aliens trapped on super earths?

[Moontanman]

Would aliens who evolved on a Super Earth be trapped due to the difficulty of leaving the planet? A Super Earth 16,000 miles in diameter with a similar density would have a volume 8 times Earth's, 4 times the surface area, and twice the gravity. Escape Velocity would be twice Earth normal? I'm not sure if my numbers are accurate but you get the idea. 

https://www.space.com/40375-super-earth-exoplanets-hard-aliens-launch.html

[beecee]

4 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Would aliens who evolved on a Super Earth be trapped due to the difficulty of leaving the planet? A Super Earth 16,000 miles in diameter with a similar density would have a volume 8 times Earth's, 4 times the surface area, and twice the gravity. Escape Velocity would be twice Earth normal? I'm not sure if my numbers are accurate but you get the idea. 

https://www.space.com/40375-super-earth-exoplanets-hard-aliens-launch.html

I have often thought of the same scenario. Also obviously if any future Earth space traveller wanted to land on a super Earth, he would have double trouble in trying to slow down enough for a safe landing, and then obviously far more then the 9.8mtrs/sec2 to overcome when taking off again.

[John Cuthber]

There's also a possibility of the flip side of this; aliens who can get into space relatively easily.

They would have a problem retaining light gases in their atmos[here.

[beecee]

8 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

There's also a possibility of the flip side of this; aliens who can get into space relatively easily.

They would have a problem retaining light gases in their atmos[here.

Earth travellers would certainly have a far more involved and difficult task in slowing down for a Martian landing [as various probes have shown] then taking off again.

[Moontanman]

Such a super Earth would probably have a very dense atmosphere, this would be a double edged sword. The super Earth could stay warm much further away from it's sun that we are but be much harder to leave. 

[Ten oz]

Denser atmosphere means more lift. Much higher flying altitudes could be achieved with less fuel/energy. That would potentially enable larger craft which in turn could enable a craft to be launched from the upper limits of the atmosphere rather than the ground. Such a launch could help maximize the size and weight of the craft being launched. 

It is also worth considering that if alien life did exist there their physical beings might could be capable of handling more g-forces. Such could potentially enabled a different technological evolution in their aeronautics. After all what the human body can handle has been one of the limiting factors in our (human) aeronautics industries through the years.

[Moontanman]

12 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Denser atmosphere means more lift. Much higher flying altitudes could be achieved with less fuel/energy. That would potentially enable larger craft which in turn could enable a craft to be launched from the upper limits of the atmosphere rather than the ground. Such a launch could help maximize the size and weight of the craft being launched. 

I hadn't considered that possibility. 

Quote

It is also worth considering that if alien life did exist there their physical beings might could be capable of handling more g-forces. Such could potentially enabled a different technological evolution in their aeronautics. After all what the human body can handle has been one of the limiting factors in our (human) aeronautics industries through the years.

The problem, if I understand it correctly, isn't actually how much G can be handled but more about how much G can be generated by a rocket. The Saturn 5 at lift off generated a thrust to weight ratio of 1.2 G. That is why it took off so slowly. a planet with 2G at the surface would require much more thrust to achieve the same acceleration. Scott Manly talks about this @ 07:37 in this video. 

Also would creatures who evolved under high gravity be even more negatively affected by zero G than we are? 

Edited April 25, 2018 by Moontanman

[StringJunky]

17 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I hadn't considered that possibility. 

The problem, if I understand it correctly, isn't actually how much G can be handled but more about how much G can be generated by a rocket. The Saturn 5 at lift off generated a thrust to weight ratio of 1.2 G. That is why it took off so slowly. a planet with 2G at the surface would require much more thrust to achieve the same acceleration. Scott Manly talks about this @ 07:37 in this video. 

Also would creatures who evolved under high gravity be even more negatively affected by zero G than we are? 

Women can remain conscious under higher G than men because the are shorter, so may be organisms evolved under higher G will be shorter? From that you could surmise they won't be any more affected by 0 G

Edited April 25, 2018 by StringJunky

[dimreepr]

Would an alien with the knowledge that it can't escape its planet know it's trapped? 

[geordief]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Would an alien with the knowledge that it can't escape its planet know it's trapped? 

Up to the 60s the idea that space travel was impossible would have normal to most people .It was to me.

it didn't stop one being curious as to what lay beyond  the Earth.

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, geordief said:

Up to the 60s the idea that space travel was impossible would have normal to most people .

2

What if it's proven that it's physically impossible to leave that/this planet?  

9 minutes ago, geordief said:

it didn't stop one being curious as to what lay beyond the Earth.

 

How long do you think that curiosity would last?

Edited April 25, 2018 by dimreepr

[geordief]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What if it's proven that it's physically impossible to leave that/this planet?  

How long do you think that curiosity would last?

People would leave in their imagination and remain curious for ever. We have no idea what lies beyond the observable universe and yet  some still find it fascinating  and search for testable hypotheses in the remotest possible environments.

 

What else are we going to do once we have filled our bellies ?

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, geordief said:

People would leave in their imagination and remain curious for ever. We have no idea what lies beyond the observable universe and yet  some still find it fascinating  and search for testable hypotheses in the remotest possible environments.

