There are a couple business concepts to consider. One is straight ROI - can they make money on an activity. But the other is Opportunity Cost - can they make more money doing something else?It's not about being able to afford stepping over nickels and dimes. It's about telling the guy who's picking up dollars to go pick up nickels instead. He can't do both, so it leads to less money coming in on the long run.If there's a business case for suborbital, then let another company handle it.
Reusable launch, both orbital and suborbital, are already clearly possible. And there are already folks working on it from both ends. Blue Origin (which started earlier than SpaceX) is working on both orbital and suborbital VTVL RLVs. Masten is working on and doing suborbital VTVL RLVs. XCOR is working on suborbital HTHL RLVs (and full orbital on the back-burner, starting with nanosats on Lynx). That's just in the US.
Well I tend to agree with most of the pessimists here, who say that it is not something SpaceX will do, or should do. And the opportunity cost tradeoff is an especially strong argument in that regard.Having said that, let's do a thought experiment on Adaptation's idea. For the sake of the thought experiment, I'll say that I am agnostic on the "should do it"/"should not do it" aspect of the idea for SpaceX.Let's say SpaceX gets both booster reusability back to launch pad, and DragonRider propulsive vertical landings working reliably, and economically. (we assume here there are no show-stopper surprises in getting the vehicles back, nor in successfully reusing them for orbital purposes, pretty much along the lines that SpaceX is already pursuing with their publicly-announced near-term goals (one to three years out).And let's say that SpaceX does not choose to pursue anything along the lines of a suborbital transport market, whether it is for greener pastures elsewhere or for any other reason.Now, with those assumptions in place, let's start our thought experiment:We already know that there will be some "demand" for a suborbital fast transport technique. Whether it will be, or ever could be, "economical" is an open question.We already know that some companies (e.g. Virgin Galactic, ...) and some government cooperative institutes (e.g., DLR and their SpaceLiner concept, etc.) are in design (but not yet build) for providing the "supply" of such services.Given that SpaceX would have demonstrated that both - booster reusability and propulsive capsule rentry and reusability are economic in the orbital space transport regime, - and have explicitly chosen not to do pursue the sub-orbital gig with their technology, Then this presents a perfect opportunity for some other entrepreneurial startup to go after the market themselves, only they now have much more knowledge on the "possibilities" of the reusable propulsive technology and the approximate "economics" (costs to supply such a service) than SpaceX had in 2002. They can, just as many entrepreneurs do, "imitate" something that is already successful, and undertake an endeavor to move that technology into a new area of application, different from those who first demonstrated it.Moreover, the risks they take in that entrepreneurial enterprise are the standard ones. "What will be the demand for my service if I offer it?" "Will my enterprise be successful at designing/building/testing the requisite technology to accomplish the business objectives?" "Will my business plan to deliver some new "service" (suborbital spaceflight, rapid delivery of people across the planet, etc.) be sufficiently successful that people might be willing to pay enough for to make it worth it to me to provide such a service?"Of course, the ways in which this might be done are myriad, and the timing by which this might be done are long-term, and unknown in any case. {So let's avoid the debate in this thread on whether this is in 10 or 20 or 50 years.}An entrepreneur might decide to develop some or all of the technologies that SpaceX has developed, over some years. Or multiple entrepreneurs might compete with various developments and offerings in this suborbital areana. Or some entrepreneur might choose to license technologies from SpaceX for the suborbital market? (this is a thought experiment, so best to just assume that this licensing might, under some set of conditions and at some point in time, be possible.)And nothing in this thought experiment assumes a successful outcome; any entrepreneur pursuing this, or several of them, may very well go bankrupt and down in flames if they fail once started.The point is that once SpaceX demonstrates that "it can be done", that "human technology has advanced to the point where reusable boosters and propulsively-landed space transport capsules can be reused", any entrepreneur, in any country, can jump into the water knowing that a significant part of the technology risk for the enterprise is much less than it was a few short years ago. There is no reason to assume that such an entrepreneur won't use the idea of SpaceX technology, or license the technology directly from SpaceX, to supply some sort of suborbital high-speed transport market. (in line with the idea of Adaptation, the original poster.)What will emerge after that technology success by SpaceX occurs, if it occurs, is unknown, and unknowable.(An analogue that might help some of you with this: This is similar to what it was in 1904 for aviation; once the first human flight occurred, the progress in aviation forms and function, and in applications for aviation services, just grew for 100+ years. Once the Wright brothers and other early pioneers did what they did, and the news got out, the race was on! Imitation and entrepreneurial action was the way aviation progressed.)So I say, SpaceX' demonstration of their reusable boosters and propulsively-landed space transport capsules, ostensibly in the next few years, will be seminally important to whatever industry grows up after it, whether SpaceX chooses to license any part of their technology or not.
