3 ms·

It saves you about 6% of fuel, assuming the launch location is on the equator, is suitable for roads and can handle a lot of noise / avelanches. Getting into sp

It saves you about 6% of fuel, assuming the launch location is on the equator, is suitable for roads and can handle a lot of noise / avelanches. Getting into space is the easy bit (energy-wise). Getting up to orbital speed takes much more fuel and energy. The problem is that now you have to transport everything near and up the mountain, which costs a ton in logistics (getting a road up a mountain that can handle a entire assembled rocket isn't cheap, nor easy). Most launches have delta-v to spare because satellites are usually nowhere near the rocket's maximum payload weight. tl;dr it can save 6% in a ideal situation, but the extra cost and logistical problems aren't worth it.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mkstowegnv 8y ago
>tl;dr it can save 6% in a ideal situation, but the extra cost and logistical problems aren't worth it. Unless you launch by means of a mass driver/rail gun [1] built into the side of Mt Everest with a piggy backed elevator for tourists. Tourists would arrive to a pressurized viewing area at the summit and have the option of donning an oxygen mask, going outside and posing for photos next to a cutout of Sir Hillary. I have never understood why serious rock climbing friends get so upset whenever I have mentioned this idea over the years. 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_driver https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_driver
- mozumder 8y ago
  I always thought they should just make stairs on Everest..
- evgen 8y ago
  Skip Everest and go with Mt Kenya. It's equatorial location means that you are getting a nice delta-v boost, its shape is more suited to this purpose, and it is far more accessible.
gnode 8y ago
You seem to only be considering the fuel saving of the higher altitude. If we're considering a ground based mass driver launch, rather than a conventional rocket-only launch, then I think there would be a substantial practicality gain from firing into thinner air. At the proposed 5000mph, air resistance at sea level would be tremendous. Greater atmospheric losses would entail either bringing more fuel to complete the orbit, or larger launch loop / greater acceleration force.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

mkstowegnv 8y ago

>tl;dr it can save 6% in a ideal situation, but the extra cost and logistical problems aren't worth it. Unless you launch by means of a mass driver/rail gun [1] built into the side of Mt Everest with a piggy backed elevator for tourists. Tourists would arrive to a pressurized viewing area at the summit and have the option of donning an oxygen mask, going outside and posing for photos next to a cutout of Sir Hillary. I have never understood why serious rock climbing friends get so upset whenever I have mentioned this idea over the years. 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_driver https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_driver

mozumder 8y ago
I always thought they should just make stairs on Everest..
evgen 8y ago
Skip Everest and go with Mt Kenya. It's equatorial location means that you are getting a nice delta-v boost, its shape is more suited to this purpose, and it is far more accessible.

gnode 8y ago

You seem to only be considering the fuel saving of the higher altitude. If we're considering a ground based mass driver launch, rather than a conventional rocket-only launch, then I think there would be a substantial practicality gain from firing into thinner air. At the proposed 5000mph, air resistance at sea level would be tremendous. Greater atmospheric losses would entail either bringing more fuel to complete the orbit, or larger launch loop / greater acceleration force.