Slashdot Mirror


Earth's Atmosphere Extends Much Farther Than Previously Thought (newatlas.com)

Contrary to general belief that Earth's atmosphere stops a bit over 62 miles from the surface, a new study based on observations made over two decades ago by the joint US-European Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) satellite shows that it actually extends as far 391,000 miles (630,000 km) or 50 times the Earth's diameter. This makes the Moon a very high altitude aircraft. From a report: Launched on December 2, 1995 atop an Atlas IIAS launcher from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, SOHO is parked in the first Lagrange point (L1) 930,000 miles (1.5 million km) from Earth where it has carried out studies of the Sun and the solar winds, and will continue to do so until at least 2020. From this vantage point, the observatory's Solar Wind Anisotropie (SWAN) instrument is able to measure the presence of hydrogen by looking at the Lyman-alpha line in the solar spectrum. And what works for the Sun, works for Earth. By turning SWAN on the Earth at the right times of the year, SOHO was able to detect hydrogen atoms from the atmosphere and measure how far out they extend into what space scientists call the geocorona. While the existence of the geocorona is well known -- the telescope set up by the Apollo 16 astronauts on the Moon even photographed it -- no one was sure how far out it reaches until now.

By looking at data collected by SOHO in the mid 1990s, scientists from Russia's Space Research Institute and elsewhere were able to work out the extent and density of the geocorona. What they found was that sunlight on the day side of the Earth compresses the hydrogen until it reaches a density of 70 atoms per cubic cm at an altitude of 37,000 miles (60,000 km), and on the night side it can expand out until it has a density of only 0.2 atoms per cubic cm at the distance of the Moon's orbit. According to the study leader Igor Baliukin, the geocorona is so tenuous that it poses no hazard to astronauts or spacecraft.

67 comments

  1. this isn't news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the atmosphere doesn't end like a sphere just because someone said so
    it just gets thinner and thinner until the density matches the rest of the solar system
    making things "so" by decree isn't scientific

    1. Re:this isn't news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAL but I believe it's a legal definition. It's to tell whether an object is in the airspace of a country or in "outer space". Or the difference between flying and orbiting.
      Note that orbits below 200 or 300 km decay very fast because of the resistance of the, you guessed it, atmosphere (residual, but still non negligible for objects moving at 7 or 8 km/s).
      I don't know whether it is still the case, but a long time ago, some military spying satellites had the ability to make a "low pass" down to 110 or 120 km altitude (this consumes fuel, so it was not done frequently). But the country on which the low pass was done could not claim that its airspace had been violated (sorry, guys, it's celestial mechanics at work, the fact that we could read the license plates in your ultra secret military base is just a collateral effect).

    2. Re:this isn't news by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      This isn't correct. What they're describing isn't an atmosphere at all; it's an exosphere. The difference being that an atmosphere is dominated by particle collisions (and thus behaves like a gas) while an exosphere is dominated by collision-free travel (and thus behaves like individual particles). If at the given temperature, the average particle traveling upwards will experience less than one collision before it reaches the upward end of its arc, it's an exosphere; otherwise, it's an atmosphere.

      --
      When was the last time you ran anywhere? I mean with your own legs, not by pressing 'X'?
    3. Re:this isn't news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      canada has enough problems
      corruption long winters stupid prime minister
      how can i convince you to keep your problems to yourselves
      i could build a wall out of fresh fruits and vegetables to keep creimer away
      but it's still a long time to harvest season
      maybe i could build a wall made of mature sexually-willing women
      that could keep him away too

    4. Re:this isn't news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the clarification. The alternative - of the moon being subject to friction due to being inside the Earth's atmosphere was concerning me somewhat.

    5. Re:this isn't news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, we are inside the Sun's atmosphere too, you know... And besides, do you have any clue of the amount of inertia is tied up in the Moon?

    6. Re:this isn't news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, sure I do.

      Inertia (whatever that is) isn’t “tied up” in the moon, but like any system of mass the moon does have an intrinsic moment of inertia. For the moon, as a scalar this is 8.7 x 10^34 kilogram metre-square, but it is more properly expressed as a tensor to account for slight assymetry.

