Good point. Deserves some numbers.
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.
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.