Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how it works. The moon is 1% of Earth's mass, but has 16% of our gravity. I'm not entirely clear on the deciding factors, but it's probably mostly density.
Higher density allows the surface to be closer to the center of mass, so the gravity there will be higher. Stand on a hovering platform 6300km from the Moons center and the gravity will be just 1% of Earths, since distance beeing equal, the only deciding factor will be the mass. That's why the gravity on the surface of neutron stars is so high, even when the mass is the same as our Sun.
Water found on a potentially life-friendly alien planet
401–410 of 410 posts
Re: Water found on a potentially life-friendly alien planet
#402Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you put some money in an interest-bearing account you could at least buy a new home when you got back. If you do it in a country that doesn't allow you to be declared legally dead when you are out of contact for a couple centuries, and if the institutions involved don't collapse, and if the interest on the account outpaces inflation, sure. What percentage of the banks that were around 222 years ago have not fail…
From [0] we can see that there are 10 banks founded before 1700 and 24 from 1700 to 1800. So it might not be that far fetched, assuming that the banks keep your accounts open after more than 100 years without use. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_banks_in_contin...
Re: Water found on a potentially life-friendly alien planet
#403With a planet this large, visiting it would be a one way trip due to the "The Tyranny of the Rocket Equation" [0]. I'm looking forward to the day we start finding exo-planets that are closer to Earth in size and which could potentially have space-faring races (and which we could leave if we were ever to visit them). [0] - https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/exped...
I mean, as far as I am aware, that problem is due to the propulsion method. Would a nuclear based rocket not be able to solve this issue? My understanding is that it would.
Re: Water found on a potentially life-friendly alien planet
#404With a planet this large, visiting it would be a one way trip due to the "The Tyranny of the Rocket Equation" [0]. I'm looking forward to the day we start finding exo-planets that are closer to Earth in size and which could potentially have space-faring races (and which we could leave if we were ever to visit them). [0] - https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/exped...
> I'm looking forward to the day we start finding exo-planets that are closer to Earth in size and which could potentially have space-faring races (and which we could leave if we were ever to visit them). I just realized I have no real concept of how many stars there even are within, say, a 100 light year radius of our sun (I guess that's a more realistic thing to find out than the number of planets). A quick search…
It could well be the universe is filled with life, but the dominant mode is underground chemo/radiotrophic microbes on planets without stars.
Re: Water found on a potentially life-friendly alien planet
#405Earlier quoted context omitted.
From [0] we can see that there are 10 banks founded before 1700 and 24 from 1700 to 1800. So it might not be that far fetched, assuming that the banks keep your accounts open after more than 100 years without use. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_banks_in_contin...
10 banks out of how many founded in 300 years?
I was just pointing out that it might be somewhat possible for banks to exist for a span of time big enough for this.
Re: Water found on a potentially life-friendly alien planet
#406Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 2. Being in the “habitable zone” doesn’t mean a planet is habitable Related question: Does "habitable" mean "habitable for humans"? I thought it didn't, but after reading some dictionary definitions, i believe it does. On the other hand looking at the planetary habitability wikipedia page it's clear that it means "life-friendly". No wonder many people are confused. Of course a planet with 8-9 times the mass of eart…
People have commented that a planet a bit larger than earth (I think 8-9 times qualifies) would have gravity too strong for rockets to ever be practical, and thus whether you were a marooned earthling or evolved there, you would never ever be able to get into orbit. So, there could be "super-earths" with life similar to ours, even intelligent, and they would never be able to participate in a space-faring society.
Re: Water found on a potentially life-friendly alien planet
#407Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, as far as I am aware, that problem is due to the propulsion method. Would a nuclear based rocket not be able to solve this issue? My understanding is that it would.
A nuclear rocket still needs propellant, doesn't it?
Re: Water found on a potentially life-friendly alien planet
#408Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually the analogy is a bit poorer than that, but also more consistent. You can only go one direction on either axis. Any movement in 3D space advances you along the "+space" axis, to the the detriment of your default movement along the "+time" axis. But just as there's no "-time" axis, there's also no "-space" axis.
Let me put it another way: from any point in space, we know you can move to any other point in space, in a finite amount of time (disregarding the accelerating expansion of the universe). As far as we have observed, the same is not true with (the common-language definition of) time - I can't go back to the moment I was born, for example.
If my understanding is correct, this same condition exists inside the photon limit of a black hole. Technically you're still in navigable space -- not inside the singularity yet -- and can move in any direction. But to actually escape the black hole would require accelerating faster than the speed of light.
Again, if my understanding is correct -- and I'm definitely not a phycisist by any stretch of the imagination -- our movement through time is exactly the same phenomena. We can slow our velocity through time (by moving through space instead), but we can't escape our local reference frame without moving faster than the speed of light. If we could exceed the speed of light, then we would be moving into spatial regions which are otherwise causally inaccessible to us; in other words, we'd be going backwards in time.
So: if we could go FTL, we could escape from black holes, visit parts of the universe beyond the locally-observable limit, and go backwards in time. I think (IANAP) that these are all describing precisely the same thing.
Dunno if this helps. The lawnmower analogy has definitely broken down by this point.
Also, it makes me think: if our experience of time is navigationally equivalent to the experience of space for someone getting sucked into a black hole, does that imply the existence of a higher-dimensional universe where ordinary, non-accelerating time is as fully navigable as our ordinary "non-accelerating" space? And in that higher-dimension universe, are we living near the surface of some kind of singularity? Do the inhabitants of that universe wonder about how sad it must be for poor creatures like us, forced to live on a time gradient which inexorably slopes in just one direction, the way we might commiserate the fate of those sucked into a black hole?
Re: Water found on a potentially life-friendly alien planet
#409Earlier quoted context omitted.
A nuclear rocket still needs propellant, doesn't it?
Yes, but significantly less of it by weight. You get significantly more energy per kg of nuclear fuel than you do traditional chemical propellant.
Re: Water found on a potentially life-friendly alien planet
#410Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but significantly less of it by weight. You get significantly more energy per kg of nuclear fuel than you do traditional chemical propellant.
Perhaps, but my intuition is it wouldn't make a whole lot of difference, because the reason you can't get off a heavy planet is because of an exponential runaway effect.
An experimental nuclear rocket from the 70s nearly doubled our "payment energy". It should greatly reduce the initial and total mass portions of the rocket equation as well. I don't have all of the numbers to punch into the rocket equation to figure out things exactly, but the exhaust velocity and initial/total mass make up significant portions of the equation, and increasing the former while decreasing the latter will make significant impact on the ability to leave a more massive planet.