Oh sure a colony's fine, but I just hear people always speak of this as if we're going to stripmine a planet or something.

I don't get how we're supposed to withstand the gravity. I don't know the limits of the human body for what g level it can permanently withstand (some very high g forces can be endured but only nonlethally for a dependent amount of time). The first few weeks of being there would also be incredibly arduous, unless this training was done in-flight. Either way it'd be a very grueling experience, because gravity would be adding probably about 50 something pounds to everything you're doing. And of course one would be shorter.

Gravity on the planet doesn't have to be higher. How high the gravity is depends on how dense the planet is, which we don't know. It's *probably* going to be higher, especially if it isn't an gas giant, which it'd need to be for us to live there at all, but it's anyones guess exactly how much.

_________________

We'd probably have the gravity problem figured out before we got there. If we were to travel that distance we'd need artificial gravity or something because you lose bone density and whatnot if you're up in space too long.

And I'm optimistic enough to believe that we as a society aren't monsters and could be benevolent visitors to an alien world. The reason we have been monsters throughout our history is because we're programmed by evolution to seek out the best resources and means to survive and to take it by force when necessary. Once we obtain better living conditions we begin advancing science, technology, art and the whatnot. Only in recent centuries-decades even-has our quality of life improved enough to let our higher moral standards evolve. We have a long way to go, but I believe (barring any apocalyptic scenarios) that we are at a level where we the foundation for an Utopian society can be laid.

Also consider that the sun is less dense than our sun so the planets are likely to be less dense as a result.

Although who knows at some point we may need building materials and such but strip mining a planet would be less efficient than strip mining an astroid. Because you can find mile long astroids that are pure iron. and the like. Although We would have to have a pretty amazing power source for that to be a good option. And an even more amazing power source that striping a planet down completely is a good idea. Still if we need raw materials for building it wouldn't be unthinkable for us to need to setup large mining facilities on junk worlds and use robots to clear out specific minerals.

_________________
Zeph do you ever tire of being perfect? ~Dave
Zeph is still awesome though. ~Rival
I love you so much right now Zeph. ~Yoshi
I love you Zeph. You and your simple yet humorous topic-breakers. ~Coos
Zeph has left me inspired. ~Mathias
Zeph is so awesome even soulless bits of binary worship him. ~Wizard
Curse YOU ZEPH! CURSE YOU! ~JesusChrist
WE ARE SORRY THAT WE ARE NOT AS PERFECT AS YOU, ZEPH! ~Stufflikehearts
Zepherin for forum queen and writer of the best seller "how to screw your brethen up for dummies". ~ The Mirak

More likely is that we'll simply augment our own life spans to make the journey possible in fewer generations and as our means of travel increase we'll be able to do it in less than one life time. Also as far as colonies go I imagine it's far more energy efficient to create a colony in space as opposed to trying to bend an existing planet to our will. Not to mention the possible problem of traveling 20 years only to find out the planet has life and meddling with it's weather could ruin it.



Mining a planet to put cities across it's surface and mining a planet to build city's and spacecraft in it's orbit are the same thing though.

I'd like to know more about the human bodies' gravity tolerances as well, maybe NASA will do something useful after it stops getting money to galavant between planets (now in 2013 instead of this year). My personal theory is that the human body is highly adaptive to it's environment, within reason, and given sufficient time to adjust could handle several times Earth's gravity. This would be done either in the orbit of an alien world or on flight there simply because space stations and spaceships need the ability to simulate gravity for them to be of actual use to us.



Our oldest societies (the hunter gathering sort) were far more peaceful than our medieval societies, know why? They'd die if they were constantly killing and stealing from each other. So I ask where did this 'programmed by evolution' thing come from? Unless you expect me to believe that it coincidentally popped itself in there after the neolithic revolution and only in those humans who started farming instead of gathering I'm going to have to call bunk. Human nature is a concept invented in modern day to give the false idea that 'this is how we have always been' (referring to the modern world in all its greed) in order to serve as justification and give people the idea we can't change it.

