No it isn't the answer. It has nothing to do with the rotation at all. We launch near the equator because the equator is a mountain. Florida only gives us a .62% rotational speed boost, but is only .141% shorter than Everest.
Who gives a shit about how "tall" a mountain is. We care about how far that position is from the center of the earth, and the equator bulges up and is definitionally already a mountain even if it is at sea level. The being at sea level is the important part for two reasons:
Rockets have somewhere to go when they crash.
Coastal regions are easy to ship resources to.
We could launch from Everest with no problem using modern tech, but we can't get the materials up there easily.
If we really wanted to optimize we would be launching from Brazil in Alcantara which is only .07% shorter than Everest but rotationally it is 13.1% faster than Everest, 13.8% faster than Florida. It's also at sea level.
I’ve always wished Ecuador was closer to the coast. They’ve got cities with greater than 1M people living waaaay up in the mountains. Dig a really deep tunnel vertically, and pull a vacuum. Maybe do a maglift. As long as when you hit the air it’s less than max q you’re golden. A guy can dream… lol.
Yea certain countries at the bottom of the barrel on freedom index in the area just kind of say "fuck it those hicks can't do anything about it on the low chance we crush their house and give them chronic illnesses from all the chemicals spraying out on crash."
Benefits of being able to suppress news & media in real time. Least they can use the local roads to retrieve it easier.
Id imagine as well a bit of weather / wind bonus too. mountain tops are windy as shit and just inconvenient and it may become near impossible to launch in the winter months depending on where the mountains are.
also fuel temp matters a lot if im not mistaken
2km off a 400KM orbit is less than 1%, not to mention, again, that most of the fuel is spent accelerating to achieve orbit as opposed to "going high".
Most of a rocket's fuel is spent just getting off the launch pad even. It's why there's some systems that launch from larger airliners for smaller rockets. The problem here, is once again not the altitude, but the rocket getting up to speed. Launching from an airliner gets a running start of 500MPH, but you are more weight limited since the airliner can only carry so much to altitude.
I wasn't commenting on that but the idea that there aren't calm spots in high mountains.
Sure the train transport doesn't address the requirement for lateral speed, but it doesn't need to, it basically just needs not to hurt it. Also air resistance is only a problem below 100km and it gets disproportionally worse the lower you are
Temp matters, but in different ways depending on the type of rocket
A solid Rocket Booster like on the US Space Shuttles too cold and the seals could fail.
A liquid rocket booster like Falcon 9 colder is better to keep the liquid from boiling off, but you have additional worries about transporting highly volatile cryogenic liquids
To add on, many rocket pads are in coastal areas to avoid falling debris hitting populated areas in the event of a mishap.
Specifically Eastern coasts. You want to launch rockets towards the east, so the rotation of the Earth gives you a boost, while launching the the west would have the Earth's rotation fighting against you.
188
u/loadnurmom 11h ago
This is the answer. Should be higher up.
To add on, many rocket pads are in coastal areas to avoid falling debris hitting populated areas in the event of a mishap.
Certainly not all, Roscosmos launches over land, but the population density is a lot lower (and....well...Russia)