California's area is about 500 thousand km^2, and the Earth's is about 500 million, which means the side facing the Sun is about 250 million, so we're talking about 0.2% of the area facing the sun.
Suppose the hole takes six hours to heal (the article makes it sound like it takes much less), and suppose there's a launch every month (since launches have in the past carried 600 satellites at once, that seems plausible, no?), and suppose the hole lets in twice as much of whatever radiation we would like the ionosphere to keep out. Then that's an increase of 0.2 * (1/4) * (1/30) %, which is less than 0.002% -- that is, an increase by a factor of less than 1.00002.
Not negligible, but if the satellites provide a substantial public good, then it seems worth the cost. I feel like due to StarLink's use in Russia-Ukraine war alone, it more than qualifies.
Doesn't sound small at all.
I guess so, they will have to deal with increased fame and awareness of the size of their state.
People in Oregon on the other hand will continue to be snubbed.
But on the other hand, you typically don't launch rockets there.
Earth's radius: 6,371 km Ionosphere: 60-300km
... If we use the inner edge of the ionosphere we get about 2% more surface area whereas the outer edge gives us 9.6%. Probably the right number to use is somewhere in between.
Couple nits: - frequency estimate should be more aggressive, should be looking for an upper bound on all numbers to quantify max potential impact. I would crank that up to once a day or more.
- a hole allowing twice as much sounds like a comolete guess. Could it be 100x, 10,000x? or perhaps less than 10%? Other comments make the ozone layer sound more important. The hole punching effects on that layer are unknown (to me and the article does not mention it). In effect, this could be a light show, or it could be a routine perforation of each layer of the atmosphere (more data needed)
- that extra radiation is not spread out across the area of the earth. Instead how many people and animals are present under that hole. Everyone underneath the hole presumably would get the full blast. Thus, it is simple, those people get twice the radiation, whatever that factor is, it is not averaged across the whole planet because it is a local effect. Thus, the area sizes only matter for determining how many people and animals receive extra exposure.
- starlink donated their services to Ukraine. That one act of donation does not make it a public good. Starlink is a for profit service, not a public good (some services can be quite good, but that is different from "a public good")
I think the right way to approach this is to consider the unshielded radiation flux over the hole and the time that the hole takes to close. This would give a good back of envelope upper bound of the increase in cancer risk. There’s probably other effects, but all I care about is harm to individuals.
Doesn't sound too local to me.