this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2026
575 points (99.1% liked)

Science Memes

20192 readers
817 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gami@piefed.social 111 points 1 month ago (8 children)

(Not a rocket scientist or mathematician, but I spent 100s of hours playing KSP RP-1)

Just doing some estimates using data from the wikipedia page:

The dV (delta-V) needed to get into low Earth orbit is around 9.4km/s.
The dV for K2-18b might be around 19km/s, more than double that of Earth's.

It's practically impossible I think, you would need such a massive launch vehicle. For double the dV, you would need exponentially more fuel assuming current rocketry tech (fuel+oxidizer tanks and engines). There wouldn't be any single-stage or two-stage rockets that could do this. With a 3 or 4 stage rocket maybe? But you would be sending nearly 100% fuel off the launchpad with virtually zero payload.

I tried to factor in:

spoiler

  • Atmospheric drag - K2-18b's atmosphere is quite dense with a huge radius:

The density of K2-18b is about 2.67+0.52/−0.47 g/cm3—intermediate between that of Earth and Neptune—implying that the planet has a hydrogen-rich envelope. [...] Atmosphere makes up at most 6.2% of the planet's mass

  • Since the atmosphere is so thick and takes up a lot of mass, I've picked 500km as the low orbit altitude (comparing to Earth's ~100km Karman line, it makes you appreciate how thin our atmosphere is ).

  • Rotational assist - I'm assuming it's tidally locked since it orbits so closely to its star (33 day years), and so you wouldn't get the assist from rotation like you do on Earth:

The planet is most likely tidally locked to the star, although considering its orbital eccentricity, a spin-orbit resonance like Mercury is also possible.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 91 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Kerbal Space Program is such an amazing game that secretly teaches you physics.

game that secretly teaches you physics.

those are the best!

[–] PlexSheep@infosec.pub 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

Nice. It's from XKCD if you want the source.

[–] PabloSexcrowbar@piefed.social 17 points 1 month ago (2 children)

With a denser atmosphere, wouldn't that mean that you could get more lift from a traditional aerofoil than on earth? And if so, wouldn't that technically make it easier to start from a high enough altitude that at least some of the gravity is mitigated?

[–] Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus 11 points 1 month ago

That's what i was thinking - the dense atmosphere might even allow for platforms which are permanently suspended in the air like an inverse submarine, offsetting a large amount of needed fuel for a space launch

[–] bufalo1973@piefed.social 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Let's say you do the same on Earth. If you fly to the top of the atmosphere you are 100 km above the ground. That's a 1/60 of the distance to the center of the Earth. You don't have to fight air resistance but gravity is almost the same, if I'm not wrong, less than 1% of difference.

[–] PabloSexcrowbar@piefed.social 5 points 1 month ago

Yeah I realized that right after I made that comment. If the gravity is strong enough to hold a gas on the planet, it'll definitely have a prominent effect on something denser like a solid.

[–] fahfahfahfah@lemmy.billiam.net 17 points 1 month ago (2 children)

What about something like nuclear pulse propulsion, or some kind of massive spin launch?

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Nuclear propulsion, like Project Orion, would probably make it more likely they'd manage to get out of orbit. No idea on the math here, tho

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29

yeah there's also antimatter drives which give an even greater effective exhaust velocity (which is the speed of light). the highest possible achievable.

none have been built, so far

[–] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

If it's tidally locked, no spin assist.

[–] fahfahfahfah@lemmy.billiam.net 3 points 1 month ago

Missed that part but that doesn't preclude what I was saying, just requires “more” of it

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

Likely tidally locked

[–] matsdis@piefed.social 8 points 1 month ago

Check out the “tyranny of the rocket equation”.

Or ask Randall Munroe How many model rocket engines would it take to launch a real rocket into space?

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Build a large enough magnetic rail launcher and you could save shit tons of fuel. Get a ship doing 2000 mph before it leaves the ground and needs its rockets and you'll have a pretty good head start.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Could even take a scramjet to the upper layers of the atmosphere before kicking in the chemical propulsion

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean, that's kinda still just adding on weight and another "stage" to the rocket. A scram jet hauling a rocket ship will use tons of fuel.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I thought scramjets were supposed to be really fuel-efficient? Just launch them with your gauss cannon idea so that they don't need much fuel to get up to speed.

Maybe you're right about the weight though. I'm not an engineer.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They're efficient for what they are but think of it more like a gas pickup truck getting 30 mpg would be considered very efficient. But that would be terrible for a compact car.

Also, scram jets only get efficient once they're going fast enough.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah that's why you do multi-stage like conventional jet -> ramjet -> scramjet

But again, yeah if it needs to carry a rocket then it might be unfeasible. We could try your gauss cannon idea, that sounds fun. Like a maglev train, but shaped like those rides from roller coaster tycoon where you could launch people to their deaths. Except instead of crashing, the rocket kicks on mid-flight. It could work.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So you want a giant ass jet that can carry millions of pounds to carry a giant ass ram jet, scram jet, and rocket ship with boosters and rocket fuel?

Also, the thrust required from that jet is completely impossible. Let alone how wildly inificient all that would be. Every step of the way. Like, this is truly a God awful horrible idea. Like, the worst. Also, it's not good.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 month ago

I already agreed that it's unfeasible, I don't know why you're getting so upset. I literally said your gauss cannon idea is better, chill out.

[–] M137@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You don't have to launch from the ground, there are many things that can be done to allow them to reach orbit. It'll be an enormously bigger undertaking but the physics doesn't make it impossible. No reason to think of it in terms of our current situation either, what we are behind our current science when it comes to rocket science, due to * waves at everything else *

[–] AllToRuleThemOne@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Pretty late response, but if the atmosphere is that dense and hydrogen rich, you could reduce the start amount of fuel by a lot and capture it directly during flight? Needs some elaborated technology and low angle flight vector but could work, does it?

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

tidally locked

Wouldn't that be a non starter for life? One side would be perpetually baked and the other would be frozen.

[–] makyo@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I guess there could be a planetary Goldilocks Zone in the dusk area

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I figured that area would be full of extremely violent megastorms due to the heat differential.

[–] makyo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Oh interesting that is a good point