High Elevation Space Ports. Why No Launch Space Ports a Mile above Sea Level Areas around or higher in elevation than Denver, Colorado, 1 Mile above . . Are higher elevation Space Launch not worth the . . . . Moi Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
Just a guess but the fuel saved in that one mile is probably not worth the unpredictable weather around the mountains.
Big problem with launching satellites into orbit is getting the speed required to go into orbit. Though sometime aircraft have been used. Then they can get even more starting height and into the right longitude for the required orbit.
You also have the issue that high mountain sites are logistically difficult when it comes to assembling rockets. Rockets are large, expensive big ticket items. Schlepping all the components of a large rocket to its launch site is expensive, so you save money where you can. All the US and European sites are on flat ground on or near the coast. Plus you want sites as near the equator as you can get. A high mountain site would be more relevant for a space elevator or even a mass launcher where most of your investment in lift capital is fixed on site and the 'moving bit' (the payload capsule) is cheap i.e. the exact opposite of the case with rockets..
Not to mention also that rocket launches in general need to be over water in the event of an abort after launch. The Russians don't care, then again, there aren't that many people in Kazakhstan to begin with so it works for them.
In fairness to the Russians they've never had much in the way of good waterfront launch sites to choose from East or West. The oceans above the arctic circle don't generally make for good/safe/congenial ditching sites and are to far north anyway. The Black Sea? to small and crowded with multiple territorial claims limiting your safe landing zones. And since being closer to the equator matters for most types of launches Kazakhstan was a logical choice - especially when they were also very security conscious..
Sorry, I don't understand. Seems like launching from 1 mile elevation and not sea level would have significant "savings".
Why aren't rockets launched from higher altitudes? https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/...-launched-from-higher-altitudes/#3413d4553221
I would have some saving but not a huge amount in the grand scheme of things (because the vehicle doesn't just need to get "up" but also get to speed to escape the atmosphere and height only helps with the first part of that). The main problems with mountain launches would be getting everything up to the launch site in the first place (the vehicles, fuel, cargo, crew and all the supporting infrastructure) and the question of where anything that falls from the rocket (intended or not) would land.
Yet Colorado has a dedicated "Spaceport". https://denver.cbslocal.com/2019/04/23/spaceport-adams-county-reality/ The Colorado Air and Space Port announced Tuesday it has partnered with PD Aerospace of Japan to explore possible development and expansion including eventual space travel. A letter of intent was signed by both parties. Google search yields more.
That article says it is for horizontal takeoffs and landings (and so is a long-term and somewhat speculative plan, since such spacecraft don't currently exist) so the elevation would be even less significant. As I said, elevation would have some benefit for traditional vertical launches, it just isn't significant enough to overcome all of the various other advantages of existing launch sites.
What you want in a space port is to be near the equator because the centrifugal force of the Earth's rotation is greater near the equator. I think that is one reason they chose Cape Canaveral in Florida
Exactly. Objects stay in space because of their orbital velocity - just being high doesn't do it. So, launching nearer the equator has the advantage of the faster speed of the Earth's surface there. Europe launches from Guiana, not Switzerland. Texas, Florida and California have launch sites because they are handily situated in America while being closer to the equator.
Maybe we should get a lease from Ecuador The highest elevation along the equator. Nice people too, in my experience. Many Japanese hybrids To quoteth aka copy / paste The highest point on the equator is at the elevation of 4,690 metres (15,387 ft), at 0°0′0″N 77°59′31″W, found on the southern slopes of Volcán Cayambe [summit 5,790 metres (18,996 ft)] in Ecuador. This is slightly above the snow line and is the only place on the equator where snow lies on the ground. Elevation and equatorial site. Remember Manifest Destiny Remember Deus vult Moi Ignoring warning signs led to Twin Towers.
As you know, there are lots of factors in choosing a launch site. The choice gets made based on the sum of all factors. Perhaps hiring Equador to duplicate Cape Kennedy in the Equadorian high Andes isn't the cheapest direction.
Until "we" make it so! Elevation plus equatorial location. Win - Win PS Perhaps - I find is a unique word real do not use. What is your "English"? ? Brit? ? ? ?
The objective is dollars per kilogram of stuff lifted to orbit. If you want to have Equador build and maintain a spaceport in the Andes for us to use, you have to propose that to congress. NASA can't make that decision. Such line items in NASA's budget are passed as LAW by congress. Before going to congress, you need to talk to SpaceX, Boeing and other potential folks who launch stuff for NASA. Currently, SpaceX is the lowest $/Kilogram lift company by a lot, and launches from 4 different US sites. You might want to try to sell them and their competitors on your Andes proposal before you go to congress.
LOL - that's what is happening. YOU were proposing a change! Musk wasn't proposing a change. Remember that NASA contracts with Musk for launches. The rate for NASA sending humans to the ISS was $85million per seat with Russia. Now, NASA can get humans to the ISS by contracting with Musk for ~$65million, I think. The same contracting direction goes for lifting satellites - though there are more vendors than just Musk and Russia for that. Now, Musk can sell seats to Russia for $20million per seat less than they were charging us - maybe Russia will start buying rides from Musk!! Our deal with Russia is that we can buy seats from them and they can buy seats from our companies. There are lots of factors - not just altitude and latitude. Your idea is not convincing any of the various vendors, even though you accurately point out that elevation and latitude do have an effect.
At 10,000 feet a 150 lb person would weigh 149.9 pounds. It is like lifting a load to make it lighter.
Sounds weird. But, part of the deal here is that the mass of the person didn't change. It's just that the two major bodies, earth and human, became farther apart, thus changing their mutual attraction due to gravity.
At earth's surface a rocket is also fighting higher air density. But, I'm not disagreeing. We can see what those who shoot rockets do. They do tend to launch from nearer the equator. And, that makes sense given that Earth's surface is moving faster there, and reaching an orbital velocity is a big issue for most launches.