Analysis: Impact of satellite megaconstellations and their re-entry dust on the ionosphere, magnetosphere and Van Allen belts

Posted on arXiv Physics
December 6, 2023

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2312.09329 – PDF
https://arxiv.org/html/2312.09329v1 – HTML
https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.09329

[emphasis added]


License: CC BY 4.0
arXiv:2312.09329v1 [physics.ao-ph] 06 Dec 2023

Potential Perturbation of the Ionosphere by Megaconstellations and Corresponding Artificial Re-entry Plasma Dust

S. Solter-Hunt

(December 6, 2023)

Abstract

500,000 to 1 million satellites are expected in the next decades, primarily to build internet constellations called megaconstellations. These megaconstellations are disposable and will constantly re-enter and be replaced, hence creating a layer of conductive particulate. Here it will be shown that the mass of the conductive particles left behind from worldwide distribution of re-entry satellites is already billions of times greater than the mass of the Van Allen Belts. From a preliminary analysis, the Debye length in spaceflight regions is significantly higher than non-spaceflight regions according to CCMC ionosphere data. As the megaconstellations grow, the Debye length of the satellite particulate may exceed that of the cislunar environment and create a conductive layer around the earth worldwide. Thus, satellite reentries may create a global band of plasma dust with a charge higher than the rest of the magnetosphere. Therefore, perturbation of the magnetosphere from conductive satellites and their plasma dust layer should be expected and should be a field of intensive research. Human activity is not only impacting the atmosphere, it is clearly impacting the ionosphere.

I Introduction

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 magnetosphere (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[8], 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 magnetosphere is known to be weakening by 10-15% [11] and satellites are typically involved in aiding that analysis. But in the 2020s and 2030s, satellites will become so numerous that they will form their own dynamic shell of conductive material. This shell of conductive material is now much greater than the radius of the earth. As satellites fill LEO (300 km) to GEO (36,000 km), this layer of conductive material extracted from the Earth’s crust is 6 times the radius of earth. A comparison of space industry altitudes and regions with the Van Allen Belts is shown in Figure 1. Human spaceflight activity is thus creating vast regions of charged particles that may impact the Van Allen Belts and other parts of the magnetosphere in unknown ways.

[editor: LEO = Low Earth Orbit; GEO = Geosynchronous Orbit (GEO); between the two is MEO = Medium Earth Orbit]

After consulting multiple magnetosphere models, the consensus was that it would take decades to simulate 500,000 satellites within a magnetosphere model and evaluate the potential impact. If the megaconstellations and their debris are perturbing the magnetosphere, their rate of growth is too fast for decades of simulations considering the potential urgent ramifications for the atmosphere. This may be a case where neither simulation or experiment can assess the question prior to the full deployment of 500,000 satellites. Thus, this must be considered based on overall planetary-level calculations between the magnetosphere and the megaconstellations.

The space industry must fund more accurate chemical modeling of the atmosphere, ionosphere, and magnetosphere and the chemicals, debris, and materials they are adding to it. It is already suspected that the resulting re-entry alumina may increase ozone depletion [3]. Additionally, since space is not considered an earth environment, there is no regard for the sensitivity of the ionosphere, Van Allen Belts, plasmasphere, or magnetosphere. These plasma systems may indeed be more sensitive than suspected due to their low density.

In addition to general mass calculations, ionosphere data and specifically the charge effectiveness or Debye length, is examined. It should be noted that this data is only possible because of in-situ satellite and rocket measurements and thus there is no pre-space-industry data available.

II Method

A simulation of the magnetosphere and the megaconstellations is not currently feasible, and the planetary-scale experiment is underway without a direct ability to diagnose the satellite-magnetosphere relationship because the satellites themselves detect the changes in the magnetic field. Thus, calculations on the mass, Debye length, and a small scale model are compared to gauge the issue. Debye length is studied by extracting the electron temperature and density from the Community Coordinated Modeling Center of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Masses and other reentry statistics are studied from Jonathan’s Space Report[6]. As space-based development and pollution grow, there is a strong need for more multidisciplinary investigations and synthesis across materials, aerospace science, chemistry, plasma physics, and climate.

III Discussion

III.1 Mass

The Starlink V2 satellite constellation (just one of many planned megaconstellations) intends to have 42,000 satellites [6], each the mass of a SUV, truck, or large car (1250+ kg). Each satellite has a planned lifetime of only 5 years (if successful and many satellites are failing sooner), thus in order to maintain the megaconstellation, 23 satellites per day will complete a re-entry burn in the upper atmosphere. This is approximately 26,308 kilograms (29 tons) of satellite re-entry material every day, just for the Starlink megaconstellation. Thus, every day, just for this one constellation, the conductive mass of material added to the upper atmosphere will be 150 million times greater than the mass of the protective Van Allen Belts. Thus, every second, just for this one megaconstellation, the mass of approximately 2,000 Van Allen Belts will be deposited into the ionosphere. Thus, the megaconstellations are creating their own plasma dust region vastly greater in mass than that of the Van Allen Belts or any other region of the magnetosphere. The South Atlantic Anomaly (SSA) is a region of the Van Allen Belts that comes closest to the Earth at 200 km and is avoided by satellites due to an increase in ionizing radiation. But the satellites themselves may be creating a more dangerous ionizing radiation zone with their reentry plasma dust.


