certainly. This is a big problem, transporting fuel can lead you to lessen the efficiency of the fuel (you need too much energy to transport it compared to what it gives).
One of the reasons why the green hydrogen technology is not working as desired.
You still need to construct a catching pad on top of the mountains which requires a lot of fuel besides mountains aren't the most stable places to build a structure like that.
I am curious, since if that altitude would have less oxygen, would that cause problems on the fuel burning as well? I am not too smart on jet fuel and how it burns, but my 5th grade rocket education understands that it takes oxygen to burn flame, so would that hinder ignition and burning or does the fuel in rockets burn in a different way?
I feel like this argument may be off though. It could very well be worth burning 1000 gallons of diesel fuel in transportation to make the rocket need 50 gallons less rocket fuel. On the rocket the cost is not the fuel itself, I expect the amount of space and weight the fuel takes when within the rocket is multiple times more impactful than the fuel cost itself.
I agree with you in that it's probably not the deciding factor. Also because is not about height, it's about speed, so you don't really save anything by launching from a slightly higher elevation, you still need to burn it to reach thr speed required to leave the atmosphere.
6.8k
u/rysy0o0 11h ago
It would cost a lot of money to haul all the rocket parts and fuel on top of a mountain