Controversial new paper suggests satellites falling to earth could weaken planet’s magnetic field, sounding alarm on rise of private-owned craft like Elon Musk’s Starlink which could become space junk

A theoretical paper suggests that atmospheric metal pollution from defunct satellites could create an invisible shield around our planet that could weaken its magnetic field.

The controversial new paper was written by Seattle-based scientist Sierra Solter-Hunt and has yet to be peer-reviewed.

It has been claimed that falling space debris could very well weaken our magnetosphere, but some experts are skeptical.

It cites specific “mega-constellations” of satellites, such as SpaceX’s Starlink network, that can generate enough magnetic dust to cut our planet’s protective shield in half, Solter-Hunt writes.

In the worst case, the so-called “spacecraft dust” could lead to satellite disasters and “atmospheric stripping,” the author told LiveScience — a phenomenon in which increased radiation levels could blow away the outer edges of our Earth. atmosphere.

The article highlights that this has already occurred naturally on planets like Mars and Mercury, making them particularly uninhabitable.

“I was shocked by everything I discovered and that no one had studied this,” Solter-Hunt said Living Science Her findings on Monday.

‘I find it really alarming.’

In her article, the astrodynamicist goes on to suggest that somewhere between 500,000 and 1 million privately owned satellites could be orbiting our planet in the coming decades – a big leap considering there are currently 9,494 active satellites orbiting Earth.

That’s because companies like Elon Musk’s SpaceX are also expanding secretive satellite programs like the Pentagon’s Starshield, which is currently being used by the federal government.

A Space Force spokesperson confirmed in September that SpaceX was awarded a one-year contract for Starshield with a maximum value of $70 million as it quietly forges deeper ties with U.S. intelligence and military agencies.

Meanwhile, satellites from SpaceX’s Starlink network can already be seen orbiting Earth, disrupting radio telescopes and obscuring cosmic images taken by astronomers.

Private satellites also pose other problems, such as the risk of collisions with other spacecraft. But according to Solter-Hunt, the biggest concern comes when they no longer work.

When that happens, satellites in low orbits at an altitude of a few hundred kilometers from the ground or lower will enter the atmosphere and burn up over a period of several years to decades – while satellites in higher orbits will crash for no more than a decade. 100 years.

When these satellites eventually fall to Earth, the amount of spacecraft dust in the atmosphere could increase to billions of times current levels, Solter-Hunt warns — adding at one point, “And it could just stay there forever.” .’

She thinks the floating space junk will likely settle in the upper part of the ionosphere, about 50 to 400 miles above the Earth’s surface.

It is here where the physicist fears that metal pollution will cause problems, creating a “perfectly conductive net around our planet that could potentially carry an electrical charge,” she writes.

In the event of such an event, the magnetosphere, which normally extends thousands of miles into space, could be “deformed to remain beneath the conductive material,” reducing its reach to the upper ionosphere.

That’s about 300 to 640 kilometers above the Earth’s surface, right at the edge of space.

A reduced magnetic field means these satellites could therefore be exposed to higher levels of radiation and even solar storms, which could knock them out of the sky, Solter-Hunt warns.

“They could be weakening the magnetosphere with what they’re doing,” she added, which, she said, “puts satellite companies at risk.”

“It’s a real Catch-22 for satellite companies,” she adds.

But even if the increased radiation levels could strip our atmosphere, rest assured: It would likely take centuries, if not millennia, for this to happen, according to Solter-Hunt.

Yet not all scientists agree – with John Tarduno, a planetary scientist and magnetosphere expert at the University of Rochester in New York, responding to his contemporary’s claims in a strongly worded email.

“Even at the densities (of spacecraft dust) discussed, a continuously conducting shell like a true magnetic shield is unlikely,” he told LiveScience on Wednesday.

He added that some of the conclusions Solter-Hunt reached “are too simplistic and are unlikely to be correct” – a view echoed at least by other seasoned researchers who spoke to the publication.

José Ferreira, a doctoral candidate at the University of Southern California, told LiveScience that no one has ever modeled how spacecraft dust will settle in the atmosphere, so there is no precedent or evidence that magnetic shielding is even possible.

The space dust pollution expert’s statement was claimed by a researcher at England’s Durham University who specializes in space ethics, who also told LiveScience that the scenarios drawn up by Solter-Hunt are too speculative.

The paper is an “interesting thought experiment,” Fionagh Thompson said, but without clearly laying out how exactly spacecraft dust will cause these problems, “it shouldn’t be presented as ‘this is what’s going to happen,'” she said .

She added that the number of potential satellites to orbit Earth in the future estimated by Solter-Hunt also “seems exaggerated,” citing the number of touted satellite launches that will never happen.

“This is not an issue that should be ignored, and there is a need to take a step back and consider this (space junk pollution) as a completely new phenomenon.”

“There is a desperate need to study this as quickly as possible,” added astronomer Samantha Lawler of the University of Regina, calling Solter-Hunt’s work at least “an important first step.”

She admitted, “Honestly, I don’t think anyone knows what could happen.”