3

The point is, the word observable...

[geordief]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

The point is, the word observable...

That was only intended as a reinforcer of the idea that will will always be curious (not quite sure what you are getting at)

 

Normally about things we see far away  but even when ,as in a BH or out there where galaxies are regressing at superluminary speeds

[dimreepr]

There are lots of people with an imagination, some are called authors and some are called scientific authors, both are entitled to write a story and without evidence, both have an equal chance of success. 

[geordief]

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

There are lots of people with an imagination, some are called authors and some are called scientific authors, both are entitled to write a story and without evidence, both have an equal chance of success. 

So we would be physically** and intellectually  stunted in comparison to a civilization that was able to travel in space....

As they say, travel broadens the mind  and in our case  it may be our only way of prolonging  any remnants of our civilization  after the circular firing squad  that may be just around the corner.

** well,maybe not "physically". Culturally?

Edited April 25, 2018 by geordief

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

The problem, if I understand it correctly, isn't actually how much G can be handled but more about how much G can be generated by a rocket. The Saturn 5 at lift off generated a thrust to weight ratio of 1.2 G. That is why it took off so slowly. a planet with 2G at the surface would require much more thrust to achieve the same acceleration. Scott Manly talks about this @ 07:37 in this video. 

I understand. I am theorizing that possibly having physical bodies capable of handling greater force may influence the way technology evolves. The human bodies limits were a limiting factor in air travel here on earth for the first few decades of flight. Different problems often require different solutions. That is all I was saying. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, geordief said:

So we would be physically** and intellectually  stunted in comparison to a civilization that was able to travel in space....

As they say, travel broadens the mind  and in our case  it may be our only way of prolonging  any remnants of our civilization  after the circular firing squad  that may be just around the corner.

** well,maybe not "physically".

9

Wow, that's quite a leap... Are you trying to miss the point?

[Ten oz]

44 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What if it's proven that it's physically impossible to leave that/this planet?  

Things escape the atmosphere of all planets (radiation, magnetism, etc). It is more a matter of what it would take to accomplish than it is a matter of being possible at all. In the interim while figuring out how to physically travel into space an intelligence would still be able to construct communication/measuring devices to send out and receive information. 

[geordief]

14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Wow, that's quite a leap... Are you trying to miss the point?

Not consciously. Perhaps I am waffling but definitely not deliberately misleading(I can be obtuse)

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

 devices to send out and receive information. 

 

To send out where? 

[Ten oz]

At anything they potentially believe might be able to respond or things they hope to measure. Not for nothing we are tapped in our own solar system by our inability to travel faster than light yet still measure and observe well beyond our own system. 

 

Edited April 25, 2018 by Ten oz

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

I understand. I am theorizing that possibly having physical bodies capable of handling greater force may influence the way technology evolves. The human bodies limits were a limiting factor in air travel here on earth for the first few decades of flight. Different problems often require different solutions. That is all I was saying. 

 

I think we might be speaking past each other, in chemical rockets we already use rockets about as powerful as can be made. Such rockets already have some difficulty simply attaining low earth orbit. Making the rocket bigger to contain more fuel quickly reaches a point of the fuel being even more difficult to lift and bigger rockets only make the problem worse not better. In the Video Scott Manly suggest that even a saturn five ringed by solid rocket boosters would have much difficulty putting eve a small object into low orbit. 

Nuclear rockets might do it easier but bring their own problems to the table. 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

At anything they potentially believe might be able to respond or things they hope to measure. Not for nothing we are tapped in our own solar system by our inability to travel faster than light yet still measure and observe well beyond our own system. 

 

I'm not sure why you would say that not being able to travel FTL traps us in our solar system, it does not...

[Ten oz]

3 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Nuclear rockets might do it easier but bring their own problems to the table. 

Sort of my point. They would face different problems and would have invested time and energy in different solutions

3 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I'm not sure why you would say that not being able to travel FTL traps us in our solar system, it does not...

It does in the sense of manned missions traveling beyond it. 

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Sort of my point. They would face different problems and would have invested time and energy in different solutions

It does in the sense of manned missions traveling beyond it. 

I am going to rewrite this, the idea of colonising the galaxy or visiting other star systems is to a great extent different things. We see and read in Science Fiction so much of the trope of running off to simply visit another star system is so ingrained in the zeitgeist that it's sometimes difficult to really see the forest for the trees. Unless star travel really does end up as easy as portrayed in shows like Star Trek or Star Wars I very much doubt that there will be much in the way of manned exploration. The idea of a habitat containing several thousand people taking off across the galaxy just to explore is, I think, fatally flawed. Every bit as flawed as expecting to travel to stars to colonize alien planets. The real colonization will be done by creating more or less self contained habitats that can either be slowly moved over generations to sources of raw materials like Oort cloud objects or orbit a star in a dyson swarm. Again it's important to think that we can create the surface area of a billion Earths in a Dyson swarm all powered by our sun. 

One we run out of space for new dyson swarm objects moving to another star to do the same is the next step. Gean type planets will most likely be encountered by accident and we may for ethical reasons avoid them completely...    

Edited April 25, 2018 by Moontanman