NASA should develop a hybrid Startram system to save fuel

"Your acceleration calculations are incorrect." Oh yes. I didn"t realized it until I posted it. Sorry :). I will use your calculations for the debate now. 2. "supported a 50-ton train and 20 tons of cargo." The 1976 rail could support a 50-ton train, the weight we are talking about here is 2200 tonsof metal and highly explosive fuel. I will talk about the difficulties of building even a magnet that can support that weight, but first let me talk about the additional cost of the bridge. Let"s take the golden gate bridge as an example. It can hold a moving load of up to 4000 pounds per foot. The Falcon 9 (latest - generation rocket) weighs 1 210 457 pounds fully fueled, and is 230 ft tall. If we do the calculations, we then realize that the maximum weight of an object 230 ft long is 920 000, which means we cannot transport the Falcon 9 using the Golden Gate Bridge. For this to be successful, we would need a very strong bridge that doesn"t even exist yet, make it resistant to harsh weather and earthquakes, and build it up a mountainside! Pro"s cost estimates are unreasonable, one because the technology doesn"t even exist yet, and 2 because building a maglev track capable of supporting 50 tons is not the same as building a maglev bridge capable of supporting a 500 ton rocket. https://en.wikipedia.org... http://goldengatebridge.org... 3. Exiting the maglev track at 480 kph (300 mph) at 23000 ft (7 km) According to the Falcon 9 launch video, the rocket is already travelling at 1070 kph at 23000 ft. If we release a rocket travelling at just 480 kph by that attitude, it would seriously need to have a lot of acceleration and would require more energy to orbit. If it cannot speed up fast enough, the rocket will just go on a suborbital trajectory back to Earth, a few thousand miles away from where it had originally lifted off. For this system to be viable, we would need the rocket to be exiting the maglev track at way higher speeds, which is very hard to engineer, and the track would have to be way longer. https://youtu.be... 4. " if something did fall to the ground it shouldn"t hit a highly populated area" I did not talk about it destroying a city (however, there is one nearby: Salt Lake City), but it will be an ecological disaster, as the rocket contains a ton of fuel, and the crash area contains a ton of trees and wood. We all know what happens next. 5. "Obviously, we would need to monitor seismic activity" Yes. Monitor it and then what? Do we cancel the launch and rebuild all the maglev systems again after they have been destroyed? 6. "Again I don"t need 34,000 kph as I"m not launching at sea level." That is the universal delta-V needed to get into low earth orbit. You say that building this insanely expensive infrastructure will "give it a bit more oomph," but the "oomph" it provides (480 kph) is not enough to justify the cost of building the infrastructure. If we subtract the delta-V from the maglev track, it gives us 33 520 kph left of delta-V needed to get to orbit. All of that comes from the fuel. It is easier to simply make the rocket 5% bigger than to build a maglev system with technology that doesn"t exist yet. 7. Pro didn"t refute my argument about how the super strong magnets required to lift the rocket will affect the internal computers of the rockets. Obviously, we would need super strong magnets that would interfere with the metal payload, and the computers allowing the rocket to reach orbit.