Launch Costs

allow me to suggest an alternative to this obsession with big
explosives objects. it will take care of two problems. the first is
the low cost method of launching perishable that you are concern
with, would be lowered even more. secondly, the space plane that NASA
has proposed has a limited carrying capacity, which this would
increase, and at the same time lower the cost of the launches.

its done in two parts. one for human and soft materials and one for
harder materials.

hard launches: this is for things such as liquids (fuel, water,
liquefied gasses) solids and things that are strong enough to
withstand the extra heavy G's.

at 200 g (yes things can handle that), it would only take 4.95
seconds to accelerate to 6 miles a second. this would give room for
the projectile to lose up to a mile per second during its passage
though the air. it has a small engine that would be shrouded in the
atmosphere to reduce drag. its purpose is to alter the orbit once in
to space to allow the projectile to enter a proper (albeit low)
orbit. in addition the shroud over the engine could be opened to form
a pair of stub wings that would aid in the upper atmosphere. once it
was in space another object, one that had been previously launched,
would attach itself, and open a light sail. this would allow it to
take the projectile into a higher orbit over a period of about a
week. there the fuel and oxidizers would link up with a space engine
(literally nothing more than an engine, and fuel tank, which is
refueled by the tanks. once empty they could be used for other
purposes. (i envision a bladder type inner tank that is compressed by
gas, such as helium. the gas could be used to help pressurize the
atmosphere later.) other material could be taken to the space station
directly or to what ever orbit it needed to be in.

i believe the volcano (as long as it remains dormant) in Ecuador
would be excellent for the launch local. a device similar to the one
that dug the English channel (although not as large) could dig a 15
mile tunnel (all that would be needed for a 200 g launch, then
continue to extend the tunnel for the extension of the tube to allow
launches under lower g.

soft launches: this for ppl, most satellites and any other material
that could not handle heavy G's.

this is a four stage launcher (I've seen parts of this suggested,
perhaps all of it has been)

you start with a 747 frame, and build on it what is basically a flat
747. its striped of all of the non essential, the nose is reduced to
as low as it can be with the cockpit comparatively much lower.
instead of having normal sides, it has doors similar to the one f
106's used to fire missiles and rockets at mach 2, save these are on
the sides and top instead of bottom. one the deck of it (its
flattened) the second and third stage is connected with an assembly
that will push it above the eddy currents caused by the abbreviated
nose. at launch it looks like a normal 747 that has a second pair of
wind (short ones) and tail added about half way back. when it gets to
the highest altitude it can reach it opens the door and extends the
connections holding the 2 and 3 stages.

the second stage is little more than a pair of ram jets with a
cockpit and fuel tank between them, and a pair of wings on the
outside. once extended, it fires its engine and separates from the
747 first stage. as the 747 flies home, the second stage accelerates
to mach 2. at this point the scram jet engines of the third stage has
sufficient pressure to start. the empty second stage glides home as
the third stage boost into the upper atmosphere, then into space.

at that point the space engine meets up with it and docks. it can
push the space plane to any point in earth orbit, or beyond.

advantages of this system is:

1) the space plane can carry as much or more than the current
shuttle, but without the much more explosive tank next to it.

2) in the lower atmosphere, the lift is provided by wings, rather
than the engine itself, thereby reducing the amount of energy needed
for the launch.

3) considerably less danger, both to the crew and to any ppl on the
ground.

4) you don't have to expend fuel to get the fuel into space. if you
really push it, the energy could come from solar cells and windmills
charging very large banks of capacitors.

4) the tanks used to carry the fuel oxygen, and oxidizers up could be
used for space habitats.