Launching Ramp 2

My understanding is that you would build it onto a side of a mountain.... if
you dig a trench and bury the tube on 3 sides, the earth could absorb some
of the stresses and allow less actual concrete/reinforcing. Trench is a
whole lot cheaper than tunnel :-)

I hadnt thought of it going straight up perpendicular to the Earth, but
thats a point as well. If your talking a tower now, roughly 3-4 times
higher than tallest building done so far, then that is even more mass needed
and googles more engineering.

For most civil works project, engineering costs should not exceed 5%-8%.

After all, this ain't rocket science we're doing :-) its a tunnel-ish /
Dam thing.

A launch includes the support personal, amortization of infrastructure, the
fuel and expendable booster hardware.... I would guess in the neighborhood
of $100 million could be saved easily, which is the fuel and expendable
booster. That leaves $30-$50 million for personal and infrastructure, and
amortization charges per launch ( which would depend on number of launches
and lifespan of infrastructure). For a concrete tube and lake, i think it
would be safe to allow 30 years lifespan, don't you? The only thing that
would kill it would be some newer technology so that full use of the
infrastructure wouldnt be played out.

Arriane /Chinese boosters charge around $60 million for a launch of a small
satty, probably under 1000 lbs. We would be more in theheavy lift category
for the pricing revued above....quite a difference. Heavy lift being 20,000
lbs and greater. Of course there could be a smaller tube parallel as well
for lighter / smaller payloads at a whole lot cheaper. Not as much
monitoring and support personal since no human lives are at play.

I'm a little concerned about the acceleration stress on the payload (humans)
when you go essentially from 0-MPH to 17,000-mph within less than a mile
distance. Perhaps spacing it out over 10 miles would be easier? The present
day launch vehicles reach 200 + mile hieght at which point they are at near
orbital velocity. Perhaps even ten miles isn't nearly enough to spread out
acceleration to maintain G's in the 2-3 range like present launchers.?

Of course I could have pictured this all wrong.... the 3200 foot tunnel is
to contain and gather the energy of the falling water from the "head" and
the launch vehicle sits on the small nozzle end waiting for the boom! In
which case you have nearly instant breakneck acceleration like a cannon.

can you clear me up on that?