> The Van Allen Belts are two torus-like regions of trapped solar energizing particles that protect the atmosphere. The mass of the Van Allen Belts is 0.00018 kilograms. The masses of other parts of the magneto- sphere (ring current, plasmasphere, etc) are not widely estimated but are less dense than the Van Allen Belts. The mass of one second generation Starlink satellite is 1250 kilograms[7], in which all of the mass will become conductive particulate in 5 years during re-entry demolishment and will be added to the lower ionosphere for an indefinite time. Thus, the space industry is adding enormous amounts of material to the magnetosphere in comparison to the magnetosphere’s natural level of particulate and this is forming a layer of artificial plasma dust in the meteor ablation zone. Due to the conductive nature of the satellite material, this may perturb or change the magnetosphere. A depletion or change of the magnetosphere could subsequently have an impact on the atmosphere.
The cited paragraph puts down big numbers and scary words in random order to basically say "zomg the MaGnEtOsPhErE might climate change!".
It's worthless, waste of time FUD.
And on the off chance what they're saying has any scientific basis: They should have cited papers and explained the process in detail. That they didn't means this is still a waste of time FUD.
I admit I didn't click this link at first given the seeming vapidness of the claim, and I will correct myself here that the passage cited is from the cited would-be paper rather than the linked article.
I say "would-be" because that's what the article has to say about the would-be paper:
>In the new theoretical paper, uploaded to the pre-print database arXiv in December 2023 but not yet peer-reviewed, Sierra Solter-Hunt, a doctoral candidate at the University of Iceland, proposed that this atmospheric spacecraft dust may compromise the magnetosphere — the part of Earth's magnetic field that extends into space and protects the atmosphere from solar radiation.
So it's not a paper yet and namely hasn't been reviewed by peers, nor is the author a doctor (as in PhD) proper yet. This isn't something layman can refer to for information, not yet anyway.
Given that, I stand by my initial claim that this is fearmongering and FUD. Nothing in there has been confirmed as worthy of our time to discuss.
If someone asks me to fear/panic/rage over something that is at best speculation as of publication? Yes I will call that FUD and be on my way. Doesn't matter if it's from Arxiv or 4chan.
In the early 60s the Van Allen Belts were a source of concern for putting men in space. Then all of a sudden they weren't a concern any more. I never did figure out why they suddenly went off the radar (so to speak).
To me, it's crazy that we're doing a lot of weird stuff with global implications in the hands of an unaccountable corporation. If I were a random nation state, I would start taking down those satellites for a sport.
Not the person you asked, but the paper isn't peer reviewed and has been getting outsized influence in the media despite that. It's obvious its part of the ongoing campaign in media and political circuits to defame and downplay SpaceX achievements.
Agreed. It feels like the FAA and related government agencies have a rule set based on now-outdated assumptions about the difficulty and cost of space launches. Even just a couple of decades ago, it was never thought that this number of satellites could practically be launched. Similar to many other problems of tech moving too fast for regulations.
No “random nation state” is going to fire on US satellites, without a clear and compelling reason.
Also, in this case it would be counter productive: you’d create huge amounts of space debris and accelerate the accumulation of material in the ionosphere.
If I'm shooting down US satellites, and can therefore expect a military response, Id rather have the skies above me free from navigation and recon satellites above.
The original concern for shooting down satellites was to stop them depositing material in the ionosphere, the subject of the article.
Shooting down satellites just accelerates the timeframe on which they re-enter and burn up, while making the pieces smaller and hence more likely to completely combust.
Yes. Right now there are probably a dozen planet scale disasters brewing. We’ll just have to manage them, like we did before. That’s sort of the price with technology, you solve your problems and get new problems, but along the way life gets better. And you can’t stop that push for a better life, i.e. people want the technology too much. So we’ll have to grow with the challenges, we’re on a rollercoaster and we’ll have to lay the tracks.
This article highlights a problem at the science-mass media boundary: it ends with refutals from other scientists studying space debris, and a short reply to the refutals.
Having people in the field argue against a paper is expected, and the whole point of peer reviewing. That's how they (hopefully) converge on a model everyone agrees on. However, if you're not actively researching space debris, the better stance in the matter would be "oh, shit, we should probably tread carefully until we know more."
I think the fundamental problem is that the ending makes it polarized, instead of curious, and makes no attempt to explain what the precautionary path would be. I'm sure even the refuters would like to know if this is true or not.
For me, not in the field, this writing style feels dismissive. I'm no wiser if this is a problem or not, but I guess it doesn't matter, because it's three refuters against two believers. Were they cherry-picked to have three refuters by some journalistic formula, or are there actually more opponents than proponents?
