I am with you on the silly gimmicks of suborbital space being advertised, especially when the tech can't scale to orbital space flight. But I am confused by your follow up claim of reusability being a bad thing... or your claim of it stunting advancement... First of all, the definition of more advanced tech is pretty much higher efficiency. The more efficient you can do something, the more advanced it is. Second of all, the space industry can't exist without reusability. Just like the airplane industry can't exist if you had to throw out the airplane every time. Part of the reason why the space industry was a dead end has been due to lack of reusability. Reusability brings down cost, and the lower the cost, the more science that can be done cheaper. To put it into perspective, the Falcon Heavy can launch at over 38X cheaper per kg than the space shuttle and over 6X cheaper than the European Araine. Third of all, I also don't follow your claim about it being an excuse to not build better more powerful rocket engines... last I checked the Starship is replacing the Falcon and will be better with more powerful engines. You are aware innovation is the mother of invention right? So you are saying we would be much better off if private companies did not make cars ever? So we would all be using horses instead you think is better? The car market stagnated because we reached a point where there are limits to the current tech with little room for improvement. So you need completely new tech to really get anywhere. That said, I still wouldn't say there have been no improvements. Just not all of the improvements are easily visible, but they are there. From cars becoming safer to having more bells and whistles. That said, it doesn't help that dealers kind of are keeping automakers away from their own consumers. In US, the automakers customer is the dealer, not the consumer. And what the consumer wants and what the dealer wants don't always align.