Overpopulation

actually a flat surface is not required for a tube type launcher. nor
(unless I'm completely wrong) would it have to be lvl. i believe it
would be acceptable for the racetrack to be on an incline.

since its a tube, and since it needs to be protected from the weather
anyway, the most common idea about it, is that it would be buried
likely under several yards of mountain, but in some cases as much as
100 feet. with the track being about 40 miles wide its very possible
that there might be a valley in the middle. where its not possible
to stay under ground a bridge could be constructed connecting to
mountains not too far apart. this bridge would have to be constructed
in such a way as to be totally ridged. even car bridges don't have
to have the kind of rigidity that this would require. the final
straight mile or so of the tube spur would run up the side of
mountain so as to release as close as its possible and as high as its
possible (to avoid as much atmosphere as possible.

it is possible that both could fit there. the 3.3 miles of the scram
jet (orbiter) launcher could be the final part of the non-orbit
launcher. it could also be used to launch cargo that was not as
sensitive to high g for lunar and higher orbit launching, allowing
those to be started (by remote control) long before the rest of it
was finished.

the volcano i was thinking of is Chimborazo in Ecuador. the only
problem i can see with it from Google earthing it is there are
several towns and villages due east of it. if there was an accident
that caused an explosion, these would be at risk. if there was an
accident that required an immediate dead-stick landing, there is not
much lvl ground for the runway. it would be better if there were a
mountain just like it on the east cost of some place, but that's not
easy to find.
>
> Hi,
>
> Well, I am Chilean and I have the Andes right at front of me.
> I found a problem with this approach. I may be wrong though, I am
not
> sure, but...
>
> I have crossed the Andes in plane from and to Argentina and, as far
as
> I know, there is not a single plane surface atop the mountains of
the
> size required to mount the rail. It is just an endless set of
> mountains that goes up and down all over hundred of kilometers of
> mountain plus mountains.
>
> I sincerely doubt one can get 30 or 40 kms of a flat surface above
the
> 3000 mts of attitude. But a 3 km perhaps is more realistic. Perhaps
in
> Bolivia there are larger flat surfaces.
>
> The Andes are the second tallest chain of mountains in the world,
they
> are pretty but they are also wild, quite dangerous and hostile.
>
> One the possitive side, there are mountains above 6 kms high in
here.