It's not helped by the fact that it is (only) a proponent (Lawler) who says "we need more studies," not an opponent.
(If I knew how to write, I would be writing science news, not complaining about it.)
@dang can we please update this title to actually reflect the source title: "Controversial paper claims satellite 'megaconstellations' like SpaceX's could weaken Earth's magnetic field and cause 'atmospheric stripping.' Should we be worried?"
Generally, no this isnt possible. The planet's magnetic field is generated naturally by the movement of so much hot iron and other elements it eclipses the total of most of the other freely available metals in the solar system.
The Earth isn't the biggest planet, but we have the biggest single conglomeration of metals outside of the gas giants. Combine Luna, Mars, and all of the known asteroids and it only almost comes to a similar mass.
A few dozen tons of launched material isn't going to have any noticeable impact on our magnetic field.
> @dang can we please update this title to actually reflect the source title: "Controversial paper claims satellite 'megaconstellations' like SpaceX's could weaken Earth's magnetic field and cause 'atmospheric stripping.' Should we be worried?"
I tried to keep the same name as the article, but had to shorten it due to HN's character restrictions. The shortening could be interpreted to sensationalize. But it's purely intended to include all relevant elements in the title. While within the character limit. I tried & this was the best I could do.
I was hoping that the word *could* would imply the speculative nature of the article.
The paper in question was never peer reviewed despite all the press attention it gets from the media. It was even written by someone who isn't a professor at any university.
41 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 98.7 ms ] threadlol
The cited paragraph puts down big numbers and scary words in random order to basically say "zomg the MaGnEtOsPhErE might climate change!".
It's worthless, waste of time FUD.
And on the off chance what they're saying has any scientific basis: They should have cited papers and explained the process in detail. That they didn't means this is still a waste of time FUD.
I say "would-be" because that's what the article has to say about the would-be paper:
>In the new theoretical paper, uploaded to the pre-print database arXiv in December 2023 but not yet peer-reviewed, Sierra Solter-Hunt, a doctoral candidate at the University of Iceland, proposed that this atmospheric spacecraft dust may compromise the magnetosphere — the part of Earth's magnetic field that extends into space and protects the atmosphere from solar radiation.
So it's not a paper yet and namely hasn't been reviewed by peers, nor is the author a doctor (as in PhD) proper yet. This isn't something layman can refer to for information, not yet anyway.
Given that, I stand by my initial claim that this is fearmongering and FUD. Nothing in there has been confirmed as worthy of our time to discuss.
Interesting
I assume you apply this standard to every arXiv paper posted here or referenced by a science publication?
Also, in this case it would be counter productive: you’d create huge amounts of space debris and accelerate the accumulation of material in the ionosphere.
If I'm shooting down US satellites, and can therefore expect a military response, Id rather have the skies above me free from navigation and recon satellites above.
Shooting down satellites just accelerates the timeframe on which they re-enter and burn up, while making the pieces smaller and hence more likely to completely combust.
That’s counter-productive to your goal.
Having people in the field argue against a paper is expected, and the whole point of peer reviewing. That's how they (hopefully) converge on a model everyone agrees on. However, if you're not actively researching space debris, the better stance in the matter would be "oh, shit, we should probably tread carefully until we know more."
I think the fundamental problem is that the ending makes it polarized, instead of curious, and makes no attempt to explain what the precautionary path would be. I'm sure even the refuters would like to know if this is true or not.
For me, not in the field, this writing style feels dismissive. I'm no wiser if this is a problem or not, but I guess it doesn't matter, because it's three refuters against two believers. Were they cherry-picked to have three refuters by some journalistic formula, or are there actually more opponents than proponents?
It's not helped by the fact that it is (only) a proponent (Lawler) who says "we need more studies," not an opponent.
(If I knew how to write, I would be writing science news, not complaining about it.)
"A claim that is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
Generally, no this isnt possible. The planet's magnetic field is generated naturally by the movement of so much hot iron and other elements it eclipses the total of most of the other freely available metals in the solar system.
The Earth isn't the biggest planet, but we have the biggest single conglomeration of metals outside of the gas giants. Combine Luna, Mars, and all of the known asteroids and it only almost comes to a similar mass.
A few dozen tons of launched material isn't going to have any noticeable impact on our magnetic field.
I tried to keep the same name as the article, but had to shorten it due to HN's character restrictions. The shortening could be interpreted to sensationalize. But it's purely intended to include all relevant elements in the title. While within the character limit. I tried & this was the best I could do.
I was hoping that the word *could* would imply the speculative nature of the article.