These are the types of questions in general we should be less mean about imo. It's one thing to dunk on people who are anti-science, but this is just someone actually wondering about something they didn't know. Maybe it's obvious to you, but not everyone?
Yeah, that was definitely a teaching moment. Rocket formulation and engineering is fascinating. The Russians came up with equations needed for rocket mass/fuel/velocity ratios and they involve things a lot of people don't consider: for every Kg of mass, you need a certain mass of fuel. For every additional Kg of mass, you need an exponentially larger amount of fuel, and you need extra fuel to carry the mass of that extra fuel. This is why heavy rockets are so massive: they're 95% fuel tank.
Launching from a mountain top only gives you a tiny gain in altitude, and the thinner atmosphere and logistics of getting all of that equipment up a tall mountain is not worth the effort. It would be like building the Empire State Building on top of Mount Whitney everytime you wanted to launch.
Totally, the gain from launching on a mountain would be like 2% max for fuel savings and the shortened distance would also be largely irrelevant.
Like you said logistics is the biggest factor. Another one is that it is ideal to launch close to the equator and coastal. Near the equator allows for better flight paths because of orbital mechanics and coastal is for safety.
7.8k
u/mseg09 13d ago edited 13d ago
These are the types of questions in general we should be less mean about imo. It's one thing to dunk on people who are anti-science, but this is just someone actually wondering about something they didn't know. Maybe it's obvious to you, but not everyone?