The more I learn about atmospheric chemistry, the more terrified and angry I am about satellite companies' blatant lack of consideration for how their actions will harm the atmosphere. I hope this gets a lot of press. Great work by a whole team of scientists, including @astrokiwi.bsky.social!

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-025-01098-6.epdf

Near-future rocket launches could slow ozone recovery | npj Climate and Atmospheric Science

Rocket emissions thin the stratospheric ozone layer. To understand if significant ozone losses could occur as the launch industry grows, we examine two scenarios. Our ‘ambitious’ scenario (2040 launches/year) yields a −0.29% depletion in annual-mean, near-global total column ozone in 2030. Antarctic springtime ozone decreases by 3.9%. Our ‘conservative’ scenario (884 launches/year) yields −0.17% annual, near-global depletion; current licensing rates suggest this scenario may be exceeded before 2030. Ozone losses are driven by the chlorine produced from solid rocket motor propellant, and black carbon which is emitted from most propellants. The ozone layer is slowly healing from the effects of CFCs, yet global-mean ozone abundances are still 2% lower than measured prior to the onset of CFC-induced ozone depletion. Our results demonstrate that ongoing and frequent rocket launches could delay ozone recovery. Action is needed now to ensure that future growth of the launch industry and ozone protection are mutually sustainable.

Co-author Michele Bannister posted a thread about this paper yesterday on bluesky: https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:f3jxtgz7tnwvzkpgzb6wsqqj/post/3lr7qoirmxr27
Bluesky

Bluesky Social

My takeaway: Satellite launches are undoing the recovery of the ozone layer that should be happening now that CFCs are banned. And this study doesn't even take into account metal deposition from reentries, which might be even worse!

When I teach climate change in my astro classes, I always give the recovery of the ozone layer as an example of how countries can work together to fix a giant problem (Montreal Protocol). I guess satellite companies are now destroying that too.

@sundogplanets Only one solution: build satellites _outside_ the atmosphere!

(This is a joke, but I am almost sure that someone will make that suggestion at some point.)

@jexner @sundogplanets That is a valid thing to propose, but we lack the infrastructure in space to do this - and if we had, we would likely have more landings on earth as well to bring resources down.

Building space infrastructure needs sustainable, cheaper space travel, since we would have to do that very often (in the beginning from earth).

Tldr: Space infrastructure is not a solution to toxic rocket starts. It needs them to be built.