Figure 1:Approximate schematic showing relation of human space activities to the Van Allen Belts. The relatively much-higher density debris and artificial plasma dust from human space activities are occurring under, through, and above the Van Allen Belts, suggesting that the much-higher density charged particles from these activities may disrupt the Van Allen Belts.

As of March 2023, 299 Starlink V1 (first generation) satellites have already re-entered [6] at a mass of approximately 300 kg each. This amount of material is 500 million times the mass of the Van Allen Belts. In 2022 alone, the space industry polluted approximately 2 billion times the mass of Van Allen Belts (over 500 tons) in reentry particulate and material from all launches. Since the beginning of the space industry, approximately 20,000 tons of material [7] have been demolished during reentry, meaning a similar amount may still remain as plasma dust. This amount is over 100 billion times greater than the Van Allen Belts.

This re-entry material will be globally distributed since re-entries are globally distributed. The locations of re-entries are essentially randomly distributed. Space launch regions likely have greater densities of plasma dust development. This increase in ionization in these regions could have adverse impacts for launch success as ions can interfere with electronics.

The layer of growing re-entry particulate does not dissipate when the satellite demolishes. It stays stagnant in the upper atmosphere/lower ionosphere for several years before decay into the lower atmosphere in a best case scenario. In a worst case scenario, the particulate stays there indefinitely. Since this material is replenished every day, any potential natural decay to the ground may be negligible. It should be noted that rocket and satellite exhaust are also creating plasma dust [9]. If the metal dust is settling into the atmosphere after several years, the repercussions of vast amounts of metal dust in the atmosphere includes dangers to the ozone [3] but any other potential impacts are unknown.

III.2 Debye Length

Even with 500,000 satellites, the average distance between those satellites will be in the hundreds of kilometers. However, the satellites will still have frequent near passes in the hundreds to thousands of feet, possibly overcoming the Debye length of the ionosphere and magnetosphere in some regions.

More concerning is the density of aluminium particulate and other conductive metal particulate that is rapidly accumulating in the lower ionosphere after reentry demolishment of entire vehicles. These metals from satellites are already clearly measured in the stratosphere [10]. The satellites break up at 60 to 70 km, and here the ionosphere has a Debye length of approximately 1.5 meters on average between day and night conditions [5]. As shown in Figure 2, the Debye length goes up in the meteor ablation zone, however, this is likely from space debris and not meteors, as conductive material from satellites has far exceeded meteor material. If it is known that the Debye length has increased noticeably from meteor aluminium, then high concern should be placed upon the vast amounts of satellite aluminium. It is estimated that the meteor ablation zone gets approximately 50 tons of meteorite material per day – but the charged dust from that amount is approximately 1 percent (450 kg)[3]. Thus, one next generation Starlink (1250 kg) creates almost 3 times as much charged dust as all meteorite material in one day. If the amount of meteor aluminium and the corresponding charged dust has created an increase of Debye length by approximately 0.3 meters and satellite dust is approximately 60 times that (using the Starlink constellation alone), then assuming proportionality of this trend, the satellite aluminium from Starlink alone would potentially increase the Debye length by over 17 meters. This would be nearly double the Debye length of the Magnetosheath, which is 9.5 meters [4]. The Debye length in the ionosphere and magnetosphere ranges from a few centimeters to a few tens of meters. Therefore, all satellite reentries are on a trajectory to create a band of charge higher than the rest of the magnetosphere. If this estimation is correct, Starlink reentries alone could be impacting the ionosphere.

Figure 2:In this figure using CCMC data, it is shown that the electron Debye length increases at the meteor ablation zone in the lower ionosphere. This could potentially have been from space debris. This data is from 2010 and space debris has increased dramatically since. If it is believed that there is an increase in Debye length from meteorite aluminium, then the effect is stronger for reentry material, which has vastly exceeded the meteorite aluminium. As shown here, the increase in the Debye length is at the top of the ablation zone, further suggesting this is from space industry reentries.

The ion Debye length, which includes mobile ions, is given by

The electron Debye length, which is extracted here from CCMC data, is given by


According ionospheric models, the lower regions of the ionosphere are particularly difficult for acquiring data and measurements. These regions are too low for satellite in situ measurements and difficult to sound from the ground typically because of the low ion/electron densities and high neutral densities. So data in this region on electron density relies on rocket measurements [2]. However, data in a region slightly higher than the meteor ablation zone, already shows there may be concern because spaceflight regions are showing much higher Debye lengths than non-spaceflight regions, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3:In this figure using CCMC data, it is shown that the electron Debye length at 100 km in spaceflight regions is much higher than non-spaceflight regions. The Debye length in spaceflight regions is trending up over time. This illustrates that human activity is having an impact on the ionosphere. Here Kennedy Space Flight Center is the spaceflight region and Reykjavik, Iceland is the non-spaceflight region. It is preferred to compare Debye length in the meteor ablation zone, but the exact values are more difficult to acquire because ionosondes and satellite measurements here are less reliable.

