back

by jasonpeacock·10y ago·view on hn ↗
Any height is an advantage in achieving orbit. It's an exponential problem - you need fuel to go up, and you need more fuel to lift the fuel you need to go up, etc.

Also, air resistance is much more at the surface than higher up.

So by starting your ascent at a high altitude you need much less fuel both because you need less fuel, and because there is less air resistance (friction).

Space elevators still need to use the same energy to lift something, but they use an external power source so do not need to lift their own fuel, and they lift more slowly and greatly reduce the effect of air resistance.

So no, a space elevator won't get you to "outer space", but it creates a stepping stone which greatly reduces the cost of getting there.

1 comments
Air resistance is a very minor issue for rockets. Long/thin things are very slippery and once at 10-20-30,0000 meters the air is basically gone.

Jumping off the elevator from LEO altitudes would still require one to fight gravity, to avoid dipping back into the atmosphere before getting to orbital velocities. So there are still gravity-related losses to account.

This isn't correct. Air resistance increases at the rate of velocity squared. At the speed those rockets achieve, is is a big factor. Elon Musk himself likened the atmosphere to a "thick soup" when it comes to launching rockets to space.
My understanding is that atmospheric drag on a standard launch vehicle to leo is on the order of 300-400m/s, a small fraction of the total budget.