      If you wish to know how much energy is stored, it has 4.3 x 10^28
      joules of translational kinetic energy (due to its mass and velocity, relative to Earth) and 3.1 x 10^23 joules of rotational kinetic energy (due to its rotation and moment of inertia).

      While listing energy quantities, there is additional potential energy (relative to the Earth gravity well), as well as atomic bond energy in each of moons atoms.

      But those are all trivial compared to its rest mass-energy (due to relativistic equivalence) which is about 6.6 x 10^39 joules. Of course, to harness that energy you would have to not just move the moon’s orbit, but instead make it actually “disappear” (from mass into pure energy).

    7. Re:this isn't news by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the clarification. The alternative - of the moon being subject to friction due to being inside the Earth's atmosphere was concerning me somewhat.

      As long as it won't crash into Earth before the sun expands and lights the atmosphere on fire, we're good. At least until the sun expands and lights the atmosphere on fire.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    8. Re:this isn't news by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Dang... I was all set to call up MegaMaid.

  2. Re: What is the measurable corona of a fart? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Australians measured it better and found that there was no change at night or during the day. Other scientists criticized them anonymously supposedly because they thought they could get grants for going to the sun at night.

  3. Outer space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    So a lot of those astronauts who thought they went into outer space? Not so much.

    1. Re:Outer space by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Yeah -- Karman's line was selected purely for propaganda purposes, to be able to claim an achievement sooner. This would happened even without the rivalry with Soviets, as politicians try to exploit any such perceived win.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:Outer space by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

      At least astronauts don't have to pay money. How about all those suckers paying Virgin $250K to go to "space". Turns out they didn't make it.

  4. What? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

    You mean the atmosphere doesn't end at exactly 100 Kilometers, I'm shocked!

    Or more likely it's obvious that an arbitrary number had to be picked because it's a gradient and 100km was a pretty good number for the purpose of picking an arbitrary number where stuff was thin enough to be outer space.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    1. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, I thought we had scientific consensus and the science was settled...

    2. Re:What? by synaptik · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's not arbitrary. Starting at approximately 100km, the speed at which an airfoil could generate enough lift for flight is greater than orbital velocity at that same altitude.

      "Approximately", because it will vary based on conditions.

      --
      HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
      NO CARRIER
    3. Re: What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Itâ(TM)s the Russians, so itâ(TM)s obviously fake news.

    4. Re:What? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      The definition is not arbitrary, the number 100km (or 62 miles and change) is pretty arbitrary though, and I suspect as useful as 50 miles (used by the US).

      Also, doesn't the material used have a lot of an effect on your definition with material science advancements pushing the number up?

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  5. Multiple implications... by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder if molecules that far out are "lost" and simply on their way out of the earth's gravitational influence, or if they are actually a stable part of the atmosphere. If they are a stable part of the atmosphere then they can eventually work their way back to the thicker atmosphere and then down to the surface (in the form of recombining into H20 for example). So we could be drinking water with hydrogen that came from the moon.

    Even if the molecules are "lost" and doomed to escape our orbit, I wonder if this will have any impact on studies that were done on the moon's chemical composition. It seems very apparent that molecules from the earth must be deposited onto the moon if they can reach that far out. In fact, the gravity of the moon should pull them right in if they get close. That would have been continuously "tainting" the surface of the moon with our isotopic signature for billions of years.

    Or maybe none of that is possible at all and I have an overactive imagination.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Multiple implications... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Or maybe none of that is possible at all and I have an overactive imagination." You're just not visualizing stray atoms in superhigh orbit properly. Think electron clouds. .2 atoms per cubic cm is insanely thin, always in motion, falling into and shooting out of the density randomly not dissimilar to Brownian motion or something like that. "Orbital" mechanics as they apply to planetary bodies aren't a driver of atomic-level motion except from a macro-mean view.

    2. Re: Multiple implications... by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting the high energy particles streaming from the sun at a significant fraction of the speed of light. One of those particles slamming into a stray hydrogen atoms half way to the moon could easily knock it out of earth's gravity well.

