Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: samtheman

It’s highly unlikely to be a gas planet at that size and distance from such a star. Something called hydrodynamic escape means that a gas planet needs to be quite a distance from its star, or very large, or both.

It could be a water planet - similar to Uranus or Neptune, which used to be called gas giants along with Jupiter and Saturn but are now more commonly called ice giants because their structure is quite different from the two largest planets in the solar system - but with liquid rather than ices because of its temperature. It would still have a rocky core (as Uranus and Neptune are both believed to) but it’s “ocean” would cover the entire surface. Or it could be a rocky planet like Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars. These are the two most likely possibilities from what I’ve been able to find out.


10 posted on 12/07/2011 3:00:04 AM PST by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: naturalman1975
It’s highly unlikely to be a gas planet at that size and distance from such a star. Something called hydrodynamic escape means that a gas planet needs to be quite a distance from its star, or very large, or both.

It could be a water planet - similar to Uranus or Neptune, which used to be called gas giants along with Jupiter and Saturn but are now more commonly called ice giants because their structure is quite different from the two largest planets in the solar system - but with liquid rather than ices because of its temperature. It would still have a rocky core (as Uranus and Neptune are both believed to) but it’s “ocean” would cover the entire surface. Or it could be a rocky planet like Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars. These are the two most likely possibilities from what I’ve been able to find out.

Thank you very much for that. I didn't know that. Are you a science writer?
12 posted on 12/07/2011 3:04:43 AM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: naturalman1975; samtheman; ixtl; jmcenanly; GraceG; HeartlandOfAmerica

Thanks naturalman1975.

The weight of an astronaut on the lunar surface is about one sixth that of his Earth weight — despite the fact that the Moon is someone less than one-fourth the diameter of the Earth, and about one-one-hundredth of the Earth’s mass. Distance is more significant than mass when calc’ing stuff like this.

nice relevant graphic (not about weight):
http://btc.montana.edu/ceres/html/Weight/images/solarsystems9.gif


28 posted on 12/07/2011 7:58:43 PM PST by SunkenCiv (It's never a bad time to FReep this link -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson