If one day we get a visitor from this planet, they'll jump on our planet the same way human astronauts jumped on the Moon.
For example, the Earth is 10 times more massive than Mars, but only has 2.6 times surface g.
Higher gravity certainly means higher pressure gradient, more pressure per vertical meter of ocean. And high pressure affects protein structure.
It's life, but not as we know it.
Some fun trivia—the planet Kerbin from Kerbal Space Program is the opposite case. It has a radius of 600km, versus Earth's 6378km, but is exactly 1 Earth g on the surface. This implies it's over 10x as dense.
I.e. air-breathing aircraft + chemical rockets would work, as would other exotic solutions
Another way of looking at it—on a body with no atmosphere, the most efficient way to attain orbit is to be on the equator, point your spacecraft "east" (prograde to rotation), and elevate the nose just enough to avoid lithobraking on that mountain in the distance. If Earth were such a beast it would take roughly 7000 m/s delta-V to do this. IRL, because you need to get over the atmosphere first, it takes about 9000; the "gravity turn" is a compromise between losing energy to gravity/steering versus losing it to drag. So any exotic system—air launching a Saturn V is definitely exotic!—would help with efficiency, but I don't see that it would radically alter the situation.
In summary, as you said, the altitude is less important than the base velocity increase and atmospheric density reduction.
The former, because you're pushing maximum mass at t=0 (i.e. all the future fuel you need to burn), so any added velocity at rocket ignition time would compound throughout the rest of the burn cycle (or, to think of it another way, you've already overcome fully-fueled vehicle inertia with the benefit of atmospheric oxygen combustion).
Similar to how a multistage vehicle operates more efficiently, albeit without the benefit of atmospheric oxygen.
The latter, because you're essentially getting atmospheric density reduction for "free" (in terms of saving your on-vehicle propellant), and your propellant efficiency (in terms of propellant:velocity increase) scales better.
M = 4/3*pi*r^3*d
r = (4/3*pi*d/M)^(-1/3)
a = GM/r^2
a = GM(4/3*pi*d/M)^(2/3)
a = G(4/3*pi*d)^(2/3) * M^(1/3)Higher gravity means this upper limit will be smaller. All sorts of similar scaling things will change optimum points for structural and energy reasons.
Earth mass:
5.97×10^24 kg, 6378.137 km yields 9.795 m/s^2
8x mass:
(8×5.97)×10^24 kg, 6378.137 km yields 78.36 m/s^2
All calculations: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=surface+gravity+calcula...No, the calculation I made did not assume constant density. I just used the direct Newtonian formula for surface gravity and plugged in the known mass and radius of the planet. (You could also use that known mass and radius to calculate the average density. But you don't need to do that to calculate the surface gravity.)
> If the planet were 8x mass but with same radius
But we know it isn't. We know the planet's radius is 2.6 times the Earth's radius. That's stated in the article.
That’s not possible for normal stable matter. The Earth’s density is about 5g per cubic centimetre. Iron is 7.8g per cubic centimetre. Osmium is the densest stable element at 22.6g per cubic centimetre.
Seeing that response and then your username
Assuming life develops in an ocean, like we did, organisms in water are essentially weightless, regardless of the g force.