Satellite (of) Love
- Paul Broxup
- Mar 11
- 4 min read
Someone contacted me after my last post (Atomic Boom: Big Tech Goes Nuclear) to protest the role of private investment in traditionally public domains, pointing to space exploration as a prime example of how private capital drives efficiency and reinvigorates innovation in stagnant industries.
I don’t dispute the benefits of private investment, and space exploration is a clear case where market competition has significantly eroded inefficiencies meaning the normalised cost of satellite launches since the 1960s has plummeted.
Chart 1 – $Cost/kg to Launch a Satellite into Low Earth Orbit[1]
The declining cost of launches has unsurprisingly seen the number of satellites in orbit rocket.
Chart 2 – Number of Satellites in Orbit[2]
And with good reason. Among many other benefits, satellites enhance global communications, improve navigation systems, enable advanced weather forecasting, and optimise resource management in agriculture. I was shown a demo recently for satellite-derived water management guidance to distribute depleted water resources and it is really very impressive, and if deployed appropriately should go a long way to reducing preventable waste in farming.
However, with Musk’s Starlink (perhaps it’s just me but this always sticks in my mind as Skynet…) announcing plans to grow its fleet of satellites to >42,000, and the US Government Accountability Office predicting more than 60,000 satellites in orbit by 2030, it’s worth exploring at what point the privatisation of space and the corresponding proliferation of satellites ceases to be beneficial and starts becoming a hindrance?
The Risks of Unchecked Satellite Proliferation
There are already tangible risks associated with this rapid expansion. The most immediate concern is the accumulation of space debris, fragments of defunct satellites and rockets trapped in orbit at 28,000 km/h. Every additional satellite increases the risk of a collision, which will generate more debris, which in turn increases the risk of another collision etc., in a self-perpetuating cascade known as the Kessler Syndrome (a question to my friends in the re/insurance world who write coverage for satellites – I would be very keen to understand how you think about pricing this sort of systemic risk…). In an extreme scenario, this could render space access virtually impossible.
Beyond the Kessler Syndrome, signal interference presents another challenge. Satellites rely on limited radio frequencies, and overcrowding can degrade GPS accuracy, disrupt communications, and even interfere with astronomical observations. Moreover, many satellites have military applications, which in an increasingly threatening world has to increase concerns about cybersecurity threats and geopolitical tensions.
What Price Progress?
I’ve been doing a lot of carbon accounting recently, so it could just be that I’m looking for emissions everywhere, but what is the environmental impact of all these satellite launches?
Well, it varies. A typical liquid-fuelled rocket produces 200-400 tonnes of CO₂, while solid-fuelled rockets generate 300-900 tonnes per launch. For comparison, a commercial transatlantic flight emits 180-250 tonnes. So, not that bad then, right?
As always, it’s not quite that simple.
The Environmental Costs are Stratospheric
While rocket launches are relatively infrequent, their emissions are far more damaging because they occur in the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere and mesosphere), where pollutants linger longer and cause disproportionate harm.
Ozone Depletion: Solid-fuel rockets release chlorine-based compounds that actively destroy ozone, weakening the planet’s natural UV shield.
Black Carbon (Soot): Rocket exhaust disperses black carbon into the stratosphere, where it absorbs sunlight, disrupts atmospheric circulation, and contributes to warming.
Persistence: Unlike jet emissions, which dissipate within weeks, rocket emissions can persist for years, amplifying their impact.
Some studies suggest that the climate impact of a single rocket launch could be equivalent to one million transatlantic flights[3]. While this may be a suspiciously round-numbered claim, it’s still a staggering comparison that underscores the need for scrutiny.
A Necessary Trade-Off?
Despite these concerns, the case for satellites remains strong. They offer undeniable benefits, and reusable rocket technology is improving sustainability, and frankly is just cool. Why Starlink needs 42,000 satellites is unclear to me, but with the appropriate international cooperation (hmmm), oversight and regulation, satellite launches can be managed to balance innovation with responsibility.
For me, the real problem lies elsewhere…
Space Tourism: New Heights of Bad Taste
One can make a simple argument that satellite technology serves vital scientific and societal purposes, but space tourism is frankly just a bit offensive. It brings all the environmental costs and none of the benefits. I’m sure that – like me – everyone is thrilled at the prospect of Katy Perry Roaring into space aboard Blue Origin NS-31 in three weeks’ time [4], but surely the energy and emissions required to send a handful of individuals on a brief joyride into space could instead be allocated to genuinely valuable missions...
Even the man with arguably the most prolific space exploration experience on the planet and one of the first space tourists returned to Earth with a sobering message:
"I thought that going to space would be the ultimate catharsis of that connection I had between all living things – that being up there would be the next beautiful step to understanding the harmony of the universe. Instead, it filled me with overwhelming sadness. I realised that our planet is so small, fragile, and warm compared to the cold void of space." [5]
So, if we already understand the fragility of Earth, is there any need to burn thousands of tonnes of fuel to prove it again?
The introduction of private capital into the space sector has brought undeniable benefits - more cost-effective satellite deployment being an example. But it has also generated some negative second order effects, space tourism being just one of them. Exactly how costly remains to be seen.
[1] Costs are estimated and inflation-adjusted
[2] Source: Statista/UCSUSA.org
[3] “Impact of Rocket Launch and Space Debris Air Pollutant Emission on Stratospheric Ozone and Climate”, (2022) – Ryan, R. G., Marais, E. A., Balhatchet, C. J., Eastham, S. D. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9287058/
[5] "Boldly Go: Reflections on a Life of Awe and Wonder", (2022) – Shatner, W., Atria Books.
Comments