How Common Or Rare Are Planets with 1g or Greater?

[Spacescifi]

I do not think the universe is like Star Trek where life is fairly so common that just about every solar system you go to has an Earth-like variant brimming with life and 1g.

Why do I even care about how common or rare 1g worlds are?

Spoiler

I devised a kind of antigravity drive that recharges ONLY from 1g or greater gravity.

The MC ship can hold enough charge in it's trans-gravimetric capacitor to last 4 hours fully charged.

Flight: A side effect when the drive is engaged is for the ship to behave weightlessly in a normal gravity environment. Propulsion: Antigravity rays repel out nozzles so hard it provides high thrust.

When the drive is off the ship is subject to gravity and cannot use it's anti-grav ray propulsion. However it can only charge the drive when it is not engaged, so it needs to land first for that, since in LEO gravity is close but not quite 1g (98%).

 

Recharge time: 100 hours per hour of drive online. So the max the MC vessel can have it's drive enabled and drained in 4 hours, which means it would take 400 hours of being landed on a planet 1g or greater to fully recharge the propulsion system.

What all this means: To recharge the ship's propulsion system the ship must first land on a world 1g or greater.

Which means 1g or higher worlds become automatic points of interest in ANY solar system warped or hyperdrivee to.

If not so common though a ship captain will be in challenging straits.

 

Worse yet are worlds that have 1g or greater but are hellish without a solid ground to land on.

 

Thoughts?

[HebaruSan]

https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/what-is-an-exoplanet/planet-types/super-earth/

[Gargamel]

Considering Earth is the 4th largest out of 8 planets in the only known (almost) complete model of a solar system, and the exoplanets we have discovered tend towards bigger mainly due to them being easier to detect, it is a very reasonable assumption IMO that Earth sized ~1g planets could be the average.    

[darthgently]

39 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

Considering Earth is the 4th largest out of 8 planets in the only known (almost) complete model of a solar system, and the exoplanets we have discovered tend towards bigger mainly due to them being easier to detect, it is a very reasonable assumption IMO that Earth sized ~1g planets could be the average.    

While I think assumption is a bit strong, it makes sense that our weaker ability to detect smaller, earth-sized, worlds combined with our sample size of one with the Sol system, that the probable average is likely lower g than the huge exoplanets we are currently, more easily, detecting

[farmerben]

Earth is near the cutoff where chemical rockets can get into orbit.  A planet with 1.5 g and a thicker atmosphere would be almost impossible to orbit with chemical rockets.

[Shpaget]

More than two weeks of thumb twiddling on some barren backwater planet (likely with no water), just so you charge up a few hours of propulsion? That's gonna get boring very soon.

What is so magical about 1g threshold, that 0,98 g does nothing?

[kerbiloid]

Taxes.

0⁹⁸ + taxes.

[Spacescifi]

2 hours ago, Shpaget said:

More than two weeks of thumb twiddling on some barren backwater planet (likely with no water), just so you charge up a few hours of propulsion? That's gonna get boring very soon.

What is so magical about 1g threshold, that 0,98 g does nothing?

 

Hahaha!

Absolutely nothing actually.

The antigravity drive is made to be charged at a specific gravity rate.

It is possible to charge at weaker gravity levels, but that only increases the time it takes to charge the trans-gravitric capacitor, which as you know is already a bit over 2 weeks.

Why bother? The thrust is excellent and allows spaceships to behave like SSTOs without worrying much about the rocket equation nor  radioactive exhaust.

You are probably wondering what good is 4 hours of thrust given how vast space is.

It is for landing and taking off planets, as well as matching speed/orbit for rendezvous... because using the warp drive won't adjust the ship's true heading and  inertia.. which is revealed the moment you drop out of warp.

I did mention warp earlier. For fast interplanetary travel a kind of warp drive is used that translates space ahead of the vessel behind it, so as to translate the vessel across space without propelling it. It only takes 30 seconds for the warp drive to accelerate warp translation of space up  to lightspeed.

For interstellar travel there are hyperlanes hidden below normal space that can be accessed by vessels with working hyperdrives.

Hyper lanes look like the scifi warp tunnels of fiction, and they function like 1 way roads where all ships go the same direction.

It's like a network of roads connecting systems... but they use stars as hubs, so navigation computers are programmed to take the ship out of the hyper lane before they drop out of hyperspace on the surface of the star.

 

EDIT: It is possible to reduce the charge time by making a much more massive trans-gravitric capacitor, which would trade cargo space for sheer get out of dodge fastness.

So large freighter-like vessels without freight carrying massive trans-gravitric capacitors could enable faster waits with a small crew.

Edited September 20, 2023 by Spacescifi

[Nuke]

really hard to say with a strong visibility bias. of course we will know more about this when our telescope technology approaches god-tier.

Edited September 20, 2023 by Nuke

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

0⁹⁸ + taxes

+ death?

Hm. 

Gravity and taxes are variable.  Perhaps death is too? 

[magnemoe]

12 hours ago, darthgently said:

While I think assumption is a bit strong, it makes sense that our weaker ability to detect smaller, earth-sized, worlds combined with our sample size of one with the Sol system, that the probable average is likely lower g than the huge exoplanets we are currently, more easily, detecting

Agree, add that its so much easier to get transient around dwarf stars who might disfavor small planets close in. Our models of planetary formations are likely very inaccurate. 

[steve9728]

I think human knowledge of places beyond the solar system is still very limited currently: kinds like strange imagery that ancient people had of places beyond where they lived.

And it's likely, because human imagination can only be based on what they already know. So probably...

[kerbiloid]

The sizes of things follow the exponent-like distribution.

In the Solar System there are only five known objects, heavier than Earth, and only four wit higher freefall acceleration.

So, the super-Earthes should be very rare, and almost always ice giants.

[farmerben]

If the ice giants were closer to sun the hydrogen and helium would be lost and we'd probably have earth like ocean planets.

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, farmerben said:

If the ice giants were closer to sun the hydrogen and helium would be lost and we'd probably have earth like ocean planets.

Without the hydrogen we unlikely could have water.

[Shpaget]

19 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

 

Hahaha!

Absolutely nothing actually.

The antigravity drive is made to be charged at a specific gravity rate.

 

Quote

I devised a kind of antigravity drive that recharges ONLY from 1g or greater gravity.

 

19 hours ago, Spacescifi said:

I did mention warp earlier.

You can't expect us to not only keep track of all your previous ideas but to divine which ones you want to apply to new threads without mentioning them. Add to your existing thread that includes the concepts you want to include, so we can play along.