the demise of megaconstellation satellites will significantly increase the percentage of aluminum in the upper atmosphere, with potentially negative effects like thinning the ozone layer.
Your belief about ground sources necessarily implies you believe all those researchers must be wrong.
(in batches, obviously)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_dust
[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X2...
For example: Near the top of the article is the sentence: "Kessler syndrome is bad; atmospheric incineration may be worse, says astrophysicist Jonathan McDowell"
So, I searched for "kessler syndrome". Here's the hyperlink for reference: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=kessler+syndrome&ia=web
Now here is the cool part. I found a Wikipedia article about "kessler syndrome" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome and it explained why this matters!
The earth's atmosphere is pretty big, and sattelites are just made out of aluminum and crap. I don't think it is a big deal.
I could search this topic on google scholar for hours, but I can already tell the result is that I would probably find nothing of substance.
edit: removed my own snark. sorry for that.
This is misleading, they're already in a very low orbit and would deorbit on their own in a just few years. They can manoeuver to explicitly deorbit on command, but they need active stationkeeping to stay up there for extended periods.
Cost of building + launch, per satellite, any ideas?
How much is Elon _actually_ burning here? Is Starlink going to have a positive ROI at some point?
And that's if they only have 10m customers - which I suspect is a lot more considering it's a worldwide service.
One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45493143 - 6 Oct 2025 (336 comments)