I'm aligned in principle, but to be fair, curiosity would have been searching the Internet, posting on social media without a research attempt is performative
I dunno if this is so obvious that nobody has mentioned it, but they launch near the equator because that is where the earth spins the fastest, and the rocket is already loaded up with a proportional amount of angular momentum to carry into space with it. Therefore, less fuel is required to get the rocket into space.
So why don't they launch from Mount Chimborazo (a tall mountain near the equator, and the furthest point on Earth's surface from its center), then? Checkmate, atheists! \s
Another important thing is where you launch over. Most launch sites are close to the ocean so that any discarded boosters dont land on cities or towns, or in case something goes wrong during launch and the rocket falls back to earth like a bomb.
In addition to being on the wrong (i.e., uprange) side of a continent, Mount Chimborazo is also in freakin' Ecuador (which is not exactly known for its aerospace industry), is 30 km from the nearest town, is covered in glaciers, and -- just for shits 'n giggles -- is an active stratovolcano. My question was very much tongue-in-cheek.
Authorities are understood to issue warnings and evacuation notices for areas calculated to be at risk from launch debris, reducing the risk of injuries
Mostly true. Not for polar orbit launches, where you have to expend propellant to cancel out that angular momentum. For that you want a northern or southern launch site with a clear zone to the north or south.
Having a launch site inland is asking for trouble if anything goes wrong. Nobody likes having rocket stages dropped on their head. That's why launch sites tend to be on the coast. On top of that, a rocket launch requires a lot of logistics. That means you'd have to lug a lot of stuff up a mountain and build all the infrastructure to do it, like roads. That would make the launches way more expensive. A rocket launch is a major industrial undertaking so having the necessary infrastructure at hand is a huge advantage.
That's actually NASAs Artemis/Luna Gateway mission plans via Musks/SpaceX. The idea being to have one rocket that brings people/fuel into orbit, then a second rocket that just transfers them and takes them on further.
All the talk of "heavy lift vehicles" was for transports which would carry massive amounts of fuel.
Destin from Smarter Every Day on YouTube gave a talk at NASA saying it won't work.
Personally I think a planet spraying and exploding kerosene fueled space vehicles into the atmosphere when climate change, world hunger amd housing are still problems is perverse. The stuff of a pathological mental illness.
So we've mentioned a couple of reasons so far which I'll list:
we want launch sites on the coast rather than inland so anything the detatches from the ship falls harmlessly into the ocean
it's more costly to build a launch site on a mountain where you have to transport everything up and down the slopes.
I think it's also important to point out that even the tallest mountains only reach less than 10,000 meters above sea level, and the lowest satellite in low earth orbit is approximately 160 km above the earth's surface. So you'd be doing all that work on a mountain top with more unpredictable weather and harsher navigation just to trim off less than 10 % of the fuel you need to get to LEO.
21 Comments
plyth@feddit.org · 55 pts · 2d
Don't punish curiosity, not even in adults.
Westcoastdg@lemmy.ca · 16 pts · 2d
I'm aligned in principle, but to be fair, curiosity would have been searching the Internet, posting on social media without a research attempt is performative
FabledAepitaph@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 2d
I dunno if this is so obvious that nobody has mentioned it, but they launch near the equator because that is where the earth spins the fastest, and the rocket is already loaded up with a proportional amount of angular momentum to carry into space with it. Therefore, less fuel is required to get the rocket into space.
grue@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 2d
So why don't they launch from Mount Chimborazo (a tall mountain near the equator, and the furthest point on Earth's surface from its center), then? Checkmate, atheists! \s
FilthyShrooms@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 2d
Another important thing is where you launch over. Most launch sites are close to the ocean so that any discarded boosters dont land on cities or towns, or in case something goes wrong during launch and the rocket falls back to earth like a bomb.
This all is meaningless if you're China, because China doesnt give a shit and will launch directly over small villages (https://spacenews.com/china-launches-sino-french-astrophysics-satellite-debris-falls-over-populated-area/)
grue@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 2d
In addition to being on the wrong (i.e., uprange) side of a continent, Mount Chimborazo is also in freakin' Ecuador (which is not exactly known for its aerospace industry), is 30 km from the nearest town, is covered in glaciers, and -- just for shits 'n giggles -- is an active stratovolcano. My question was very much tongue-in-cheek.
Wakmrow@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
From the article.
SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 2d
And multiple times have either failed to do that, or the people did not listen. Causing fatalities.
rbos@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 2d
Mostly true. Not for polar orbit launches, where you have to expend propellant to cancel out that angular momentum. For that you want a northern or southern launch site with a clear zone to the north or south.
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 2d
Having a launch site inland is asking for trouble if anything goes wrong. Nobody likes having rocket stages dropped on their head. That's why launch sites tend to be on the coast. On top of that, a rocket launch requires a lot of logistics. That means you'd have to lug a lot of stuff up a mountain and build all the infrastructure to do it, like roads. That would make the launches way more expensive. A rocket launch is a major industrial undertaking so having the necessary infrastructure at hand is a huge advantage.
WoodScientist@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
That's why I set up all my launch sites on the West Coast of countries!
OldChicoAle@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 2d
She asked a question because she wanted to learn more. Batman is being a dick because he wants to feel better about himself. Be more like Akai.
southsamurai@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 2d
We gonna build a big-ass ramp up the side of Everest and Evel Kneivel our way into orbit!
mossberg590@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2d
Debris falling on people is too costly. Accidents, aborted flights, and spent first stage rockets are too much liability.
remon@ani.social · 2 pts · 2d
Not in China!
Sirius006@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 2d
We should launch those from space.
DarkCloud@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 2d
That's actually NASAs Artemis/Luna Gateway mission plans via Musks/SpaceX. The idea being to have one rocket that brings people/fuel into orbit, then a second rocket that just transfers them and takes them on further.
All the talk of "heavy lift vehicles" was for transports which would carry massive amounts of fuel.
Destin from Smarter Every Day on YouTube gave a talk at NASA saying it won't work.
Personally I think a planet spraying and exploding kerosene fueled space vehicles into the atmosphere when climate change, world hunger amd housing are still problems is perverse. The stuff of a pathological mental illness.
JayDee@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 2d
So we've mentioned a couple of reasons so far which I'll list:
I think it's also important to point out that even the tallest mountains only reach less than 10,000 meters above sea level, and the lowest satellite in low earth orbit is approximately 160 km above the earth's surface. So you'd be doing all that work on a mountain top with more unpredictable weather and harsher navigation just to trim off less than 10 % of the fuel you need to get to LEO.
Jax@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 2d
The answer is money.
christopher@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 2d
I imagine the cost to build a facility and get the rocket on a mountain would be higher
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 2d
Maybe for the first one.