Next Rest Stop: 20 Light Years

http://gizmodo.com/5802902/new-home-for-humans

Hmmmm...gravity might be a little high.

Not yet ready to make the trip in any event.

This was posted a while back.

1. There is no conclusive evidence whatsoever that this planet is terrestrial.

2. Given it's size/mass, it's not a place anyone would want to live. Assuming a uniform density, the article puts the surface gravity at 1.75 gee. Not fun.

3. Tidally locked = climate extremes (assuming a terrestrial world to start with)

4. An atmosphere of mostly CO2 (as postulated) is NOT habitable.

^I presume "habitable" is in the loose sense of the word...

'Habitable' to me, in the sense of calling a world 'terrestrial', is to be able to stand barefoot in a grassy field and breathe the fresh air. It also means I can grow crops and graze mah beasts!

Great Kevin Sorbo's ghost!
This must be the world Dylan Hunt's mother was from!
You know, the "heavy" world Hunt's mother grew up on, explaining Dylan's super-strength and super-awesomeness?

Andromeda was real! It's happening people! It's all happening!

-> I have more to this joke about Glenn Beck selling Magog survival kits, but even this much thinking about Andromeda has made me want to vomit.

1.75 g?

That equals not habitable for humans.

No one in their right mind is going to establish a colony there.

And tidal lock? Not good either. You want rotation.

Either it rotates or it has rainfall. It can't be both.

You realize that the Earth rotates AND has rainfall?

I'd have thought that 1.75g is habitable. A 10 stone man would feel like he weighs 17.5 stone. Not that bad.

I'd say it wasn't.

First there is the problem of safe landings.

Then living there. A 200 lb man will feel like he weighs 375 lbs. And it's not just people it's the plants and animals we bring with us. Even building materials. How much harder it must be to build a building in such a situation.

Of course getting off will be difficult as well. Unless of course you've got fancy space rockets that just laugh at 1.75 gee.

It's not worth the trouble. We are likely to look for worlds that are close to 1 g (in either direction).

I'd rather feel like I weigh 350 than put up with most of the idiots on this planet.

You really think the idiots won't come with you?

Most idiots are lazy, I don't think lazy people are gonna want to put up with having to exert extra effort just to stand.

Yeah until the government wheels their lazy ass on the rocket and says get out of here.....

There are also other planets in the star system that look promising. We've already sent a message to one of them (of course, it won't get there for quite some time).

So I'd weigh 400lbs, give or take. Spend a year there, come back ripped and light on my feet, with a 40" vertical.

Fuck. It was like 6 am when I typed that.

It either rotates or it doesn't have rainfall.

UA is on to something. That would make a great Olympic training camp!

If you're able to get there in the first place, I don't think that'll be an issue.

You're probably right on that account but you never know.

We may invent a FTL drive that can only be used at a distance from a planet to not have interference with the drive meaning all travel to, landings and takeoffs from the planet are still chemical reactions.

Not accurate either.

You can certainly have rain on a tidally locked planet.

Sure. But, it willl only fall over the same lake or ocean that where it picked it up.

If the planet isn't moving, there is no wind and therefore, the clouds are staying right where they are.

So, as far as irrigation and watering plants is concerned, there really isn't any rainfall to speak of.

Indeed, evaporation is caused by the sun, and differences in thermal energy received from the sun are sufficient to cause wind.

Yeah no, not every area of a nonrotating planet would receive the same amount of thermal energy, therefore there would be differences in pressure, causing wind.

First off a tidally locked planet does rotate. The rotation is such that one side always faces the star it orbits but it does rotate. One orbit equals one rotation.

Second a planet doesn't need to rotate to generate wind. Or are you going to claim all wind on Earth travels in the same direction because of the Earth's rotation?

Third, heat energy flows from higher temperatures to lower temperatures. You will have wind going from the day side to the night side. Provided that the temperature is high enough to prevent the atmosphere from being frozen by the night side you will have winds going back and forth across the planet.

If you have a liquid ocean that can transfer heat from the day side to the night side that will help too.

You will have rain. Most likely in the thin strip of real estate between the light and dark sides.

Another reason not to live on such a planet.

Oh and once again Jenee you change the goal posts....

First it's not possible to have rain on a non-rotating planet but then you claim the rain on such a planet will be in one spot because there is no wind.

Make up your mind once in a while...

Revising answers is not changing goal posts. What are you, a fucking robot? One answer and that it? always and forever?

Don't be a jackass.

And might buy into the thermal pressure, but I don't think it will cause enough wind to move the clouds to rain over aridable land.