What none of the rest of you have seen is the two subsequent posts that I deleted and replaced with my "Instructions" post. Whilst ONE post is acceptable (and encouraged), 3 are not since it clearly demonstrates muddle-headedness and unpreparedness.

I DO encourage interesting ideas on space-related topics, including gbaike's augmented launch systems. But I must call for CLARITY and BREVITY - or at least one of these. Repeated and regular failure to acheive either is at first carelessness and later a deliberate insult to the reader.

I would reccomend to gbaike that he considers three technical aspects of his augmented launch system:-

1) If initial impetus is valuable, then why do no existing launch pads involve springs, counterweights, pistons, compressed air, or other ways of "pushing" the launch vehicle the first few metres or tens of metres?

2) What is the initial thrust in g's of a real rocket leaving the pad? - this is important since your system must offer a comparable acceleration in order to be of value. The space shuttle pulls about half a gee off the pad, for example. Does the scale and design of your system provide this much acceleration?

3) How much launch mass savings does your system afford? If this is so critical, why do we not launch all rockets from the tops of high mountains?