Cheapest way to launch the satellites


Hi everyone

Here is a proposal to reduce the costs of launching the satellites into space. The closer something is to the earth the bigger is the amount of energy to put it into orbit. Since there is no air in outer space rockets are required to move place objects beyond the atmosphere. But launching a rocket from the ground requires a lot of energy. Rockets have a relatively small useful mass (cargo). This is because a rocket must carry all its fuel within and since putting something on orbit requires lots of energy rockets use lots of fuel. The problem is that the fuel that is going to be used when the rocket is high need to carried up as if it were useful cargo until it’s used. To move more (the fuel for the higher altitudes) mass upward more energy (fuel is required). The consequence is that most of the energy used in a satellite rocket launch is used lifting fuel the first the first kilometers of the ground.

To save on fuel, risks and costs the answer is to launch from a higher position. It’s true that rockets are need in outer space to move thing around but before that there is no reason to use them when we can use the atmosphere and simple physics to the job. The following is a proposal to take a launching platform to the highest possible altitudes at low costs:

Name: Stratosphere Launcher

Objective: Reduce the costs and ecological impact of satellite and space ship launching.

Working principles: The Stratosphere Launcher works using meteorology balloons to take a small space port and rocket/shuttle up to the stratosphere. A stratosphere space port has important advantages over a ground level space port:

  • The distance to be in orbit is much shorter.
  • Earth gravity strength is lower.
  • Most weather conditions will not affect launching.

Because the distance to be in orbit is smaller and earth gravity strength is lower, the energy required by the ship to reach space will be smaller allowing for smaller ships and fuel tanks meaning lower costs as well as less ecological impact. The station will have a mechanism, similar to those used in submarines, to inject or extract helium to/from the balloons to/from tanks so normal operation will mean none or very low helium and energy consumption. Stability will be achieved controlling the amount of gas in each balloon as well some propellers and/or weights using electronic controllers similar to those used in autonomous electronic helicopters.

For now this is just an idea hope we can gather the talent to make it possible.

There is an image (very simple draw) but the system doesn’t allows me to upload it yet.


From what I understand launching from a higher location will not significantly lower fuel needed because most fuel used in rockets is used to get the thing orbiting around Earth, that is horizontal speed. The height would help, but most fuel is used making the thing get fast enough to keep falling around Earth instead of falling to the ground.


Thanks for the response, You might be right but I have no solid info for either assumption. Just looking the size of the rocket stages is obvious that most of the fuel is used before leaving the atmosphere. Most of it may be transformed into kinetic energy to reach the proper horizontal speed to stay in orbit but I don’t know the specific numbers. In any case 60,000 feet lift is a 60,000 feet lift. Additionally I think rockets are about 10% more efficient at high altitudes and I know for sure that the air is less dense so there is less friction. So adding all in all it may save lots of $$$$ and help the environment. Hope some one more illustrated in rocketry can give some light.


Close, but not quite.
Launching a balloon, especially a large balloon, is really challenging in anything but extremely mild weather. Rockets are actually much easier. so no.

And the gravitational change in the first 10 miles is really insignificant. so no.

And the energy needed to get from 0 miles to 300 miles is not that much more than 10 miles to 300 miles. Both are pretty small compared to going to 25000 mph. At those altitudes the energy is
proportional to the hight moved, but proportional to the velocity squared. - so no.

The wind loadings and aerodynamic drag on the speeding vehicle is much less when the air
density is only 1/10 th as much, so the required energy (DeltaV actually) is about 5% less

  • so yes !

and the first stage rocket engines can be made more efficient, so the burn less propellant, so the tanks are smaller so… you get the idea. It is not as simple but - yes.

Of course with less air drag and better engines, the accelerations can be higher, and the tanks can be lighter and…
Yea, it gets complicated pretty fast. Hence the term
-‘Rocket Science’.


good idea. But how shall we use the baloon to launch the rocket?
Also,how will the baloon carry so much fuel? I think we should use those ballons as transmitters instead of the satellites


Load the satellites on a virgin galactic flight, when outside of the atmosphere let the satellites go. The velocity of the ship might not be enough to keep them in orbit, bit it would get them up there.


good one , ‘astronomer’.


helium balloon… i guess if its not going to be too high helium balloons can take up the satellite to 100,000 ft or higher…


Unfortunately, altitude is really not the most important factor for getting into orbit. What we really need is a way to go fast–really fast. Mach 33, to be precise.


Not only rocket. Outernet can buy a cheaper space shuttle named ‘Buran’, which is a non-progress space shuttle that can save a lot money. The C.C.C.P. used that to complete tough mission while in the space race. The problem is, who is going to sponsor Outernet to buy a space shuttle. If fuel, we can used kerosene mix up diesel gas which can also save some amount of money or compress a lage amount of helium and ignite it. I am only a 13 years old boy, I know those are impossibles but I am also trying to give some ideas to Outernet. My Physic professor taught me some of it while the Buran thing I saw it on the Internet. :slight_smile: I would like to have feedbacks from anyone. Thanks!


Sadly, the Buran would still be incredibly expensive, considering how complex any kind of reusable spacecraft is. If you would like to think about a couple of interesting solutions for launch, please look at what these people are doing:

If you can figure out a way to lift a single 1-kg satellite into Low Earth Orbit for less than $10,000, you will have solved a huge problem for the small sat/new space community.


bomb,power,tnt,dinamite,nitro,hidrogenie… shot cubesat like a gun a bullet the tube is gun cubesat is bullet…this idea is from nasa, i think cubesat of nasa are made of steel,titaniun and diamond or nasa is burn a money or a two thing

#13 - Rocket - Rocket - Rocket - Rocket
i found some information links i’m suggesting to follow up what @Syed said.