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.

Nature
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 You know, if we're brainstorming out-of-the-box solutions, why not consider a space elevator? 🚀🌍 Imagine a giant tether stretching from Earth into space, allowing us to send satellites and payloads up without the need for traditional rocket launches. It's like taking the stairs instead of the elevator—well, actually, it is the elevator!

Not only could this reduce the number of rocket launches, but it might also help protect our precious ozone layer from further harm. Plus, think of the views! 🌌
🌟 https://youtu.be/V0ju74IqW0A

Space Elevators: Strategies & Status

YouTube
@debby @sundogplanets I think that is certainly out-of-the-box, and possibly desirable, but maybe not yet entirely doable?

@jexner @sundogplanets

Sorry for the delay in replying! Let’s be clear upfront: we can’t build a fully operational space elevator with today’s technology.

But history shows us that what seems impossible today can become reality tomorrow. When President John F. Kennedy set the goal of landing a man on the Moon in 1961, many thought it was a pipe dream. Yet less than a decade later, the Apollo program succeeded, proving that with determination, innovation, and investment, the impossible can be achieved. So, while ambitious, a space elevator is a plausible future project.

Trying to be as objective as I can, here’s a more nuanced take on feasibility — starting with economics. A space elevator would be expensive; estimates vary, but it’s safe to say it would be a multi-billion-dollar project. To put that in perspective: SoFi Stadium cost $4.9 billion, and the Apollo program cost about $203 billion (adjusted to 2015 dollars). Expert analyses estimate the cost of the first space elevator between $6 billion and $100 billion depending on design and infrastructure included. So financially, it’s ambitious but plausible, especially as a long-term infrastructure investment with transformative potential for space access and sustainable resource use.

The technical challenges are immense, but so are those of every large, unprecedented undertaking. Picture a tether anchored to a mobile ocean platform, gently swaying with the waves, while robotic climbers ascend and descend, carrying cargo and passengers to the stars.

Several organizations, including the International Space Elevator Consortium, are actively developing the technologies and infrastructure needed. While we’re far from the finish line, the potential benefits—significantly reduced launch costs, increased space access, and large-scale space-based solar power—are exciting.

A key technical hurdle is finding a material with sufficient tensile strength. Though it might sound counterintuitive, a space elevator is more like a suspension bridge to space than a giant tower. The concept evolved from building “bottom-up” to a “top-down” approach, where a geostationary satellite deploys a cable down to Earth. Currently, carbon nanotubes (CNTs) and ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) are leading candidates for tether materials. For example, Shizuoka University in Japan is prototyping and testing high-tensile-strength materials in space. The key issues remain: producing suitable materials like carbon nanotubes at scale.

In conclusion, while we can’t build a fully operational space elevator today, overcoming the technical difficulties in the near future is possible. With continued advances in materials science, engineering, and technology, we may soon see the space elevator shift from futuristic fantasy to game-changing reality.

I’m no space engineering expert, so I welcome corrections and insights.
---

References & Further Reading
- Edwards, Bradley C. “The Space Elevator.” https://nss.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/2000-Space-Elevator-NIAC-phase1.pdf
- Gao, Tianrui. “The Feasibility Analysis of a Space Elevator.” https://ijetch.org/2024/IJET-V16N4-1290.pdf
- International Space Elevator Consortium — Annual Studies https://www.isec.org/studies/#ApexAnchor

Recommended Videos
- Space Elevators: Strategies & Status — https://youtu.be/V0ju74IqW0A
- Clean Energy From Space? — https://youtu.be/iNqCAvL1T1Y
- Asteroid Mining — https://youtu.be/3-3DjxhGaUg
- Everyone is Wrong About Asteroid Mining — https://youtu.be/p3hlnL2JN8E

CC: @cy @isecdotorg @sorceressofmathematics @goodmirek @tiotasram @Ifrauding @Elrick_Winter @tiotasram @davidtheeviloverlord

#SpaceElevator #FutureTech #SpaceExploration #Innovation #ScienceFiction #Engineering #SpaceTravel #CarbonNanotubes #UHMWPE #FeasibilityStudy #SpaceAccess #SustainableTech #SpaceResearch #SpaceEngineering
#SpaceTechnology #SpaceEconomics #SpaceInnovation #SpaceDevelopment
#megaprojects #SpaceTower #Megastructure