736
Lmao (mander.xyz)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
244 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 7 months ago (8 children)

I assume it's not just about the gravity, but also the much larger radius of the planet would mean much larger distance from the surface, and thus much more fuel needed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 7 months ago* (3 children)

    That's not how.......what???

    F = G * (m1 * m2) / r^2

    Note that radius is both squared and the dividing term. More distance = less gravity

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    Escape velocity does scale with (square root of) radius so its not a dumb thought.

    And I'm not a rocket surgeon but I could imagine earth rockets might be operating near some physical limits that make a 50% increase (or whatever) infeasible.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    I stated an assumption and was contributing to the conversation. Even if that assumption is incorrect, there's no need to be a dick about it.

    It seems like a larger atmosphere would result in a longer duration exposed to atmospheric drag, thus requiring more fuel to overcome it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    That's, uh, not really how that works. A taller atmosphere would mean you have to go through more of it, but unless it's not a terrestrial then the atmosphere won't be that much taller.

    If it is a non-terrestrial planet, it's unlikely anyone would be building rockets on there to begin with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)