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?
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.
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.
I suspect that will be addressed in the near future.
In the short term, I am OK with gas cars subsidizing electric cars if it encourages more EV powertrain development.
The entire body is built in a different way. The primary body components are a "sled" with the powertrain and battery packs. This rigid sled makes the vehicle's center of gravity substantially lower than any other vehicle and makes the passenger compartment substantially more rigid. Both of these things result in a much higher safety than any other vehicle on the road.
Second, the vehicle is entirely drive-by-wire, which may scare the luddites, but is really the future of automotive technology.
Third, it's not only the fastest accelerating production care EVER built for under $1 million (and it only costs $95k in that config), but it also had the single highest rating ever given out by "Consumer Reports", last year, beating every single Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Ferrari, Cadillac, etc in their metrics (drivability, comfort, quality, performance, style).
It also received the highest rating ever given to any car by Car & Driver magazine.
It beats the 7-series BMW and the Jaguar S-Type and the Audi A8 on a level playing field.
"a Ford Fusion"
If you can identify a KKK-like group that is systematically threatening women, by all means, lets go stop them.
If not, i'm confused what the analogy is.