    3. Re: Multiple implications... by Holi · · Score: 1

      Or back down into it.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    4. Re:Multiple implications... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we could be drinking water with hydrogen that came from the moon

      Maybe so, but that's not such a big deal considering that the earth, moon, sun, asteroids, comets, and all the other planets were all coalesced from the same giant cloud of gas and dust. What's interesting is that the hydrogen in that cloud was (and is) nearly as old as the big bang itself. Our planet's cache of hydrogen has probably been to a lot more impressive places in that time than the moon. It could have even spent time on another living planet like ours, or even in another galaxy.

    5. Re:Multiple implications... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      I wonder if molecules that far out are "lost" and simply on their way out of the earth's gravitational influence

      The thermal velocity of the particles will follow a Boltzmann distribution, and some of them move fast enough to escape earth's gravity. Lighter gases like hydrogen and helium will leak away much faster than N2 or O2.

      The earth's atmosphere must have been much hotter in the past, because the atmosphere contains almost no neon, which is very common in the rest of the solar system. This may have happened in the aftermath of the Theia collision.

    6. Re:Multiple implications... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hydrogen atoms (at this density, molecules have a tendency to separate into atoms when something like an UV photon strikes them and the mean free path is very large, so another encounter takes time) easily reach the escape velocity and are lost for the Earth.
      Taking the mean free path formula from wikipedia, you'll find that the mean free path for a density of 1 particle per cubic cm is about 1 billion km, or 6 astronomical units. Of course at this stage, collisions are so infrequent that the effect of gravitation becomes non-negligible.

  6. Poses no hazards to astronauts or spacecraft by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Poses no hazards to astronauts or spacecraft traveling at less than a significant fraction of the speed of light.

    A proton can hit with the impact force of a baseball traveling at over one hundred miles per hour.

    1. Re: Poses no hazards to astronauts or spacecraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a special kind of visual. Thank you for this.

    2. Re: Poses no hazards to astronauts or spacecraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A proton can hit with the impact force of a baseball traveling at over one hundred miles per hour

      This is halfway between misleading and wrong.

      A proton can have the momentum of a 100 mph baseball, but that is not the same as having the same impact. A baseball hitting a person or machine will stop within a millimeter, transfering momentum quite effectively. A high energy particle transfers only a small fraction of its energy with each collision, which is more likely to strip the particle it hits from the body than transfer momentum. It takes a lot of material and distance to stop a high energy particle and the spray of stuff it creates. A person or spacecraft would not notice if hit by such a particle (unless maybe the spray hits an eye, camera, or memory cell, but even the initial proton collision would not affect those things).

      Also, a proton with the momentum of a fast b and baseball is not simply a significant fraction of the speed of light, but essentially the fastest thing ever measured. A proton going 99.999999% the speed of light still has much less momentum than an amoeba. This is like bringing up the effects of spacecraft reentries in a discussion of the risks of speeding on a highway.

    3. Re: Poses no hazards to astronauts or spacecraft by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The Oh-My-God particle wasn't quite the equivalent of a hundred-mph fastball, closer to half of that. It was going about 99.[21 9s].5% of the speed of light.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  7. Re: What is the measurable corona of a fart? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The sun at night? Must be bipolar

  8. The Firmament by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

    But not too far before you hit the firmament. /s

    One of my flat earth FB "friends" responded to a FB posted Hubble Deep Field image that it was all embedded in the Firmament.

    1. Re:The Firmament by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And by the same logic - You may not like it but I don't "have to" ignore them, I have the right to laugh at people flaunting their ignorance wether they "need" it or not.

  9. They were right all along! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's all the cow farts! This has to stop!

  10. The moon by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    "This makes the Moon a very high altitude aircraft"

    That also makes the Moon the first aircraft. I love science-y slashdot.

    1. Re:The moon by Megane · · Score: 1

      Also, if you assume the outer atmosphere as a solid sphere of (mostly) constant density, the moon could qualify as that hypothetical solid spherical atmosphere, out to the orbit of the moon! Right?

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    2. Re: The moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the moon is just floating like a boat on our exosphere, it's the first boat

  11. Semantics, much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this just semantics and definitions, masquerading as real science? This type of bullshit science reporting really pisses me off.

    I can, officially, and without citation, guarantee that there is a hydrogen molecule 8.147 light years away from the Earth. So, our atmosphere must extend that far. Surely?

    1. Re:Semantics, much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I designed a crappy flashlight and I would like help from this science reporter for the text that will appear on the box. If a very sensitive instrument can measure some light reflected on a far-away wall, then can I claim a huge lighting range on the box?

  12. 70 atoms per cubic cm ... 37,000 miles :D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "70 atoms per cubic cm at an altitude of 37,000 miles" LOL !

    Mixing cm3 with miles, gosh, this sentense is so much American :)

    Hurray for the stonecutters !!!

  13. Our instruments have become very capable by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    Theoretically the gravitational influence of Earth goes all the way to infinity. Earlier we could not detect such minute microscopic things. Now we can. That is all.

    But.... we can sush the conspiracy theorists. "Now you know why the Flag was fluttering in the Moon. It was not in vacuum, it was inside out atmosphere.!"

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  14. Meaningless by theCat · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The Earth's atmosphere extends all the way to Mars, fact. The "Solar Wind" blows away parts of the upper atmosphere all the time. The magnetosphere reduces that a lot; without it we probably wouldn't have an atmosphere at all. Once they get their measurements fine enough and get a probe around Mars, they will find Earth's atmosphere there too.

    Doesn't mean shit.

    --
    =^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
    1. Re:Meaningless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shit isn't mean. Let them analyse and study things. Endlessly. Recursively. It's all interesting stuff.

      I do would like to know how Mars gets influenced by molecules coming from Earth. Who knows does that prove panspermia someday? Who knows will it disprove it. Either way, it's interesting to know, and to act upon such knowledge appropriately, as humans and human culture.

  15. Is that really an atmosphere? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    0.2 atoms per cubic cm at the distance of the Moon's orbit.

    I think they're stretching the definition of the word "atmosphere" here. If you look at the atoms/cubic cm of the thinnest parts of the interstellar medium, it's about the same as the moon distance. of .2 per cm^3. The "cold" parts are around what they're measuring for the sun side of the earth of 50-100 atoms per cm^3.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium

    Based on this, you can call it an "atmosphere", but then the entire galaxy has an atmosphere at that point.

  16. No, it makes a the Moon a satellite. by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Karman Line is drawn at 100 km, not just because that's a nice round number, but because it's roughly the point where an object's momentum and atmospheric friction are roughly equally important.

    Above the Karman line objects act more like satellites, with their motion momentum-dominated. Below the Karman line object motion tend to act more like aircraft, with their motion dominated by atmospheric interaction.

    Obviously momentum exists below the line and drag exists above the line, which is why satellites in extreme low Earth orbit tend to have their orbits decay. ISS is at about 405 km and decays at roughly 2km/month, requiring regular boosting. The lowest altitude at which an object could make at least one full orbit without boost is about 150 km.

    The Karman line is a sensible place to end national sovereignty. Well below that line you need to put energy into an object to cross over a country. Well above the line you need to put energy into an object to avoid crossing over the country. Extending sovereignty above the Karman Line would deny access to space to everyone.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:No, it makes a the Moon a satellite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the Karman line would be a great place to have parties.

  17. 1st world problem by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Everything on Earth is getting fatter.

  18. Wandering stars, in blackest darkness forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie.

    Mystery Red of the Great American Eclipse
    It has blood on it!
    ABCNews: Eclipse makes pendulum wander
    Sound of Silence

  19. "And ehat" said the moron... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "And ehat" said the moron who was easily duped into reading something interesting and educational.

    1. Re:"And ehat" said the moron... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the moon is in Earth's atmosphere, why is its orbit gradually widening?

  20. The Earth's atmosphere... by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    The Earth's atmosphere extends as far as it is defined to extend---whatever that is. This seems like someone is just trying to change the definition.
    Just because you can detect small concentrations of gas from the atmosphere doesn't make it part of the atmosphere. For example, if I found some New Zealanders in downtown New York, does that mean that New Zealand's territory extends to New York?

