Space datacenters proposed by Musk and Bezos ‘catastrophic’ for planet, experts warn

Space datacenters proposed by SpaceX, Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin and others would release staggering levels of pollution that would probably alter the Earth’s atmosphere and be “catastrophic” for the planet, space industry experts and environmental groups warn in a new petition demanding a review of their impacts.

Tech companies have collectively proposed millions of “orbital datacenters” and are pressing forward with plans, which require Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approval. Among other issues, pollution from satellites and rockets burning up upon re-entry appears to be accumulating in the stratosphere at alarming levels. The spacecraft release black soot, rare metals, aluminum oxides and other pollutants with unknown effects.

Some scientists fear the pollution could destroy the ozone layer, potentially expose some people to higher levels of ultraviolet radiation, or help further destabilize the planet during the climate crisis. The pollution could also end up back on Earth, and millions of satellites would create a major source of light pollution.

The petition submitted to the FCC calls for a pause on new licenses for space data center projects, arguing that the plans “violate federal law”.

The datacenter companies “describe their plans in grandiose, civilization-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.”

The petition was filed by the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (Peer) non-profit, the Earthjustice legal non-profit, and the DarkSky International non-profit, which works to protect the sky from light pollution.

Several former federal US space officials told the Guardian they doubt the orbital datacenters are feasible. But putting millions of additional satellites into orbit would create a significant environmental risk, said Steve Volz, the former head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) satellite office.

“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 the agency until he was put on leave and eventually fired under the Trump administration.

Facing fierce public opposition from across the political spectrum to its datacenters on Earth, big tech last year began floating the idea of launching satellite datacenters into space. Some have begun seeking permits.

The number of active satellites in orbit has grown exponentially from about 1,400 in 2015 to about 15,000 currently. As many as 100,000 are expected to be in orbit within the decade, not including the datacenter networks. As of now, the bulk of the satellites’ pollution is thought to come from Starlink and Amazon’s “mega constellations” that provide broadband internet made up of about 10,000 satellites.

Spacecraft can cause problems on their way up and down. Launches emit a range of emissions like black carbon, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, aluminum oxide, chlorine gases and, once in orbit, mercury. When satellites are decommissioned five to 15 years later, they release metals as they vaporize. That’s injecting pollutants into previously pristine parts of the stratosphere, a highly sensitive system, and there’s very little understanding of the consequences.

Scientists only began to discover some of the impact in late 2023, when a Noaa-sponsored stratospheric measurement flight found metals in sulfuric acid aerosols that make up much of the stratosphere. These aerosols are thought to play an outsize role in regulating the Earth’s temperature, and may partly function as a planetary “sunscreen” by creating high-level clouds that reflect solar radiation, and they simultaneously keep greenhouse gases and pollution from entering the ozone layer from below.

But how the spacecraft metals, naturally occurring metals and sulfuric acid aerosols interact is “largely unknown”, scientists behind the study said. Further research has not been conducted under Trump.

Meanwhile, advocates say plants and animals rely on the darkness, and light pollution is contributing to firefly and other insect die-offs.

“These projects could permanently alter the night sky as we know it,” said Ruskin Hartley, executive director of DarkSky International. “The FCC needs to take seriously its obligation to ensure these projects do not cause unnecessary harm to naturally dark skies.”

Cole Donovan, a former Noaa space policy expert now with the Stand Up for Science non-profit, noted that the space datacenters would demand a huge amount of rare metals and other resources that are already in short supply, creating another environmental challenge on the ground.

The proliferation of satellites raises a raft of new legal and environmental questions. The petition claims Congress requires the FCC to determine “whether the public interest, convenience, and necessity will be served by the granting” of an application to operate a satellite.

The groups say the National Environmental Policy Act (Nepa), which requires federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts of their proposed projects, covers the satellites. Nepa would provide mechanisms to “assess impacts, propose alternatives, examine mitigation, and disclose risks that would help inform whether such proposals are in the public interest,” the petition states.

Among those requesting permits is the Cowboy Space Corporation, which was founded by the billionaire co-CEO of Robinhood, who aspires “to build an American power grid in space”. It wants to establish a 20,000-satellite system, with its first launch in 2028. The petition states that Cowboy Space’s only reference to environmental mitigation in its FCC application is a promise that the constellation “will be designed and operated to minimize potential impact on the astronomy community”.

The petition notes that SpaceX claims in its FCC application that its orbital datacenters will “ensur[e] humanity’s multi-planetary future amongst the stars”, but its only reference to environmental risk is a claim that it would “develop industry-leading brightness mitigations”, though it offers no other detail.

Ultimately, the tech companies’ FCC applications provide no meaningful consideration of environmental consequences, the petition states.

“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.

The Guardian wp:paragraph