CIVIL rights icon John Lewis said “access to the internet is the civil rights issue of the 21st century”.
Starlink, Elon Musk’s satellite internet constellation, has put over 6,000 Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites into space, ostensibly to provide people with affordable, quality internet even in remote locations. A benevolent aspiration, straight from the fiction of Asimov.
Starlink internet coverage is not yet global nor truly affordable, but anecdotally, has improved access in the rural United States. The British Antarctic Survey has also deployed Starlink, far from human settlements, for use by its scientists.
Starlink is not the only LEO constellation, but it is the largest and most famous. Other global corporations like Amazon and sovereign nations including China and Russia also have satellite internet constellations going up in a new race in space. Satellite coverage is becoming both denser and more widespread, leading to good and bad consequences, which we can study using Starlink as the pre-eminent example.
Musk’s supporters consider him a visionary and a genius and brook no criticism of his endeavours. To them, he embodies the Silicon Valley tech mantra ‘move fast and break things’. This exposes the schism at the heart of STEM. Scientists typically don’t move fast and break things. Astronomers and space scientists plan their research meticulously and well in advance to maximise their use of time and resources. They were the first cohort to raise concerns.
Astronomers and space scientists were the first to raise concerns.
For those who study space, the key issue is UEMR, or ‘unintended electromagnetic radiation’.
Starlink satellites are closer to us than the stars and appear brighter. Optical telescopes can only be used at night and light pollution from the first generation of satellites made it harder for astronomers to see past the satellite constellation to stellar constellations. Radio telescopes are not impacted by light but LEO satellites constantly transmit signals which make it harder to detect signals from farther out in the universe. Starlink is now designing satellites to mitigate this interference.
Space agencies are concerned about launch windows, which are highly complicated to calculate. Mission scientists must ensure their rockets defy gravity to make it into orbit where they must avoid collisions with the growing net of satellites. The risk of collision is not just between rockets and satellites but also between satellites within a constellation and from different constellations. In the first six months of 2024, Starlink is reported to have made over 50,000 manoeuvres to successfully avoid collisions.
The lifespan of a Starlink satellite is up to five years. Once it fails, it becomes space debris and eventually falls towards the ground to burn up in the atmosphere. In January of this year, around 120 Starlink satellites fell out of orbit creating artificial ‘meteor showers’ visible to the naked eye. In theory, satellites burning up on re-entry reduces space debris and is more responsible. However, this is not a neutral act.
Environmental scientists are concerned about damage to the ozone layer — previously averted in the late 1990s when the Montreal Protocol led to governments banning chlorofluorocarbons in fridges and aerosols. When a typical Starlink 250-kilogram satellite burns up, it leaves approximately 30kg of aluminium oxide particles in the atmosphere. As more satellites are launched and come to the end of life, the risk of depletion of the ozone layer by these aluminium oxides increases. For humans, that means an increase in skin cancer, cataracts, and immune system damage. For the planet, it means damage to marine ecosystems and a reduction in crops; something we’re already experiencing due to changing weather patterns and unseasonable droughts and floods.
When structural and civil engineers build bridges and tunnels, they don’t take a punt on success and assume minimal collateral damage. Arguably, satellite constellations are an infrastructure project rather than a typical tech project. If the same caution was used in the design, deployment, and disposal of LEO satellites then we could have global internet provision, conduct space research, and keep our populations safe from unintended atmospheric pollution. Rather than stop progress, could we aim to make it more ethical and conscientious?
For myself, when I look up at the night sky, I would wish to see the constellations by which my ancestors navigated the world. And when I see a shooting star or a meteor shower, I would hope that it is not a satellite being re-positioned or burning up on re-entry to the Earth’s atmosphere. It saddens me to think that some children may never see real stars.
The writer is interested in popular science and climate change.
Published in Dawn, March 19th, 2025