III.3 Plasma drag

Plasma drag occurs when charged particles are trapped in a planet’s magnetic field. These charged particles can overtake the magnetosphere depending on their location and density. Drag is directly related to density and since it has been shown here that the masses of artificial plasma dust are going to create regions of charged particles with a much higher density than elsewhere in the magnetosphere, it should be expected that plasma drag within the meteor ablation zone is going to overtake the other regions of the magnetosphere.

III.4 Small-scale Scenario

In a basic physics consideration, a spherical magnet (analog Earth) surrounded by a conductive spherical mesh (analog megaconstellations) would induce a drop in magnetic field outside of the conductive spherical mesh. This would allow solar energizing particles to more easily reach the satellite regions (and atmosphere) and cause satellite failures and thus further stratify the ionosphere with conductive particulate. The complication is that the spherical mesh in this scenario is very wide (6 times the radius of Earth) and whether this circumstance is more adverse is unknown.

However, the layer of the conductive particulate from satellite and spacecraft reentry demolishment may rapidly condense at current rates of activity. This layer of metal particles in the lower ionosphere, where the Debye length may become stronger than the natural ionosphere, will become a conductive shell of material. Inside the shell, the electric field tends toward 0. Thus outside the shell, the magnetic field tends toward 0.

III.5 Magnetosphere Loss on Mars and Dust on Earth

It is thought that the loss of the magnetosphere on Mars may have involved separation of planetary materials in the core of Mars [13]. The space industry on Earth is taking vast amounts of conductive materials naturally found on the surface and in the crust and injecting them into the ionosphere and beyond, causing a new stratification of planetary material.

Mars, nearer to the asteroid belt, may have endured more meteor ablation involving aluminium and other metals. This may have played a part in the magnetosphere erosion, which the space industry is now accelerating with incessant satellite reentry demolishment.

Additionally, further research regarding the Chicxulub impact [12] indicates that the dust from the asteroid was a key mechanism in the extinction of dinosaurs and life in this period. The space industry is replicating this type of asteroid dust with more extreme chemicals, dynamics, mass, and combinations that have not had sufficient study at this time. At 1250 kg per satellite, only approximately 100,000 to 150,000 satellite re-entry demolishments are needed to meet the approximate mass of the Chicxulub impact. A new estimate [3] indicates that 1 million satellites are expected to be maintained and regularly demolished in total.

IV Conclusion

With the estimated projected values for the Starlink megaconstellation alone (approximately one 1250 kg satellite per hour re-entering), every second the space industry is adding approximately 2,000 times more conductive material than mass of the Van Allen Belts into the ionosphere. It appears assumed by the space industry that the magnetosphere and Van Allen Belts are indestructible, when in fact the nature of their composition is delicate and billions of times less massive than the conductive material being added to the magnetosphere on a regular basis. Continued monitoring and analysis of this artificial charged dust in comparison to the natural charged dust is needed.

It is known that man-made chemicals can endanger the atmosphere, and the megaconstellations are not just depositing dangerous chemicals, they are depositing huge masses of conductive material. It is known that injecting fossil fuels into the atmosphere, originally from below the Earth’s crust, is risking the habitability of Earth. It appears likewise for injecting metals from the ground and crust into the ionosphere. Using just estimates from Starlink reentry masses, the Debye length of the ablation zone may increase to over 17 meters if the planned reentry demolishment of 23 satellites per day occurs. This amount, if globally spread and amplified by hundreds of other planned and developing megaconstellations, would cause perturbation to the magnetosphere because it would out-compete the Debye length elsewhere in the nearby magnetosphere and magnetosheath. It may be the case that satellites, reentry particulate, and conductive space debris may cause further weakening and perturbations of the magnetosphere.

V Acknowledgement

This work was made possible partly by the satellite monitoring and tracking work of Dr. Jonathan McDowell of Jonathan’s Space Report, as well as by the open source data of the Community Coordinated Modeling Center (CCMC). The editing and support of Dr. Samantha Lawler of University of Regina also made this work possible. I’d like to also acknowledge Dr. Andy Lawrence for leading the Starlink FCC appeal, which spurred some of this research.

VI References

[2]↑Bilitza, D., Pezzopane, M., Truhlik, V., et al, 2022, The International Reference Ionosphere Model: A Review and Description of an Ionospheric Benchmark, Reviews of Geophysics, doi: 10.1029/2022RG000792.

