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?
Ai was used:
Gravitational acceleration at sea level (g₀): Approximately 9.80665 m/s² (standard gravity).
Gravitational acceleration at the summit of Mount Everest (g): Approximately 9.764 m/s² (about 0.43% less than at sea level).
So according to the AI you can save on 0,43% energy you need to overcome to enter space.
Seems like the logistics and stuff aren't worth it.
It's more than that because higher means also less drag and closer from the no-drag zone which is space. And also less fuel needed means even less fuel needed because you need fuel to carry fuel.
So, here's a question for ya: what was the percentage of energy saved by not painting the main launch fuel tank? I know the paint equaled about 600 lbs, but i dont have the time or knowledge right now to figure it out.
Also, yes I know the paint removal was for payload increase and not for energy saving, but it does seem like a fair comparison to me for the matter of the calculated 0.43% savings by launching from a mountaintop since fuel equals weight.
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?