While our muscles might be able to adapt, I'm not sure our bones and various organs would be able to adapt to gravity several times that of earth. There's so many complex systems in the body, that is all affected by gravity in one way or another, I'd be surprised if some of them didn't break completely, unable to function at all, even with training.

But who knows. It's certainly an interesting topic. I wonder how higher or lower gravity would shape evolution.

_________________

You'd definitely be stronger.

You wouldn't have anything like Avatar height though, because any falls or trips a person takes is only going to hurt that much more (and consequently, more fatal or injury-causing on average) the taller they are. You'd actually be shorter, for humans anyways (your spinal cord would get compressed).

We would observe a sudden drop in the popularity of sex positions that require one person to be on top of the other.

_________________
Twitter | Transistor Glamor | Tumblr | MAL

I do see where you're coming from with that argument and I can agree with it. They were/are so peaceful because it serves their best interest to work together so well. So you did debunk part of my idea, but those folks aren't peaceful merely because they're altruists; they need to be in order for their society to function. So, in that respect, I think I'm still correct. Our modern world, however, is a capitalist, mine, mine, mine society and we can survive without interacting with each other and can turn a blind eye to those things that don't affect us. (I'm not arguing with you anymore. Just making some more points that spin off my previous thoughts.) I guess we, the more "advanced" nations, would need to find a way to make socialism work and still continue advancing scientifically. Unfortunately, an overwhelming majority of scientific discoveries and revolutionary inventions are the product of war and personal ambition. It just doesn't seem likely that we could achieve the level of technology and prosperity that we enjoy AND live harmoniously. It would take a major change in the way people think. I think we are definitely spoiled and selfish. Immigrants a hundred years ago lived 10 to a room and worked 12 hour days 7 days a week. Some still do. Another great depression might really have humbled us and helped us achieve some humility.

You people are forgetting the fact that if we go to this planet, it will have blue cat people and/or wolves dancing.

_________________
A Pimp Named Jeezy Creezy: Lasting all the way up to Valentine's.

And the Pimpeth lord sat amidst his real ballin' players, the Apostles, and raisingeth his cup of Cristal as they devoured the grapes and cheese from the finest bitches in town he said

"Sleepery Dee, Sleepery Doo.
Whoever betrays me tonight, I'll mo'fuckin' cap you!"

Assuming sufficient available nutrients bone density should be able to increase if under greater gravity, just as it does the opposite in lower gravity. The heart being a muscle it could also adapt to the gravity and the brain should be unaffected. I'm not saying go jump around on Jupiter or anything but 5 times Earth's gravity as was mentioned should be do able... and if it's not I'd like to know that it isn't (which is the type of question NASA should be researching but isn't).

It is very likely though that if you go onto a planet with more than 5Gs with no prior training or anything, you'll die. See jet fighters and the training they go through to survive flight.

_________________
Escape will make me God.

I wasn't implying that, a phased transition would be neccessary.

I also believe the reason we see problems with astronauts who spend extended time in space then return to Earth is that 'too sudden' change in gravity.

They're being tossed around however (rather violenty I might add) Crum. Try to remember just a specific instance from a rollercoaster where you just felt the force going against you and you felt a lot more. It shakes you around a lot like a jet plane would but try to recall the specific moment. That's what you'd have to live with, except it would be constantly.

Presumably you'd gradually have your muscle built up in an artificial gravity environment, basically a training regimen except the only thing you have to do is use a little more muscle on everything you do. You would need a lot of time for your joints and everything to strengthen.

If you have a weak cardiovascular system though you're going down very hard, it'd be the most important factor to have this type of fitness for adapting to a higher gravity situation.

Why would we send anyone with weak cardio into space in the first place.

Anyways, we just have to do it like Goku guys.

It'll take multiple generations to get to that planet anyways. Just fabricate evolution and adaptation over multiple generations by slowly increasing the force of gravity within the ship over time until we end up with people who can probably put up with it.

Or die trying.

_________________
Twitter | Transistor Glamor | Tumblr | MAL

I'm just saying, some people might appreciate being able to do Kei-O-Ken at max level.