  • [3]↑Boley, A. and Byers, M., 2021, Satellite mega-constellations create risks in Low Earth Orbit, the atmosphere and on Earth, 11, 10642, Scientific Reports, doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-89909-7.
  • [4]↑Champion, K. and Schaub, H., 2022, Effective Debye Lengths in Representative Cislunar Regions, 16th Spacecraft Charging Technology Conference.
  • [5]↑Mann, I., Gunnarsdottir, T., Häggström, I. et al, 2019, Radar studies of ionospheric dusty plasma phenomena, doi: 10.1002/ctpp.201900005.
  • [6]↑McDowell, J. Jonathan’s Space Report, 2023, 819, url: http://planet4589.org/space/con/star/stats.html.
  • [7]↑McDowell, J., Jonathan’s Space Report – Reentry masses, 2023, 819, url: http://www.planet4589.com/space/data/reentry/data/remass.txt.
  • [8]↑McDowell, J., Jonathan’s Space Report – Starlink Simulations, 2023, 819, url: https://planet4589.org/astro/starsim/index.html.
  • [9]↑Merlino, R., 2021, Dusty Plasmas: from Saturn’s rings to semiconductor processing devices, 6, Advances in Physics, doi: 10.1080/23746149.2021.1873859.
  • [10]↑Murphy, D., Abou-Ghanem, M., Cziczo, J., et al, 2023, Metals from spacecraft reentry in stratospheric aerosol particles, The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, doi: 10.1073/pnas.2313374120.
  • [11]↑Schiermeier, Q., 2013, Mission to map Earth’s magnetic field readies for take-off, Nature, doi: 10.1038/nature.2013.14212.
  • [12]↑Senel, C., Kaskes, P., Temel, O. et al, 2023, Chicxulub impact winter sustained by fine silicate dust, Nature Geoscience, doi: 10.1038/s41561-023-01290-4.
  • [13]↑Yokoo, S., Hirose, K., Tagawa, S. and et al, 2022, Stratification in planetary cores by liquid immiscibility in Fe-S-H, Nature Communications, doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-28274-z.

https://arxiv.org/html/2312.09329v1
https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.09329

ATTRIBUTION 4.0 INTERNATIONAL

  CC BY 4.0

Deed

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

You are free to:

  1. Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
  2. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
  3. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

Five Takeaways From Trump’s Plans To Build An Iron Dome For America

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack
Posted by Tyler Durden

Trump signed an Executive Order to build an Iron Dome for America, which aims to defend the homeland “against ballistic, hypersonic, advanced cruise missiles, and other next-generation aerial attacks.”

It’ll also importantly include space-based monitoring and interception systems. Some of the latter will have “non-kinetic capabilities” too, likely referring to directed-energy weapons (DEWs), but it’s unclear whether they’ll be deployed on the ground and/or in space.

Here are five takeaways from this monumental move:

*  *  *

1. Strategic Stability Will Never Look The Same

Bush Jr.’s unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 prompted Russia to develop hypersonic technology so as to prevent the US from feeling comfortable enough with its missile defense shield that it one day plots a first strike after thinking that it could intercept Russia’s second one. Trump’s Iron Dome plans mean that there’s no going back to the era of mutual restrictions on missile defense, which was already dubious after what Bush Jr. did, thus worsening the Russian-US security dilemma.

2. The US Just Sped Up The Second Space Race

The second Space Race has already been underway since Trump created the Space Force in 2019, but his latest Executive Order sped it up by compelling Russia and China to further prioritize their space-based defense plans, which will inevitably result in the hyper-militarization of space. There’s no way that those two won’t suit through the deployment of their own defensive systems there that could also disguise offensive weapons just like the US might secretly be plotting to do under this pretext.

3. “Rods From God” Are The Next Superweapon

Whichever country is the first to position itself to carry out kinetic bombardments against others, which refers to dropping space-based projectiles onto their opponent, will obtain dominance. These weapons are popularly known as “rods from God”[https://newspaceeconomy[dot]ca/2023/07/09/the-rod-of-god-theoretical-kinetic-energy-weaponry-from-space/] and are poised to become the next superweapon since they might be impossible to intercept and can promptly strike opponents due to menacingly orbiting above their targets or in close enough proximity to them at all times. This makes them a military game-changer.

4. This Is An Unprecedented Power Play By The US

The preceding points prove that Trump’s Iron Dome plans are an unprecedented power play against Russia and China. The unofficial “rods from God” offensive element raises the chances that the US can destroy their land-based second-strike capability in a first strike while the official missile defense one is meant to neutralize their remaining (submarine-based) capabilities. The combined effect is intended to place them in positions of nuclear blackmail from which concessions can then be perpetually extracted.

5. Space-Based Arms Control Should Be A Priority

Russia and China will work to counteract the US’ aforesaid power play and then unveil their own such systems so as to try to place it in the same position of nuclear blackmail that it wants to place them. This is a dangerous dynamic since one of these three might feel like time is running out before they’re placed in such a position and that they must thus launch a first strike without delay. The only way to reduce this risk is through a space-based arms control pact with credible monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.

*  *  *

Trump’s plans to build an Iron Dome for America are a game-changer in the New Cold War since they’ll take the US’ rivalry with Russia and China to a qualitatively more dangerous level.

The consequent hyper-militarization of space that’ll occur as a result of him wanting to deploy interceptors there, which could disguise offensive arms like “rods from God”, spikes the risk of war by miscalculation.

A space-based arms control pact between them is unlikely anytime soon, but it’s the only way to reduce this risk.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/five-takeaways-trumps-plans-build-iron-dome-america

https://korybko.substack.com/p/five-takeaways-from-trumps-plans

May 10, 2024: U.S. Space Force presentation to California Coastal Commission on Vandenberg SFB operations

Friday, May 10, the U.S. Space Force gave a presentation to the California Coastal Commission on Vandenberg Space Force Base operations. This included their development plans.

Item #7 Energy, Ocean Resources & Federal Consistency
a. Informational presentation on Vandenberg Space Force Base operations. Presentation by the U.S. Space Force on space launch and landing operations at Vandenberg Space Force Base.

https://cal-span.org/meeting/ccc_20240510/
Meeting video with Presentations:
Space Force presentation begins at 1:53:10,; public comment and commission comment follow.
USSF Presentation: Side menu under Presentations — click the down arrow, and select “public-f7a-titus.pptx” for Space Force presentation.

https://www.coastal.ca.gov/meetings/agenda/#/2024/5
Agenda, click on the Friday tab.

