A 1.55 R⊕ habitable-zone planet hosted by TOI-715

Gravity on surface of this planet will be 3(times heavier than earth)/(1.55(radius)^2), so 1.25g, however escape velocity also depends on planet radius so we get sqrt(1.55 * 1.25) = 1.4 earths escape velocity (so 15.7km/s). Assuming Isp specific impulse of engine of around 300s, let's compute m0/mf (initial mass of rocket / payload) = exp(vEsc/(Isp*g0)) (g0=9.8m/s^2 (on both planets)):

For earth, it's 45.

For this planet, it's 208.

So, the rocket (using our current chemical engine technology) needs 4.6 times more fuel than on earth. Much more difficult, but maybe possible...

edit: formatting

The guided tours are interesting. I've mentioned this before, but I am very jealous of this kind of content available for school kids. We had the slide shows with a tape recording with the unforgettable tone to signal to switch to the next slide. We had crappy VHS copies instead of the 8mm film projector, but I'm not sure it was an improvement. All of this interactive material is just so much more immersive.

Cycles of fire

And for the future scientists and engineers who get exposed to this at an early age!

"Orbital Cousins to Earth" OCEs. Find the # of OCEs, and maybe we have finer granulation, Second Cousins have an atmosphere, Step-sisters have water and an OnlyPlanets account... (which seems to be making the rounds at Nasa)

To go see it.

Why would the ability to visit other planets, and see them, suddenly negate the point of existence, since we can then go see it.

Like there is only a point if things can only be imagined, and not actually seen.

That would be like. "now that cars exists, and we can visit the Grand Canyon, suddenly there is no point of existence".

FTL means we actually get to see the grandeur of the universe instead of hypothesizing mathematical models of it. Without FTL, we'll never leave this star system. The grandeur of the universe will be nothing but our imagination, instead of a real thing you can see with your own eyes.

Surface gravity? I just computed that. Color temp? Had to check the ole memory banks.

They should be doing stuff like computing how much of the sky this sun occupies, so you could get a sense of it, with the color. Is it tidally locked? Or at least does it fit the criteria?

The distance, eccentricity (which here leaves the distance a constant), and temperature of the associated star could be used to give some kind of insolation number, and from there a very casual steady-state blackbody temperature of the planet, which is a start and is better than nothing. At that point you can start looking up what gases would stay and which would go as kind of a maximum before you started thinking about stellar winds and the like.

If they would have no tilt then the seasons would be the same all over the planet unlike ours where they're opposite in each hemisphere.

  The relative increase in solar irradiation at closest approach to the Sun (perihelion) compared to the irradiation at the furthest distance (aphelion) is slightly larger than four times the eccentricity. For Earth's current orbital eccentricity, incoming solar radiation varies by about 6.8%, while the distance from the Sun currently varies by only 3.4% (5.1 million km or 3.2 million mi or 0.034 au).[9]

  Perihelion presently occurs around 3 January, while aphelion is around 4 July. When the orbit is at its most eccentric, the amount of solar radiation at perihelion will be about 23% more than at aphelion. However, the Earth's eccentricity is so small (at least at present) that the variation in solar irradiation is a minor factor in seasonal climate variation, compared to axial tilt and even compared to the relative ease of heating the larger land masses of the northern hemisphere.[10]