Cosmic rays zap a planet's chances for life

November 12, 2013 by Charles Q. Choi
Showers of high energy particles occur when energetic cosmic rays strike the top of the Earth's atmosphere. Most cosmic rays are atomic nuclei: most are hydrogen nuclei, some are helium nuclei, and the rest heavier elements. Although many of the low energy cosmic rays come from our Sun, the origins of the highest energy cosmic rays remains unknown and a topic of much research. This drawing illustrates air showers from very high energy cosmic rays. Credit: Simon Swordy (U. Chicago), NASA

Mysterious cosmic rays constantly bombard Earth from outer space. Now scientists find these energetic particles could limit where life as we know it might exist on alien planets.

Cosmic rays continue to baffle scientists more than a century after they were first discovered. These charged subatomic particles zip through space at nearly the speed of light, a few strangely with energies up to 100 million times beyond what is possible from the most powerful particle accelerator on Earth. Cosmic rays are believed to be atomic nuclei, with the vast majority being protons, or hydrogen nuclei.

When hit Earth's atmosphere, they generate a shower of other particles, including muons, which are essentially much heavier versions of their cousin the electron. Some of these particles reach Earth's surface, potentially damaging on land and in the oceans—muons can even penetrate hundreds of feet below a planet's surface.

Scientists investigated how cosmic rays might influence the habitability of distant alien worlds. The hundreds of exoplanets astronomers have discovered in the past two decades using ground and space telescopes have raised the possibility that some might be home to extraterrestrial life. Interest is especially focused on worlds in so-called habitable or Goldilocks zones, which receive enough heat to possess surfaces that can keep water liquid rather than freeze—on Earth, there is life virtually wherever there is liquid water.

The investigators reasoned the level of radiation a planet receives helps control its habitability. While a planet might see much fewer compared to the radiation from its star, the average energy of cosmic rays is far higher than photons and protons from the star, making them critical to focus on.

Cosmic rays zap a planet's chances for life
This is an illustration of damage to DNA from exposure to radiation. Image Credit:

"If the radiation dose is too high, then life as we know it cannot exist," said study author Dimitra Atri, a physicist at the Blue Marble Space Institute of Science, a nonprofit institute with a network of scientists across the world.

The researchers concentrated on two factors that might influence the cosmic ray dose a planet gets—the strength of its , and the depth of its atmosphere.

"I started thinking about this problem when I was thinking about Mars and Earth, which are next-door neighbors, and how we have a thriving biosphere here on Earth, while it's safe to say Mars does not have a thriving biosphere on its surface. Why is that so?" Atri said. "The main factor is that Mars has a high level of radiation—the atmosphere on Mars is almost negligible, very, very small compared to Earth's, and it has no planetary magnetic field, so it has no shielding from the cosmic rays found everywhere in the galaxy. So I wondered what intermediate scenarios might be like, lying between these two extremes."

The investigators simulated planets ranging from ones with no magnetic field to ones as strong as Earth's, and worlds with atmospheres ranging from as thick as Earth's to just a tenth as thick.

"We know the magnetic field around Earth protects us from these harmful cosmic rays, and we thought magnetic fields were going to be the main factor that controls the radiation dose to the surface," Atri said.

Artist’s depiction of a nearby Gamma Ray Burst impact with Earth. A brown cloud of nitrogen dioxide forms as a result of the high-energy photons interacting with the air. Credit: NASA

Unexpectedly, "we found the thickness of a planet's atmosphere is a much more important factor in determining a planet's radiation dose," Atri told Astrobiology Magazine. "If you took the Earth and you completely removed the magnetic field, the radiation dose rate will increase by two, which is a big increase, but it would still have very small effects, and would not have any effects on us. However, if you keep the magnetic field and decreased the atmosphere so it is a tenth as thick, the will increase by more than two orders of magnitude."

Planets around red dwarf stars are often thought of as prime targets for the search of alien life, since these relatively dim stars are very common in the universe, making up at least 80 percent of the total number of stars. Theoretical calculations suggested planets in the habitable zones close to red dwarfs are more likely to have weaker magnetic fields, especially in the case of so-called super-Earths, large rocky planets up to 10 times Earth's mass. Astrobiologists were concerned these weak magnetic fields could make them poor candidates for life, but these new findings suggest weak magnetic fields are less of a problem than they thought.

Future research can examine how increasing radiation affects the evolution of life, Atri said. "Most studies of radiation's effects on life mostly expose organisms to very high doses of radiation to see if they get killed or not, but I think systematic studies that gradually increase the radiation microbes receive could show how they evolve in environments that receive a lot of cosmic rays," he said.

Atri and his colleagues B. Hariharan and Jean-Mathias Griessmeier detailed their findings in the October issue of the journal Astrobiology.

Explore further: Swarm launch postponed

Related Stories

Swarm launch postponed

October 31, 2013

The launch of ESA's magnetic field mission from Plesetsk, Russia, has been postponed by about a week.

Red dwarf stars could strip away planetary protection

July 2, 2013

( —Red dwarf stars are the commonest type of stars, making up about 75% of the stars in our Galaxy. They are much smaller and much less massive than our Sun and for that reason a lot dimmer. If planets are found ...

Moon radiation findings may reduce health risks to astronauts

June 11, 2013

Space scientists from the University of New Hampshire (UNH) and the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) report that data gathered by NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) show lighter materials like plastics provide effective ...

