Lessee...five times the size of Earth, so that means the gravity is 125 (=5*5*5) times Earth's gravity. Not a good weight-lose destination. More of a bone-crusher.
...and they go and change the data on me. The NYTimes article said it was 5 times the size of Earth earlier. Now it's saying it's 5 times the mass of Earth, so you'd weigh 5 times as much, not 125 times. But! Your article says 1.6 times the mass.
In conclusion: the media sucks at science coverage.
I think I'll wait for the Scientific American article. That's likely to be more accurate.
Still, rather exciting. Especially since 20 light years is not HUGELY far...I mean, it's a long long way, but using an Orion-style nuclear pulse drive, a ship might make it there in 200 years or so. So, it'd have to be a generational ship.
Using a more advanced nuclear pulse drive (say, one using antimatter bombs), the ship might make it there in 40 years.
Of course, if we can invent jump gates or warp drives, then this might be a lot easier.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2007-04-25 12:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-25 12:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-25 12:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-25 12:40 am (UTC)(bite your tongue, Steph) lol
no subject
Date: 2007-04-25 12:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-25 02:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-25 02:48 am (UTC)In conclusion: the media sucks at science coverage.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-25 05:01 am (UTC)Still, rather exciting. Especially since 20 light years is not HUGELY far...I mean, it's a long long way, but using an Orion-style nuclear pulse drive, a ship might make it there in 200 years or so. So, it'd have to be a generational ship.
Using a more advanced nuclear pulse drive (say, one using antimatter bombs), the ship might make it there in 40 years.
Of course, if we can invent jump gates or warp drives, then this might be a lot easier.