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.

32 of 67 comments (clear)

  1. 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.

  2. 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 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
    2. 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
  3. 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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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.

  4. 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: 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.

    2. 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
  5. 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.

  6. 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; }
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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'?
  10. 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.
  11. 1st world problem by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Everything on Earth is getting fatter.

  12. 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?

  13. 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.

  14. 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...

  15. 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.

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

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

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

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

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

  20. 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.

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

    It's in orbit, not flying.