Characterizing the Moon's radiation environment

April 9, 2013

The radiation environment near the Moon could be damaging to humans and electronics on future missions. To characterize this potentially hazardous environment, the Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation (CRaTER) ...

Regolith: Protection for humans on Mars

September 18, 2012

For six weeks the rover "Curiosity" is now working on Mars. NASA also plans to send humans to Mars within the next 20 years. On the flight and during the stay on Moon or Mars the astronauts have to be protected against long ...

Can solar flares hurt astronauts?

January 24, 2012

Solar flares, coronal mass ejections, high-energy photons, cosmic rays… space is full of various forms of radiation that a human wouldn’t want to be exposed to for very long. Energized particles traveling into and ...

Recommended for you

Major space mystery solved using data from student satellite

December 13, 2017

A 60-year-old mystery regarding the source of some energetic and potentially damaging particles in Earth's radiation belts is now solved using data from a shoebox-sized satellite built and operated by University of Colorado ...

Bright areas on Ceres suggest geologic activity

December 13, 2017

If you could fly aboard NASA's Dawn spacecraft, the surface of dwarf planet Ceres would generally look quite dark, but with notable exceptions. These exceptions are the hundreds of bright areas that stand out in images Dawn ...

Spanning disciplines in the search for life beyond Earth

December 13, 2017

The search for life beyond Earth is riding a surge of creativity and innovation. Following a gold rush of exoplanet discovery over the past two decades, it is time to tackle the next step: determining which of the known exoplanets ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

2.4 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2013
Unfortunately we still look for the life in the Universe that closely matches ours. Yes, if our life arose in these specific conditions, similar conditions may very well give rise to similar life. However, we must start thinking wider - if there is plenty of radiation, maybe the first life forms to emerge would be some based on consuming that resource, after all it is energy...
I would also disagree about blaming Martian lack of life on radiation. Looking where life emerged on Earth there is one common thing across most diverse organisms which emerged here that may be universal for any life form, not just carbon/DNA of Earth: life emerged and thrived on boundary - volcanic vents, ocean/shore,... even on already biological boundaries such as forest canopy. Mars lacks these boundaries. Based on such theory we should be very interested in Titan - many phases, many boundaries and regular changes over them...
4.7 / 5 (3) Nov 12, 2013
I think you are missing the point. Life "as we know it" must be carbon based. Carbon is the only element capable of forming the complex (organic) molecules that comprise life.
So life will always be vulnerable to ionising radiation.

That said. Radioactive elements were much more common on Earth 500 million years ago. And before life was common, there was no ozone layer to reduce UV radiation.
not rated yet Nov 12, 2013
We know the earth's magnetic field protects the atmosphere from being stripped away by the solar wind, which is what happened to Mars' atmosphere. So why does Venus, with almost no magnetic field, have an atmosphere of 90 bar? Has it been renewed by episodic vulcanism? Venus has no tectonics, its crust is locked by a lack of water. Is that a cause of episodic vulcanism, or a result? We need a better understanding of how atmospheres evolve.
not rated yet Nov 12, 2013
We know the earth's magnetic field protects the atmosphere from being stripped away by the solar wind, which is what happened to Mars' atmosphere. So why does Venus, with almost no magnetic field, have an atmosphere of 90 bar? Has it been renewed by episodic vulcanism? Venus has no tectonics, its crust is locked by a lack of water. Is that a cause of episodic vulcanism, or a result? We need a better understanding of how atmospheres evolve.

Venus's atmosphere is made primarily of CO2, a much heavier molecule than the O2 & N2 which we have,,, the atmosphere is "heavier",,,, the stuff it is made up of has more weight. The greater density causes it to be more difficult to remove by solar winds. Mars? The jury is still out on just what the primorial atmosphere was like. But any atmosphere there would be less "permanent" because of the weak gravity as compared to that of a larger body.
1 / 5 (9) Nov 12, 2013
We know the earth's magnetic field protects the atmosphere from being stripped away by the solar wind,

"Know" is entirely based on speculation, there is no experiment that supports this notion.

The atmosphere is part and parcel with the magnetic field on this planet, a series of insulating layers to separate the electrically charged Earth from the Sun's plasma environment. Venus' high differential induces the dense atmosphere but without the spin there is no electromotive force to drive a strong magnetic field. Mars would likely require a faster spin to create a stronger field, and the surface is in a closer balance with it's solar environment, as such it has a tenuous atmosphere. Gravity has little to do with these electrical discharge phenomena.
not rated yet Nov 12, 2013
All celestial objects undergo change. If "life as we know it" enters this change process, then you can reasonable assume this process of change has been modified (locally).

To what degree?
To the same degree as perturbation manifests in the sciences.

"The investigators reasoned the level of radiation a planet receives helps control its habitability."

Only for "life as we know It" never obtaining capabilities to shape habitability passively or actively.

Speaking only for myself, I can do both.

2 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2013
Interesting to note: too many cosmic rays would not let life even exist, but a world receiving the "right" dose would have an incredibly (for our standards) accelerated evolution.
I can't even reach out with my imagination where this could lead.
1 / 5 (1) Nov 13, 2013
You may have a point megmaltese. The Cambrian explosion springs to mind.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.