Evidently you're either interested in a radical change of architecture or a proponent of the space elevator which is still technically quite theoretical.

Although sand mentions the space-elevator, there are another couple of options that Glen1369 might be referring to. We could launch vehicles from the tops of the highest mountains using rockets or rail-guns. That would save a great deal of the 'travel cost' though it would be difficult logistically.

Also, we currently launch the Pegasus from the belly of a high-flying jet. That's something like 'passing it through the ceiling'. Probably could do more of this. This is also similar to the method Spaceship One uses, inserting after being dropped from a high-flying jet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_rocket

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceship_one

I'm still waiting for carbon nanotube technologies to mass produce nanotubes to make the Space Elevator a reality, make ballistic parachutes for airliners, make skyscrapers 1000 stories tall, make cars and trucks 10 times as strong and 1/4th the weight, make glass that is as strong as steel, develop artificial limbs with superhuman strength (nanotubes can be configured as fast reflex muscle wires), reverse osmosis like filters for producing hydrogen, ....

Progress has been made, but I'm still waiting.

Part of the problem is the high velocity needed to sustain a centrifugal force so that the force of gravity is neutralized by the centripital force. In actuality, spacecraft in orbit are in constant free-fall. Imagine how much fuel it takes to launch the heavy blunt nosed space shuttle, from even 40,000 feet. Would a 747 be able to haul that much fuel?

Also, accelerating to 17,500 miles per hour in a space shuttle launched from the ground has many less failure modes than carrying the smaller booster required and the space shuttle on a 747.

Failure modes multiply together. So a 9 out of 10 chance of success of 3 identical failure modes reduces the probability of a success to 7.3 out of 10. The space shuttle has thousands of failure modes, probably many more; it's amazing that it ever successfully completes a mission.

So I'm sure that total overall system reliability is an important factor in determining how the space shuttle is launched.

I failed to mention, the maximum altitude of a 747 is typically 40,000 feet. The thickness of the atmosphere is about 115,000 feet.

They are working on lots of alternatives. But from a total system package point of view, including astronaut safety, nothing is as good as the shuttle for now. Maybe the next generation will have scram jets or some other such high altitude engine to make your concept a reality.

Glen1369, I think your idea is based on a common misconception. Unlike the ocean, there is no "surface" to the atmosphere. The air gradually thins over a distance of many miles. An airplane using jets can only reach a maximum altitude of maybe 100,000 feet at best. That's about 20 miles. However, atmospheric drag will pull things out of orbit rather quickly even at altitudes of more than 50 miles. Even at 100 miles objects will not stay up very long. So, satellites are usually orbited at altitudes greater than 100 miles. The International Space Station is kept at an altitude of about 250 miles, and it has to fire its engines periodically to stay there. So, if you fly a jet to 20 miles, your still only a small percentage of the way to a stable orbital altitude. You have to do a lot more than just "push it through the ceiling".