January 23, USAF SpaceX EIS Scoping Meeting on expanding operations and launches to 100/year at Vandenberg

Thursday, January 23
6 pm Pacific Time
Virtual public meeting
US Space Force, Vandenberg

The Dept. of Air Force is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on changes to the SpaceX launch program at Vandenberg, and seeking public comments. Proposals include:

  • Increasing SpaceX launches to 100 per year, and
  • Expanding launch operations and facilities

ONLINE
Join the Meeting
https://mantech.zoomgov.com/j/1608982564
Zoom Meeting ID:160 898 2564

BY PHONE
Call in #: 1-669-254-5252
Zoom Meeting ID: 160 898 2564

Written comments due January 27, 2025 – see below

Summary Fact Sheet
English
Spanish

>> Alternatives being analyzed in the EIS are
Proposed Action, Alternative 1, and the No Action Alternative

  • • Under the Proposed Action, the DAF would authorize Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch and landing operations at SLC-6, including modifications to SLC-6 required to support those operations and construction of landing zones. The DAF would also authorize an increase in Falcon 9 launches from SLC-4, which currently hosts Falcon 9 launch operations, and an increase in downrange landings on a droneship in the Pacific Ocean. The overall launch cadence for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy at both SLCs, combined, would be 100 launches per year. No modification of SLC-4 infrastructure is proposed. The FAA would issue or modify a vehicle operator license for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy operations and approve corresponding temporary airspace closures for operations. Under the Proposed Action, the existing horizontal integration facility (HIF) located north of SLC-6 would be modified into a hangar for use by SpaceX to support Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy operations.
  • • Alternative 1 is the same as the Proposed Action except rather than modifying the existing HIF, DAF would authorize SpaceX to construct a new hangar south of the HIF and north of the launch pad at SLC-6.
  • • Under the No Action Alternative, the DAF would not authorize any Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy launches or landing operations at, or modifications to, SLC-6, nor would the DAF authorize additional Falcon 9 launches from SLC-4. SpaceX would not apply for an FAA vehicle operator license for Falcon operations at SLC-6 or increased launches from SLC-4.

Public Comments:

Comments must be postmarked or received electronically by Jan. 27, 2025. Public scoping comments can be submitted in English or Spanish in the following ways:

  • • In-person at one of the three public scoping meetings
  • • Via online comment form
  • • Email to: info@VSFBFalconLaunchEIS.com, with the subject line “Falcon EIS”
  • • Mail to:

ATTN: VSFB Falcon Launch EIS
c/o ManTech International Corporation
420 Stevens Avenue, Suite 100
Solana Beach, CA 92075


The DAF will consider each comment during the EIS process, and all comments will become part of the public record. Comments, including attachments, must not exceed a 20-megabyte file size. Do not submit confidential, sensitive, or protected information.

Next steps:

  • The DAF will release at draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and open another public comment period in Spring/Summer 2025.
  • Following that, DAF will issue a final EIS in Fall 2025.

More information:
https://vsfbfalconlauncheis%5Bdot%5Dcom/

“It sounded like a bomb.” Large hot piece of rocket debris crashes near homes. Who’s next?

Reports from the public after launches or re-entries from SpaceX at Boca Chica, Texas, and Vandenberg AFB, California, compare the sound to an explosion, which also shatters windows and cracks concrete. These are not traditional “sonic booms.”

This rocket debris could have killed people or animals or caused a catastrophic fire. Notice the BCC’s language which makes light of the incident and the residents. 1 in 10,000 risk or worse is not a freak accident.

From the BBC

How a freak space junk crash baffled residents and sparked concern
Waihiga Mwaura
BBC Focus on Africa TV, Mukuku village
1-11-25

An eerie whizzing sound followed by a big boom startled Kenyan villagers relaxing recently one afternoon with family and friends.

“It sounded like a bomb, I was shocked. I started looking around, also wondering if it was gunshots,” Stephen Mangoka, a 75-year-old farmer from Makueni county’s Mukuku village, told the BBC.

“I looked up in the sky to see if there was smoke. Nothing.

“I rushed to the road to check if there had been an accident. Also, nothing. That is when someone told me that something had fallen from the skies.”

In fact, a massive round metal object had plummeted from above landing on farmland near a dry riverbed – and it was piping hot.

“We found a big piece of metal that was very red so we had to wait for it to cool before anyone could approach it,” said Ann Kanuna, who told us she owns the land where the object fell.

The giant ring took around two hours to cool down and turn grey – but it had already become a sensation with people arriving to look at it.

The rest of that Monday afternoon – with few people working as it was the day before New Year’s Eve – crowds came to view the giant metallic ring.

It was like selfie central, with people coming to pose next to it and great debates about what it could be.

The local authorities in Makueni county – which is around 115km (70 miles) south-east of the capital, Nairobi – were informed.

The Kenya Space Agency (KSA) then heard about it and made arrangements to come and investigate the next day.

