SpaceX, Blue Origin and their chums want orbital datacentres, but critics warn the idea could poison the atmosphere.
According to the Guardian space industry boffins and environmental groups have warned that space datacentres proposed by SpaceX, Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin and others would release staggering pollution. They say the result would probably alter Earth’s atmosphere and be “catastrophic” for the planet.
Tech outfits have collectively proposed millions of “orbital datacenters” and are pushing ahead with plans that need Federal Communications Commission approval. The problem is that satellites and rockets burning up on re-entry appear to be dumping pollution into the stratosphere at worrying levels.
The spacecraft release black soot, rare metals, aluminium oxides and other muck with effects nobody properly understands. Some scientists fear the pollution could damage the ozone layer, expose people to more ultraviolet radiation or further destabilise the planet during the climate crisis.
The pollution could drift back to Earth, which is a nice bonus for anyone who wanted orbital cloud computing with a side order of toxic sprinkles. Millions of satellites would create a large new source of light pollution too.
A petition filed with the FCC calls for a pause on new licences for space datacentre projects. It argues that the plans “violate federal law”.
The datacentre companies “describe their plans in grandiose, civilisation-changing terms”, the petition states. “But these same proponents have refused to embrace any inquiry into the impacts of their self-claimed epochal technology on the environment, science, economy, or other values.”
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Earthjustice and DarkSky International filed the petition. DarkSky International works to protect the sky from light pollution, which suddenly sounds less quaint and more like a necessary adult in the room.
Several former US federal space officials told the Guardian they doubt orbital datacentres are even feasible. Former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite office head Steve Volz said putting millions of extra satellites into orbit would create a serious environmental risk.
“There is a lot of complex material in these things, and even if they do burn up, you do not want to be filling up the atmosphere with refuse from these any more than you would want it coming from a smoke stack,” Volz said.
Volz was with Noaa until he was put on leave and eventually fired under the Trump administration. Big tech began floating orbital datacentres last year after public opposition to Earth-based datacentres became harder to dismiss as local moaning.
The number of active satellites has shot up from about 1,400 in 2015 to about 15,000 now. As many as 100,000 are expected to be in orbit within the decade, before the datacentre networks start adding their own shiny junk.
Most current satellite pollution is thought to come from Starlink and Amazon mega constellations, which provide broadband internet through about 10,000 satellites. Spacecraft can make a mess on the way up and on the way down.
Launches emit black carbon, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, aluminium oxide and chlorine gases, while spacecraft in orbit can release mercury. When satellites are decommissioned five to 15 years later, they release metals as they vaporise.
That injects pollutants into previously clean parts of the stratosphere, which is a sensitive system and not a handy corporate skip. Scientists still know little about the consequences.
A Noaa-sponsored stratospheric measurement flight in late 2023 found metals in sulphuric acid aerosols that make up much of the stratosphere. These aerosols help regulate Earth’s temperature and may partially act as a planetary sunscreen by forming high-altitude clouds that reflect solar radiation.
They also help keep greenhouse gases and pollution from entering the ozone layer from below. How spacecraft metals, naturally occurring metals and sulphuric acid aerosols interact is “largely unknown”, scientists behind the study said.
Further research has not been conducted under Trump. Meanwhile, campaigners say plants and animals rely on darkness, while light pollution is helping kill off fireflies and other insects.
“These projects could permanently alter the night sky as we know it,” DarkSky International executive director Ruskin Hartley said. “The FCC needs to take its obligation seriously to ensure these projects do not cause unnecessary harm to naturally dark skies.”
Former Noaa space policy expert Cole Donovan, now at Stand Up for Science, said space datacentres would need huge amounts of rare metals and other stretched resources. That creates another environmental headache on the ground before the rockets even get to the pad.
The satellite boom raises a pile of new legal and environmental questions. The petition says Congress requires the FCC to determine “whether the public interest, convenience, and necessity will be served by the granting” of a satellite application.
The groups say the National Environmental Policy Act covers satellites because it requires federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of proposed projects. The petition says Nepa would “assess impacts, propose alternatives, examine mitigation, and disclose risks that would help inform whether such proposals are in the public interest.”
Cowboy Space Corporation is among those seeking permits. The outfit was founded by the billionaire co-chief executive of Robinhood, who wants “to build an American power grid in space”.
Cowboy Space wants a 20,000-satellite system, with its first launch planned for 2028. Its only nod to environmental mitigation in its FCC application is a promise that the constellation “will be designed and operated to minimise potential impact on the astronomy community”.
SpaceX claims in its FCC application that its orbital datacentres will “ensur[e] humanity’s multi-planetary future amongst the stars”. Its only reference to environmental risk is a claim that it would “develop industry-leading brightness mitigations”, with no useful detail attached.
The petition says the tech companies’ FCC applications give no meaningful consideration to environmental consequences. Apparently, putting more than a million machines into orbit and waiting for them to collide, burn and fall home is now just a product roadmap.
“No proponent has provided satisfactory detail to explain how it will mitigate the cumulative environmental harms flowing from the foreseeable operation of more than a million satellites, orbiting our planet, colliding and disintegrating and plummeting back to Earth,” the petition states.
