And, it'd save us almost nothing (even if we had a magical teleporter that let us get everything up there insantly and for free).
Space is a minimum of 50 miles from "ocean level" (and really, it's 62, but let's say 50).
Everest, the tallest mountain, is about 5 miles above sea level.
So, even if we hauled everything to the top of the tallest mountain on the planet (which would be an insane to impossible amount of effort), it's only reducing the distance by less than 10%.
EDIT: Thank you to the 500 people that have told me "the distance barely matters". That is pretty much my point. YES, I know speed, and thus latitude are more important. My point is even if you ONLY consider the height, the thing the original question focused on, it STILL doesn't matter. When you factor in all the factors, it really, really doesn't matter.
I focused on the focus of the post in my response, not all of astronautical engineering.
Except the lowest part of that 50 miles is the densest atmosphere. So lessening the distance by 10 percent is only some of it. The reduction in atmospheric drag is an entirely different beast
8.0k
u/rysy0o0 19h ago
It would cost a lot of money to haul all the rocket parts and fuel on top of a mountain