But such was the object’s fame that Mukuku villagers feared it would be stolen overnight.

Together with local officers, some of them took it in turns to stand guard, lighting a fire nearby. They wanted to keep away potential scrap dealers and others wanting to make money out of the curiosity.

It is said to weigh more than 500kg (1,102lb) – around the same as an adult horse – and is around 2.5m (8ft) in diameter, roughly the size of child’s four-seater merry-go-round.

With daylight came more onlookers on New Year’s Eve – followed by the KSA team and the media.

Mukuku had never seen such activity. When the object was carted away later that day by the KSA, the buzz gave way to concerns about what the villagers had had in their midst.

The KSA said its preliminary assessments indicated the object was “a separation ring” from a space launch rocket.

“Such objects are usually designed to burn up as they re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere or to fall over unoccupied areas, such as the oceans,” its statement said the next day.

No-one was injured when it had fallen but some in Mukuku began to complain that the impact of the crash had caused damage to nearby houses.

Christine Kionga, who lives about a kilometre from the crash site, showed us cracks in the concrete of some of the buildings in her home compound. She said they had appeared after the crash.

Other neighbours alleged the structural integrity of their homes had also been affected – allegations that are yet to be substantiated.

“The government needs to find the owners of this object, and get compensation for those affected by it,” Mukuku resident Benson Mutuku told the BBC.

There were reports in the local media that some residents had begun to complain of feeling unwell after exposure to the metallic ring though there was no confirmation from those we spoke to when we visited – nor from the authorities or the KSA.

Nonetheless Mr Mutuku said there were concerns about the long-term effects of possible space radiation.

“This is a space object and we have heard in other similar incidents that there have been effects of radiation affecting even future generations and there is that fear in this community.”

However tests run later by the Kenya Nuclear Regulatory Authority revealed that while the metal ring did have higher radiation levels than the area in which it was found, they were not at a level harmful to humans.

Engineers from the KSA, which was established in 2017 to promote, co-ordinate and regulate space-related activities in the East African nation, are continuing to run other tests to find out more about the object.

The KSA director general said it was lucky that no significant damage was done when the object hurtled to Earth.

“The ultimate responsibility for any damage or injury caused by that space object is on the state in whose jurisdiction that operator may have launched the object,” Brigadier Hillary Kipkosgey told the BBC.

According to the Outer Space Treaty, overseen by the UN Office for Outer Space Affairs, “states shall be liable for damage caused by their space objects”.

“[The ring] is a common item in many rockets and many space objects so it difficult to attribute it to a specific rocket or space object but we have leads but as I said our investigations are not conclusive,” Brigadier Kipkosgey said.

The BBC showed pictures of the object to the UK Space Agency to get the thoughts of its experts.

“The most plausible object it could be is the upper stage separation ring from an Ariane rocket in 2008,” its launch director, Matt Archer, said.

“The satellites are fine, but the actual rocket body has come through and de-orbited.”

The Ariane was Europe’s main rocket launch vehicle, helping more than 230 satellites into orbit, before it was retired in 2023.

It seems the separation ring may have been orbiting Earth for 16 years before making its unexpected appearance in Mukuku.

This is not the first incident of space junk appearing in East Africa.

Just over a year and a half ago some suspected space debris fell over several villages in western Uganda.

And a few days ago, on 8 January, there were unconfirmed reports of what was believed to be space debris burning brightly in the skies above northern Kenya and southern Ethiopia.

As the space industry grows, it is predicted that such incidents will become more frequent – and African governments may need to invest in ways to better detect this speeding space rubbish.

Nasa estimates there are more than 6,000 tonnes of space debris in orbit at the moment.

There are many different estimates about the chances of such junk hitting someone, but most are in the one-in-10,000 range.

Such statistics are little comfort for Mukuku’s residents, who cannot help thinking of what damage the ring could have caused had it landed in the centre of the village instead of on farmland.

“We need assurances from the government that it won’t happen again,” said Mr Mutuku.

Captions:
The rocket ring fell not far from the centre of Mukuku village
The space junk fell just before new year celebrations

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyn9dgdwe3o

Comments due January 17 on SpaceX Starship/Superheavy increased launches and landings – FAA docket # FAA-2024-2006

>>> Comments due January 17, 2025 <<<
Docket No. FAA-2024-2006

Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for SpaceX Starship/SuperHeavy Increased Cadence

NOTE:
>> The FAA only conducted an Environmental Assessment (EA), not a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), on SpaceX’s proposal.
>> On its project page, the FAA fails to mention Hawai’i or Peru or California as crash zones for these flights.

>> Submit comments electronically to the FAA by Jan. 17 https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/FAA-2024-2006-0114
(comment category appears to be “other”, per the heading on the page)

https://www.faa.gov/media/87636
Executive Summary of the Revised Draft Tiered Environmental Assessment for SpaceX Starship/Super Heavy Vehicle Increased Cadence at the SpaceX Boca Chica Launch Site in Cameron County, Texas November 2024

https://www.faa.gov/media/87646
Full report: Revised Draft Tiered Environmental Assessment for SpaceX Starship/Super Heavy Increased Cadence

From FAA webpage:
“SpaceX proposes to conduct Starship/Super Heavy launch operations from the Boca Chica Launch Site in Cameron County, Texas. SpaceX must apply for and obtain an experimental permit(s) and/or a vehicle operator license from the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation to operate the Starship/Super Heavy launch vehicle.

