I'm watching this clip of a Russian anti-sat or anti-ICBM rocket launched from a silo and of course note that its early acceleration is much higher than for large spacecraft launchers. Why isn't cargo that can survive the high acceleration, given a push from a non-carried energy source, explosive or magnetic or beamed or sonic or... there are many ideas?
This question about an initial push to the rocket, as opposed to the more common but more radical ideas to completely replace rocketry. The delta-V required to enter LEO is about Mach 30 at sea level. If a gun blast can give that a Mach 3 start, that's pretty valuable in the rocket equation. And when optimizing design for this, perhaps for example the rocket engines could be better optimized for vacuum since they pass through most of the atmosphere in a few seconds.
Given the historic prominence of artillery in early rocketry, going back to Conrad Haas of the 16th century when it comes to documented rocketry development. Like multi-stage powder rockets and putting rockets on the back of birds, fascinating stuff! (Not that he ever advocated barrel launched rockets, so maybe it instead shows the long going split between rockets and barrels in the artillery tradition?) Continuing to Wernher von Braun who first worked for the artillery, both in Germany and then again in the US, isn't that right? Given that, why hasn't Jules Verne's canon concept for how to go to space been successful in the form of a kick-off that doesn't add to the mass launched? Is there a more practical potential in it for the emerging dedicated small-sat launcher market? I've never heard of any investments in canons giving rockets an assist, so I wonder what the main problem is.