From: Billy Brown (bbrown@conemsco.com)
Date: Fri Mar 05 1999 - 06:59:00 MST
David Blenkinsop wrote:
> Compared to such grand space-trashing ideas, I still wonder if a
> relatively mundane idea might be worth thinking about, namely the chance
> that intelligence might survive preferentially on quite "large"
> planets as compared
> to the Earth. If a solid planet with the Earth's density were
> twice as large
> in overall dimensions, it would then have eight times the
> mass of the Earth..
> Presumably, the atmosphere would then almost have to be much
> thicker, giving
> any surface inhabitants much better protection against
> radiation events than
> we have. I understand that small, long-lived stars are prone
> to solar flares,
> and we've talked about gamma ray bursters, too, so maybe you
> really *need* the
> extra shielding if surface dwelling technology builders are
> to generally have a good chance of evolving.
There is some question about whether such planets exist (unless you are
including gas giants in your analysis, which is a completely different
issue). But even granting that, there is no serious barrier to space travel
in the long term.
Certainly, a species on such a planet isn't going to get very far with the
kinds of rockets we have now. However, there are two easy ways out of this
trap:
1) Even primitive nanotech will allow you to build rockets that can easily
reach orbit. All you need is the ability to synthesize diamondoid materials
with a very high level of quality. This improves the lift-to-weight ratio
so much that even a 3G liftoff through dense atmosphere would be feasible.
2) Nuclear power can also be used for rockets. We don't build them because
too many people are afraid of the word "nuclear", but the technical barriers
are modest. Again, 3Gs isn't enough to keep such vehicles from making
orbit.
On a more fundamental level, let me point out that both of these are
short-term solutions. Do we really think that any possible planetary
environment could keep a technological civilization stranded for a million
years? How about ten million? A hundred million?
To explain the Great Silence we need more than a temporary impediment to
progress. We need something that makes it absolutely, completely, utterly
impossible for a typical life-bearing world to produce a civilization like
what we expect ours to be in another 100 years.
Billy Brown, MCSE+I
bbrown@conemsco.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:15 MST