The FAA’s evaluation of a permit or license application includes a review of 1) public safety issues (such as overflight of populated areas and payload contents); 2) national security or foreign policy concerns; 3) insurance requirements for the launch operator; and 4) potential environmental impact. Read more about the history of the Boca Chica launch site and the location of the launch site.

The FAA [held] public meetings on the Revised Draft Tiered Environmental Assessment for SpaceX’s proposal to increase the number of launches and landings of its Starship/Super Heavy vehicle at the Boca Chica Launch Site in Cameron County, Texas.

  • Up to 25 annual Starship/Super Heavy orbital launches, including:
    • Up to 25 annual landings of Starship (Second stage)
    • Up to 25 annual landings of Super Heavy (First stage)

The Revised Draft EA also addresses vehicle upgrades. 

…The FAA has developed a written re-evaluation (WR) addressing the proposed project updates to the location of the expended forward heat shield in the Gulf of Mexico, additional information regarding sonic booms resulting from a landing of the Super Heavy booster, updates to sonic boom modeling, and updates to use of the water deluge system. The WR evaluates whether supplemental environmental analysis is needed to support the FAA’s decision to modify SpaceX’s operator license. 

Based on the WR, the FAA concluded that the contents of the 2022 PEA remain current and substantially valid and that the decision to issue a modification of the existing vehicle operator license for updated operations for the Flight 5 mission profile for Starship/Super Heavy operations at the Boca Chica Launch Site does not require the preparation of a new or supplemental EA or EIS to support the Proposed Action. “

>> Submit comments to the FAA by Jan. 17 https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/FAA-2024-2006-0114

https://www.faa.gov/space/stakeholder_engagement/spacex_starship
FAA page on SpaceX dockets

https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2024-2006-0114
FAA page with Revised Draft EA SpaceX Starship-Super Heavy Cadence Increase at Boca Chica_508 and public comments

FAA informational materials for its community meetings:

https://www.faa.gov/media/88766
Powerpoint presentation – English
Accede a la presentación en español aquí.

https://www.faa.gov/media/88756
Script
Accede al guión en español aquí.

https://www.faa.gov/media/88746
Display boards
Accede a los carteles en español aquí.

https://www.faa.gov/media/88736
Brochure (see last page — the rainbow behind the launch pad)
Accede al folleto en español aquí.

Also, this independent article on impacts to Hawai’i:
https://www.civilbeat.org/?p=1689159

Also,
https://www.faa.gov/media/76836
Tiered Environmental Assessment for SpaceX Starship Indian Ocean Landings
https://www.faa.gov/media/76841
Finding of No Significant Impact and Record of Decision

FAA considers Musk’s SpaceX plans to crash down near Hawaiʻi without complete environmental review – comments due January 17

From Civil Beat

Public Should Weigh In On Elon Musk’s SpaceX Plans To Splash Down Near Hawaiʻi

Federal authorities have not required a thorough review, or consultation with Hawaiian stakeholders, for Starshipʻs proposed landing zones.

By Lynda Williams
January 10, 2025

Since 2022, Elon Musk and SpaceX has requested larger and larger landing areas near Hawai‘i for their experimental rocket, Starship. Now, the aerospace company is seeking federal approval to launch more frequently and to land even closer to Hawaiʻi, with the current proposal being over 20 times the size of the initial request.

Hawaiʻi stakeholders have never been consulted in the environmental review process. That is not necessary, according to the Federal Aviation Administration, because “the Starship vehicle is planned to land outside of range for impacts to the residents of Hawai’i.”  

That position by FAA glides past a range of potential impacts and concerns. The landing zones lie within waters used by the local fishing industry. They overlap with humpback whale migration routes, and encompass areas of cultural significance, such as Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument.

Critics argue that this proximity alone demands greater consultation and scrutiny, not less. Although no public meetings are planned in Hawai‘i, the general public can attend a virtual meeting Monday or submit comments to the FAA by Jan. 17. 

Environmental Reviews

To review the potential impacts of SpaceX landings in the Pacific, the FAA has chosen to rely on a patchwork of assessments rather than conducting a full Environmental Impact Statement, which would provide a more thorough and comprehensive view — and would require a more robust opportunity for community input. 

One of the patchwork of assessments was a 2022 look at Starship operations that included Pacific landing areas located 62 nautical miles north of Kaua‘i and west of Papahānaumokuākea, the largest contiguous marine reserve in the U.S. The upper stage of Starship is designed to crash into designated landing zones in the ocean, where it is intentionally exploded on impact to minimize retrieval risks and costs.

The 2022 proposed landing area for Starship in green; the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in blue; false killer whale critical habitat in turquoise. (Federal Aviation Administration)

In 2023, SpaceX revised its Starship plans, and received FAA permission to add an additional area southwest of Hawai‘i for debris fields from launches that were not configured to survive atmospheric reentry. Despite no additional environmental review, the FAA granted SpaceX a launch license that year for up to five landings per year in the Pacific.

