<p><font color="#800080">I was more interested in the math aspect, since the Russians launch from much higher. Keep in mind that the flatlands at Tonopah are at 6000 feet, and Chlie has a plain at 14,000 feet. I won't discuss the impractical logistics of moving the SRBs from Florida to Utah and back.</font></p><p>In that case, I wont discuss the impractical logistics of suggesting mountain launch sites for a system about to be retired. </p><p><font color="#800080">I realize that some think any website that is not nasa.gov is a "kook" site, but then such persons do not realize that the tallest mountain in the World is in the USA, next to the ocean. Tallest, not highest. May I suggest that you read a website before you demean it with childish insults.</font></p><p>May I suggest that when you respond to a post, you check what your responding to. I wasn't the one who criticized the website. I think your thinking of Cygnus2112. And if that is the Pacific ocean which it would have to be...then throw practicallity out the window.</p><p>When you launch from the Pacific side of the coast into a roughly equatorial orbit, you have very little payload to orbit mass advantage as you do when you launch from the Atlantic where the launch vehicle gains an almost 1,000 mph velocity advantage provided by earths rotation. Last I checked, there were no tall...or high mountains on the Atlantic ocean side of U.S. </p><p><font color="#800080">You will learn things, if that is possible.Back to the math question, the link poses some general calculations, on such "kooky" things like rocket plumes. Anyone here want to address the math? Posted by stanwhite</font></p><p>I'm already aware of calculations pertaining to rockets although I'd be the first to admit I'm not the best at actually recalling formulas off the top of my head. I didn't address the actual math for that reason but if your above 30% of the atmosphere when launching from a mountain top, it stands to reason that you will benefit by somewhere around that much.</p><p>The problem is, tradeoffs. Will the benefits outweigh the logistical costs? For the shuttle, the answer is an obvious no regardless of the logistics of SRB transport simply because the shuttle is a very expensive system to operate anyway. You wont realize much in savings by moving launch operations to a mountain top where you'd have to build processing facilities from the ground up, including one tall enough (Not necessarily VAB tall) to enable stacking of the vehicle.</p><p>Not to mention the shuttle is about to be retired.</p><p>As I mentioned in my previous post, mountain launches may be something well worth considering for any company or NASA if they are planning to develop a TSTO. NASA is pretty much out of the cheap access to space business but the private sector is just about to enter that business and if mountain launching proves practical to the company that may wish to incorporate it, then it will be adapted.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>