A short post on a slightly different topic - economics of rocket launch.
The Tsiolkovski equation:
v_end = v_exhaust * ln (m_start / m_end)
With modern hydrocarbon fuels, let's use "magic" 3660 m/s for v_exhaust, the speed with which the hot gases leave the rocket engine. I remind, "ln" here is "natural logarithm", the number of times the Euler number "e", equal to 2.71828..., needs to be multiplied by itself to get the mass ratio (m_start / m_end). For example, if m_start / m_end is 20 : 1, then ln (m_start / m_end) is approximately 3, because 2.718 * 2.718 * 2.718 (three times) is ~20.0793.
The low Earth orbital speed is around 8000 m/s, and while going there, the rocket typically spends about 1000 m/s fighting the Earth gravity and 300 m/s more fighting the Earth atmospheric drag. So, around 9300 m/s total - and that's our v_end, the amount of speed we need to be able to get. That means, that the mass ratio
m_start / m_end = exp (9300 / 3660) = 12.7
or, in other words, the laws of physics forbid, going this route, to have payload weighting more than 7.8% of the Gross Lift-Off Weight (GLOW) of the rocket. Either increase the v_exhaust - going the way of hydrogen or maybe nuclear engines - or get to the orbit some other way, not throwing the mass away to get the impulse.
Economics is more forgiving. Rockets - believe it or not - are relatively simple, and we can make them reusable, so that the only thing we spend on each flight will be the fuel. Which is cheap - and even can be made cheaper, because to make that fuel we need equipment and energy, both of which could - and do - go down in price - at least comparing to yesterday's costs. The only practical matter is that rockets weight something, and that weight is subtracted from our 7.8% of GLOW - so our payload, instead of 7.8% of GLOW in theoretical case, becomes, for example, 5% - if we're good at building rockets.
So - no, we don't need teleportation, we can be happy launching heavy rockets, which only bring 5% of GLOW to orbit - but do that cheap, reliable, routine, just like, for example, on today's electrical powerplants our efficiency of steam turbines is "only" 50% - way bigger than steam engines of yore, but way lower than desired 100%... There is no big problem here.