The 2023 expansion of potential Starship debris fields is shown in red. (Federal Aviation Administration)

SpaceX is now seeking approval to expand its operations in the Pacific again. This plan would increase allowable Starship launches and landings from five to 25 a year, and would expand the hazardous landing zones across the Pacific, from Hawaiʻi to California, including waters surrounding the Pacific Islands Heritage National Marine Monument and Papahānaumokuākea.

SpaceXʻs new, much larger proposed Starship landing area. (Federal Aviation Administration)

The FAA confirmed that it started formal consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service on Nov. 27 to evaluate the potential impact to marine species and critical habitats in the expanded Pacific Ocean landing areas. A biological opinion is due within 135 days. 

This current review builds upon the previous 2022 biological opinion that concluded Starship landings would cause no harm to marine mammals and critical habitats.

However, that assessment relied only on best-case scenarios, such as the assumption that Starship would completely disintegrate upon impact and detonation. Had FAA required a full environmental impact statement, potential errors or mishaps would need to be considered.

There was also no consultation with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, which is a co-trustee and manager of Papahānaumokuākea.

Accidents And Lawsuits

As of now, no Starship landings have taken place in the Pacific Ocean.

The first test flight on April 20, 2023, which aimed for a Pacific landing, ended in a catastrophic explosion shortly after liftoff over the launch pad at Boca Chica, Texas, scattering debris across sensitive wetlands and wildlife habitats. The blast also created a shockwave that shattered windows in nearby homes and launched a cloud of dust and particulate matter that blanketed the surrounding community.

The incident sparked significant outrage from local residents, environmental groups, and Indigenous communities, who criticized the FAA for insufficient oversight and what critics described as rushed approvals.

Several environmental organizations, including the Center for Biological Diversity, as well as the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, have sued FAA over its approval process, arguing that it failed to require a full EIS and account for worst-case scenarios. The lawsuit is pending.

Accountability And Public Input

Musk has repeatedly criticized the FAA’s regulatory requirements for SpaceX operations at Boca Chica, mocking the need to assess potential impacts on marine life and quipping that if Starship hit a whale, “the whale had it coming.”

Although the FAA has not required a full environmental impact statement at Boca Chica, the Defense Department does require one for Cape Canaveral — regulations Musk has never publicly criticized. His role in the incoming Trump administration’s government efficiency initiative, where he has pledged to put regulations “on the chopping block,” has raised concerns about possible conflicts of interest, especially as his companies have over $8 billion in government contracts.

A full environmental impact state would trigger what is known as a Section 106 consultation, requiring federal agencies to assess potential impacts on historic and cultural sites, and consultation with Hawaiʻi stakeholders like OHA. 

That is why it’s crucial residents of Hawaiʻi speak up now and demand a full review be conducted by SpaceX to protect our waters, culture, and islands — because the Pacific Ocean is not a dumping ground for Elon Musk’s ego trip to Mars.

An online public meeting will be held at 1:30 p.m. Monday [Jamuary 13]. Registration is required. Public comments are due by Jan. 17 and can be submitted at Regulations.gov. For meeting documents and additional information, visit the FAA SpaceX project website.

Lynda Williams is a physicist and environmental activist based in Hilo.

https://www.civilbeat.org/?p=1689159

Posted under Fair Use Rules.

Keep Space for Peace Week — October 5-12, 2024

From The Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space
https://space4peace.org/keep-space-for-peace-week/

In 1999 the United Nations General Assembly declared that October 4-10 every year would be designated as ‘World Space Week’ to “celebrate the contributions of space science and technology to the betterment of the human condition” – we ask people to recognise this as a time to Keep Space for Peace.

Each year the GN provides a poster for use to highlight the Week of Actions and posts a list of the actions organised by our members.

Keep Space for Peace Week
October 5-12 2024

With the current US-NATO expansion happening worldwide, seeking full spectrum dominance, we are viewing our Keep Space for Peace Week this year as the most important one since the Global Network was founded in 1992. The prospects for space-directed WW3 between the US-NATO and Russia, China and Iran are greater than ever.

Most of the global public has little to no understanding how space technology these days is in the driver’s seat of modern warfare. Thus we feel the enormous need to increase our efforts to help plant the seeds in the international public consciousness about keeping space for peace.

So we hope that you and others in your community will find ways to help us reach out to the people and sprout these crucial seeds during this extremely dangerous moment.

VIDEO

Download keep space for peace week poster 2024

Organize a local event
Be sure to let us know about any event
you organize in your local community during keep space for peaceweek. We will add it to our events list

Check events page: https://space4peace.org/events/

Events at military bases, space tech production facilities, launch sites, outside government buildings and more.
Please check out & share one of our short space videos.
See our video list here

More info at www space4peace.org

International peace organizations oppose aerospace expansion on California coast

From CODEPINK

Please join CODEPINK, World Beyond War and the Central Coast Antiwar Coalition to urge lawmakers and policy advocates to invest in the peace economy co-ops, community land trusts, farmers markets and community gardens–and to stop funding the expansion of aerospace: missiles, bombs and rockets for the rich.

Send a letter below to lawmakers, policy advocates and college administrators to oppose plans to expand the war and private space industry on the Central Coast of California. Tell them to invest in the peace economy instead.

Letter to personalize, edit, and send.

https://www.codepink.org/stopaerospacece