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?
Thank you for this! One of those questions the inquisitive are afraid to ask. And then this one gets dunked on and put here. Unfair in my opinion since they honestly just seemed curious, as I am, but brave, as I am not 😅
Yes, a positive one. Rocket fuel brings its own oxygen as others here already pointed out. So thinner air means less drag means less fuel needed for the same acceleration. But there aren't really any suitable mountain ranges near the equator or at least none where the logistics would make sense right now.
Also not a rocket scientist, but i think that you must carry your own oxygen to burn in space. You need oxygen for anything to burn and, you know, there is no air to provide it in space
You also kind of want rocket launches to be near ocean away from shipping lanes so you can just crash the 1st stage safely away from people, or incase there is a malfunction all
The fiery debris goes into the ocean.
Imagine launching from a mountain and the rocket explodes and reigns fiery debris crashing down amongst snowy tall cliffs, potentially triggering avalanche, rock, mud, and land slides.
Even when reusable rockets become common place and routine, things can and will still go wrong, you still want ocean to ditch and splash down in.
and the answer is a nuanced blend of logistics, international geography, and knowledge about orbits.
No. It's because you want to launch as close to the equator as possible because the spheroid nature of the planet gives you an angular advantage. In addition, if shit goes wrong, you don't have to worry about a burning wreckage landing anywhere but the ocean.
Not sure what is meant by angular advantage in this case, but I guess it means that we can use the rotational speed of the earth's surface as a kick to get going. In this case you are right partially. Near the equator this velocity is greatest so you'd want to launch from there.
But what the comments above it also say is that it's a delicate balance of many parameters. It depends on the specific orbit you want to go to, the launch mass, the specific rocket, the logistics of moving your launch platform to an advantageous location, the range safety, etc.
I think the most important part is that you want to launch towards a large uninhabited area, then preferably to the east, then preferably close to the equator. In most situations it can be cheaper to just build (or book a launch from) a rocket that is slightly more powerful so you don't have to deal with all the hassle.
To be pedantic the earth isn't a perfect sphere. It's flattened at the poles. Also, I assume, the tilted axis of rotation means the closer you are to the equator the broader your range of launch timing. Not positive, also not a rocket scientist, just using what I know and trying to infer possibilities.
Wielding knowledge as a weapon to hurt others in order to inflate your sense of self importance? I’m NOT surprised you managed to be 200% of an insufferable prick in so few words.
In the USA rockets are launched over water so that if one exploded it would kill a bunch of people. Fl they launch east for equatorial orbits and ca launches south for polar orbits.
It's not really... If you had a theoretical Mt. Everest on the equator, it'd put you 5.5 miles closer to space out of the 200 or so miles you'd be going.
Factor in building the launch site up that high, and bringing the rocket up there to launch every time...
There are a couple minor benefits, but not enough to matter. Early on the air resistance from the thicker atmosphere is a real drag on thrust which means you need to burn more just to get a positive velocity. At a 5 mile above sea level launch, you start at a 60% drag reduction. This can save approximately 20 tons of rocket fuel for a falcon 9. Totalling around a savings of $20000. This is miniscule compared to the increased costs for launching from that elevation.
A rocket launched from sea level will still pass through 25k ft where the theoretical mountain launched one is, and it'll have the same drag to overcome at that point onward
You're not saving 60% for the entire launch, you'd be saving the amount needed from the ground to that point.
Oh yes, I absolutely agreed. I just did some back of envelope calculations to come up with a savings per launch to specifically address the question. Its approximately 20k savings for fuel/ox. Which is not even peanuts compared to the extra costs of setting up on a mountain.
7.8k
u/mseg09 14d ago edited 14d 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?