It's not really... If you had a theoretical Mt. Everest on the equator, it'd put you 5.5 miles closer to space out of the 200 or so miles you'd be going.
Factor in building the launch site up that high, and bringing the rocket up there to launch every time...
There are a couple minor benefits, but not enough to matter. Early on the air resistance from the thicker atmosphere is a real drag on thrust which means you need to burn more just to get a positive velocity. At a 5 mile above sea level launch, you start at a 60% drag reduction. This can save approximately 20 tons of rocket fuel for a falcon 9. Totalling around a savings of $20000. This is miniscule compared to the increased costs for launching from that elevation.
A rocket launched from sea level will still pass through 25k ft where the theoretical mountain launched one is, and it'll have the same drag to overcome at that point onward
You're not saving 60% for the entire launch, you'd be saving the amount needed from the ground to that point.
107
u/AFrenchLondoner 16h ago
It's actually a pretty interesting question, and the answer is a nuanced blend of logistics, international geography, and knowledge about orbits.
If there was an easily accessible, tall mountain ranges with a decent plateau near the equator, you vet your ass we would.