Why Aren't they Building Cosmodromes on Mountains? Constructing a road leading 10000 feet or more up-hill should potentially save a lot of fuel.
Asked
Active
Viewed 91 times
0
-
I’m no rocket scientist, but getting the rockets and infrastructure up there might be part of why. – Blue Skin and Glowing Red Eyes Mar 31 '23 at 18:17
-
3I've voted to close as duplicate; there's a number of questions on the site, including Where is the optimal location to launch payloads to outer space, Why launch from sea level and not Denver, Effect of atmospheric drag... – Erin Anne Mar 31 '23 at 18:38
-
7...it's a really common question, so you're in good company. The short answer is that almost all the energy cost is spent getting orbital velocity, not going up, and that roads up the side of mountains are probably more expensive than you think. – Erin Anne Mar 31 '23 at 18:41
-
What is a mountain of 6 km height compared to an orbit at 400 km? Only 1.5 %. 8 km only 2%. But much more energy is needed to reach the orbital speed than the height. A launch pad on a mountain will waste very much money. Building there is extremly expensive and the save of fuel would be very, very tiny. – Uwe Apr 01 '23 at 00:01
-
And in monetary terms, taking the Falcon 9 as an example with a full propellant cost about $250000 and total marginal costs per launch in the area of $20000000, you're looking at saving a small fraction of 1.25% of the total costs. – Christopher James Huff Apr 01 '23 at 11:52