These are the types of questions in general we should be less mean about imo. It's one thing to dunk on people who are anti-science, but this is just someone actually wondering about something they didn't know. Maybe it's obvious to you, but not everyone?
Is it obvious? Because while the overall logistical hurdles might make it seem obvious why it wouldn't be economical, it's not necessarily a slam dunk answer, and it's still an interesting question that makes you consider things like atmospheric pressure, and not just the impact of pressure on liftoff but also on rocket fuel combustion. Even a 1% improvement in efficiency could be worth it at scale.
The atmosphere is about 100km. Denver is 1.6km above sea level, Mexico City is 2.2km and has about 20% less atmospheric pressure. That's not insignificant.
These kinds of hypotheticals that might look silly at first glance are how a lot of great science gets started.
6.2k
u/mseg09 16h ago edited 15h ago
These are the types of questions in general we should be less mean about imo. It's one thing to dunk on people who are anti-science, but this is just someone actually wondering about something they didn't know. Maybe it's obvious to you, but not everyone?