  21. Re: What is the measurable corona of a fart? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It depends on what particular moment after the bang you observe it. You get a visually observable aproximation of it by lighting it up somewhere near uranus at the right moment. After that point, it is only nasally observable, so you would have to use multiple observers to gather enough data. You will need to crowdsource it.

  22. I heard this a LONG TIME AGO by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

    Back in the 1960s. There was a popular idea among scientists that Venus and Earth were twin planets, nearly identical at birth. But Earth acquired a giant moon later, which slowly stripped away most of Earth's atmosphere (because the earth's atmosphere extends beyond the Moon's orbit).

    Venus never got a giant moon, so it retained all its normal (very heavy) atmosphere, while Earth ended up with its present light and airy air.

    You can see this idea in some hard sci-fi written at the time, like Larry Niven's Known Space series.

  23. Really? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    They detected some particulates, and by that rationale they've extended the boundaries of the atmosphere.

    By that same logic, if I get splashed by some mist from a waterfall, does that mean I'm "in the river" or that the river technically extends hundreds of feet from its surface? I don't think reasonable people would agree.

    While it's interesting, I'm not sure detecting spatterings of earth's atmospheric molecules "downwind" is a basis for defining the extent of the atmosphere nor even that surprising? I mean, the 'top' of the atmosphere isn't a smooth billiard-ball gaseous surface - it's going to fluctuate wildly with variations in pressure, temperature, wind, weather activity, and this tenuous, highly variable surface is exposed to solar radiation knocking all sorts of gaseous 'spume' free.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Really? by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 1

      By the same (faulty) logic;
      Clouds are made of water, therefore the ocean extends much further than previously thought - more than 5km above sea level!
      We've even detected water in comets believed to be as far away as the Oort cloud...

  24. How close to a vacuum do they want, anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The earth's atmosphere at the distance of the moon is, by quick calculation, about 1 gram total over the entire moon's surface, or roughly 10^-19 that at sea level. Meanwhile, ionized atoms out there are swept away as part of the solar wind and are now well out into interstellar space. Is that "part of the earth's atmosphere" too?

  25. There is no Outer Space by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    Well, if 0.2 atoms/cubic centimetre is an atmosphere then there is no outer space because the density of interstellar space is about 1 particle per cubic centimetre so logically this would imply that the galaxy has an atmosphere.

    1. Re:There is no Outer Space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interstellar space is about one particle per cubic METER.

    2. Re:There is no Outer Space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Interstellar space is about one particle per cubic METER.

      Which doesn't seem like much until you realize just how MANY cubic meters are out there!

  26. the report says... by Hentai007 · · Score: 1

    The atmosphere is so large that it actually manages to fully encompass your mom.

  27. I Was Told There Was A Wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Wall keeps the Neptunian FizzSnap hallucinogens out, the Martian riff-raff out, and the white in. I was told this by a Very Stable Genius and thus know it to be true.

  28. bite me by epine · · Score: 1

    This makes the Moon a very high altitude aircraft.

    Not according to the rectal boost regime of one of Dyson's infamous astrochickens.

    The K'rman line lies at an altitude of 100 kilometres above the Earth's sea level, and commonly represents the boundary between the Earth's atmosphere and outer space.

    The line is named after Theodore von Karm'n (1881–1963), a Hungarian-American engineer and physicist.

    He was the first to calculate that around this altitude, the atmosphere becomes too thin to support aeronautical flight, because a vehicle at this altitude would have to travel faster than orbital velocity to derive sufficient aerodynamic lift to support itself (neglecting centrifugal force).

    [*] I decided to split the difference on the two instances of the twin a-acutes.

    Today some other Slashdot story had "zebra cosplay" in the story summary. Sheesh. Our collective nerd mojo is a quart down.

  29. Interstellar, not intergalactic by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    No, one particle per cubic METRE is the density of intergalactic space. The density of interstellar space i.e. the space between the stars in a galaxy, is variable but averages to about 1 million particles per cubic metre which is the same as one particle per cubic centimetre.

  30. And Moon is not an aircraft by tomhath · · Score: 1

    It's in orbit, not flying.