3 ms·
So say a 4000m launchpad is feasible, that's 2% of the needed altitude. While gravity will be roughly the same (yeah it's higher altitute, but there's the mass
by velox_io 10y ago
So say a 4000m launchpad is feasible, that's 2% of the needed altitude. While gravity will be roughly the same (yeah it's higher altitute, but there's the mass from the mountain). There is much less atmosphere* (~50% less pressure & 1/3 less of it to get through).
Given that payload to fuel ratio is roughly 1:10, this does seem to add up to a significant saving.
*Air pressure numbers
http://www.mide.com/pages/air-pressure-at-altitude-calculator http://www.mide.com/pages/air-pressure-at-altitude-calculato...
- karkisuni 10y agoyou're missing the point. altitude and drag losses are nothing compared to horizontal velocity. you need to be going 7.8km/s. Per second! That takes a lot more energy than gaining any kind of altitude or overcoming atmospheric drag. It's not significant savings.