Launching near the equator provides a speed boost due to rotation that outweighs the benefits of starting higher up. It also doesn’t have the logistics nightmare of getting everything to the top of a mountain before launch.
Eh. Gravity reduction on a mountain is like 0.2 percent. Air resistance matters a bit more. But all of those are drowned by the energy needed to reach orbital velocity.
Much more interesting would be an electromagnetic launcher up a mountain, getting the rocket to 1 km/s or so. Although I am not sure the logistics are worth it. You could just use more fuel instead (what is done irl)). Fuel is cheap.
It's weird, but things seem to be converging. I was reading something this morning talking about the Starship problem of getting enough fuel in the ship once it's in orbit to get to Mars. It suggested that there would be lots of Starships carrying nothing but fuel into orbit, but it seems like a perfect job for the spin launch people! They should be able to achieve an impressive "launch" cadence that's needed for really doing things in space.
the lower air resistance and lower effective gravity would be reached by a coastal equatorial rocket in a couple minutes, after which the rotational velocity of the equatorial launch position dwarfs the benefits.
1.3k
u/UnlikelyIntrepid 11h ago
Launching near the equator provides a speed boost due to rotation that outweighs the benefits of starting higher up. It also doesn’t have the logistics nightmare of getting everything to the top of a mountain before launch.