Multiple effects from ever-increasing satellite launches could impact future observations; the biggest threat to astronomy, though, is still coming from the ground.

Fireflyb rocket plume
Rocket exhaust created a multi-tailed plume after the Firefly Alpha launch from Vandenburg Space Force Base on September 14, 2023, as seen from McDonald Observatory, Texas, 1,000 miles away.
Stephen Hummel (McDonald Observatory)

Satellites provide so many benefits it’s hard to imagine life without them, from predicting our weather to guiding our travel to providing our electronic connections. But as the number of satellites in orbit expands rapidly, and the accumulation of defunct satellites and debris proliferates, they are having an increasing impact on our ability to view the night sky.

Bright satellites crossing the sky are already ubiquitous, mostly from SpaceX’s Starlink constellation but also from the company’s numerous global competitors, and the number of satellites in low-Earth orbit could climb to tens or hundreds of thousands in the coming decades. Meredith Rawls (University of Washington), presenting at the recent winter meeting of the American Astronomical Society (AAS), says the impacts will span the entire electromagnetic spectrum — pervasive in ways that we don’t expect — for years to come.

One unexpected and little-known phenomenon is ionospheric holes, which have been occurring more frequently thanks to both rocket launches and reentries.  Such holes in the ionized layer of the upper atmosphere can be an impressive sight, creating patches of sky with a red glow (dominated by emission at 630 nanometers).

This video captures an ionospheric hole, opened by the interaction between rocket exhaust interacting with our planet's ionized upper atmosphere.
Stephen Hummel (McDonald Observatory)

While visually impressive, that glow could potentially have an impact on observations from virtually all major astronomical facilities in the continental U.S. While few astronomers have seen the effect yet, Stephen Hummel (McDonald Observatory) says that in some ways the holes could be more of a hindrance than satellite launches and deployments.

During his presentation at the AAS meeting, he says, “I did a poll of the room, maybe 60 or 70 people, and only three had actually seen an ionospheric hole or known what they look like.”

Yet, he tells Sky & Telescope, “from an astronomy perspective, these events are potentially more disruptive than satellites, as they appear quickly with little warning, are optically bright (producing their own light rather than reflecting sunlight), persist for minutes to hours, occupy a relatively large area on the sky, and a lack of accurate launch information makes them hard to predict.”

These ionospheric holes have been seen far away from the launch sites involved, he says. At McDonald Observatory in Texas, staff have observed these huge red blooms in the sky from SpaceX Falcon 9 launches at Vandenburg Air Force Base in California, about 1,000 miles to the west, as well as from the reentry of a rocket that had been launched from Kennedy Space Center, equally far to the east. With current launch patterns, the glowing patches appear regularly over the southwestern U.S., where many world-class observatories are located.

Metals in Our Atmosphere

Ionospheric holes are just one of the impacts rocket launches can have; plumes of gases and combustion products during launches as well as venting of propellant later in the mission, can also affect astronomical observations.

For example, satellites in low-Earth orbit eventually burn up during reentry into the atmosphere, leaving behind significant residues of metals and other compounds. The expected launch rate of the satellites part of SpaceX’s Starlink constellation alone could inject at least 8,000 tons of metals into our atmosphere per year – more than the natural accumulation from meteoroids. Already today, he says, 10% of stratospheric aerosols come from satellite and rocket reentries.

Because of this, the AAS in September 2024 adopted a resolution stating in part,  “The American Astronomical Society (AAS) is gravely concerned about the impacts of emissions and residual effects from extensive space launches and space object reentries upon Earth’s sky and upper atmosphere.” (Find the full resolution here.)

More recently, the AAS issued another resolution regarding “obtrusive space advertising,” another component of space economics that remains underregulated. (The full resolution is available here.) Although no company has so far made such a proposal, a Russian student project recently tested the concept. While the United States has a legal prohibition on such advertising, there is no such provision yet internationally.

Dark Skies on the Ground

Artificial light at night on world map
A composite image shows artificial light on Earth at night.
NASA

Overall, diffuse brightening of the sky remains a more difficult problem to address than launches, satellites, or even space billboards. Our night sky has been growing rapidly brighter, at a rate as high as 10% per year, even affecting major observatories.

“I think it is fair to say that right now the bigger concern for ground-based astronomy is certainly light pollution, by far,” said John Barentine (Dark Sky Consulting), also speaking at the AAS meeting. “Artificial light at night emissions have been rising around the world at a fairly alarming rate.”

But he pointed out that there have been some successes in implementing regulations that may help: The European Union’s recent Nature Restoration Law, for example, “requires EU member states to reduce their light pollution by 2030,” he said at an AAS press conference. “We’ll see if that is successful. But I think in the end, it has to be the totality of all these efforts that’s eventually leading towards the same goal, I hope, which is the protection of the night sky overall.”

Comments


Image of Andrew James

Andrew James

January 29, 2025 at 3:28 am

I have real problems with this map showing the composite image of artificial light from the earth at night.
More concerning is the assumed right light on the northern tip of South America and the incredible numbers of lights in Western Australia. Yes, some mining is going on in Australia, much of the light you're showing is it in the middle of the Gibson Desert, the Great Sandy Desert and the Great Victorian Desert!
This map shows why this image is wrong, as the mines in Australia are further west. [1]

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Image of StanR

StanR

January 31, 2025 at 10:04 pm

I think those might be oil fields rather than mines.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Image of Andrew James

Andrew James

February 9, 2025 at 3:01 pm

There is no oil, but it is mostly iron ore as bauxite.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Image of Zbig

Zbig

February 1, 2025 at 7:21 am

There is a lot of mining in Australia. Since the density of the population is still almost zero there, two conclusions appear. Light pollution is not a good measure of population density. And perhaps such maps show strongly exaggerated light pollution in the remote territories. I visited the Arkaroola settlement in Southern Australia twice, and it had amazing dark sky conditions in spite of what the large light pollution maps show (see my report in S&T from May 2018).

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Image of Alain Maury

Alain Maury

January 31, 2025 at 7:20 pm

If this was the only problem, it would be almost cool. If this "person" (I want to say polite) continues with its madness and gets to 42000 satellites in orbit, just to maintain the fleet, 23 satellites per day will be destroyed in the atmosphere (and 23 other launched). Aluminium powder is harmful to the ozone layer. Also each launch injects hundreds of tons of water in the higher atmosphere (above the stratosphere) where it stays, and water vapor is a green house effect gas. The sad part is that there is an alternative technology. With the price of all these satellites and launches etc... one could have installed millions of not billions of km of fiber optics, which is not polluting. As an astronomer I can only wait for the Kessler-Musk syndrom to occur as soon as possible.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Image of Anthony Barreiro

Anthony Barreiro

February 3, 2025 at 11:32 pm

At present, ground-based light pollution may be a much bigger problem than satellites and their launch vehicles. But as soon as people decide to reduce artificial light at night the solutions are straightforward -- turn off unnecessary lights and replace poorly designed light fixtures with those that put just enough light where it's needed. Once a satellite is in orbit it's there until it burns up in the atmosphere. And once metals and other pollutants are in the upper atmosphere they stay there for a long time.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

You must be logged in to post a comment.