_________________
Twitter | Transistor Glamor | Tumblr | MAL

Blast our way out of a star's gravity.

Problem I have with that is just because you can make something exist in a lab doesn't mean it exists in nature. Even if we could make it though we still can't detect it, how would we prove it? A + B = Nothing detectable = Dark matter ?



Except for sudden acceleration =/= constant force.

Dunno. It's theoretical physics, one of the most hardcore sciences there is. They probably have some way, don't ya think? It's just like planets like this one aren't simply found by looking into a telescope ang going "Hey, I found one!", because they can't actually see them. They're found and measured, via shadows on suns, dopplereffect and all that other good shit.

I'm guessing that they're trying to prove something else exists, or some nature constant, which will confirm the existence of dark matter as well.


Ya thinking of quantum entanglement? While quantum entanglement is absolutely balls-to-the-wall awesome and may actually enable teleportation (if not people or matter, then at least data), it has the problem that the entangled particles need to start at the same place. We'd need to actually ferry the quantum teleporter (or whatever) to the planet before we could teleport there.

_________________

I don't get how it'd just be a couple generations to get there.

You'd either be able to make it relatively quickly due to some amazing discovery in the field of physics that lets you go past the speed of light (and we can at least hope that it won't be something like barely over the speed, but substantially, incredibly so), or you'd end up having dozens (perhaps upon dozens) of generations on a ship rather than just a few.

It's only 20 light years away. Supposedly, the Orion starship designed in the 1960s or so could get above 10% light speed. At .1c and 25 year generations, that would be about 8 generations for the trip. But I think it's likely that artificial hibernation would be available before such an expedition would be launched. That's before getting into mind uploads, fusion rockets, and what have you.

Also, though the planet is apparently 3x as massive as Earth, Earth is the densest planet in the Solar System. The planet would only have 3x the gravity if it were 3x as dense. With a similar density to Earth, its surface gravity would only be 40-50% more. That's pretty doable if you're in shape, though people would probably be more prone to chronic cardiovascular and joint problems than on Earth.

NASA mostly concentrates on temporary high gs and long-term low gs. I don't know of any research on chronic high gs offhand, but I would think that fat people would be a rough approximation. Assuming that's the case, up to a few gs would be livable with greater risk of chronic conditions, but several gs might be more than anyone can handle through acclimatization alone.

Actually, hunter-gatherer societies had rates of violent deaths that far exceed any modern society. The violent death rate mentioned there of 30-50% well exceeds the death rate of World War II on a per capita basis, even among the countries hardest-hit. Death statistics for medieval societies didn't show up on a quick search, but I thought they were mostly caused by disease and famine. These articles seem to agree on the violence front.

"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." People have been jerks to each other since time immemorial, and if you want to talk about what people are generally like (their nature, say) that should be taken into account.

...You don't understand the definition of a light year, do you? There's 20 of them between these planets. According to your math, we have the lifespan of mice.

_________________
I am Michael the Dick-Stabber; I seek out rapists and other such perverts to stab them in the dick!
(Inspired by Twilight Princess)

Apparently for some reason you decide to criticize me and not Jay, whose post would also similarly be illogical under your reasoning. I was talking about space travel more in general. There would be no trip worth it to go through a few generations like that, especially because I doubt technology would ever be able to give the accuracy needed to justify sending off tons of humans into the void to a possibly habitable planet.

Poor understanding of space travel AND bad memory, you're on a role!

Jay's posts are about using the long trip micro-evolve the pioneers into a race that might thrive on the new planet. The only thing wrong with that is the planet's potential dangers that we can't measure, which isn't a big deal if we confirm ahead of time with an unmanned satellite whether or not the planet is safe enough.

YOUR post insists that we need to get there in well under 20 years or else the first generation will die of old age. What the fuck is wrong with you and why do you refuse to confess?

_________________
I am Michael the Dick-Stabber; I seek out rapists and other such perverts to stab them in the dick!
(Inspired by Twilight Princess)