Fuel cells are awful.

End of story.

Hydrogen is a volatile gas that is EXTREMELY difficult to store and transport, making it very impractical.

Fuel cells aren't terribly efficient.

They're equally bulky and weighty as modern batteries, considering the hydrogen storage.

They have to be replaced more often (because hydrogen is very hard on materials).

Not a fan..

Tesla has been using a 7,104 cell Lithium Ion pack for years.

Elon Musk sounded less than impressed by the electric cars from other companies like Toyota, Mercedes and GM.

What do you think of the Tesla as a competitor? Do you feel like you are playing catch-up? What things can GM bring to the table that Tesla cannot?

What about batteries? Have you considered that you may end up needing to source batteries from Tesla themselves in the future? Are there plans for gaining access to suppliers in this field as there will likely be a persistent shortage of good batteries for cars in the future?

It sounds like someone did and he got canned for it.

Get over yourself.

You're the obstinate one in this thread.

It's unlikely it could ever orbit, but frankly, the re-entry technology is interesting and could be useful for a variety of types of actual orbital missions.

No, but refusing to make the sawmill DOES make it less likely to come up with an automobile.

You're talking like a creationist trying to deny evolution...

How many people die every year on rollercoasters?

Any idea?

Hint: It's more than 4.

that's the point of this design. By flying the rocket to altitude on a subsonic plane, the cost is not 1000 times, it's more like 2 times.

Would you pay double to get there in 4 hours?

Why are we whining about this in the first place? It's interesting research.

Our cultural risk aversion is a serious problem.

Suborbital flights are a great way to travel in planes, but there are a lot of technical problems to re-entry from suborbital planes, under control.

This is a very novel way to do it and deserves further research, frankly.

No they didn't.

It was widely believed that materials were not strong/light enough to build a practical plane that wasn't more than a toy (and they weren't until the wide use of aluminum, which wasn't available then).

And suborbital flights are the BEST way to fly between continents. Research that goes this direction is good.

Neither did planes, when the Wright brothers flew one down a beach.

It was a glorified and deadly kite. Hundreds of people died thrillseeking in planes before they were ever used commercially.

Learning for the sake of thrills is still learning.

But.... they could have died.

gasp

To be fair, the first thousand or so airplanes were entirely for "thrill seeking" purposes. There was no practical use at the time. Over 100 people died in plane crashes before there was any practical use for them.

The people at the time couldn't have envisioned wars and modern transportation being entirely dictated by aircraft.

Now, suborbital flights are potentially the future of intercontinental travel.

Why are we so averse to risk these days? I think it's a serious cultural flaw.

Very few cars made since 1988 do not rely on a single computer (or a group of computers) to run properly.

If you have a problem with computer-controlled cars, you need to keep your 1944 Ford running.