While I do get your point and have my own doubts, I fail to see how this is a fair argument: > If Google can't do it with its massive resources The companies

While I do get your point and have my own doubts, I fail to see how this is a fair argument: > If Google can't do it with its massive resources The companies behind the SLS had and have an enormous amount of resources. Yet, they have failed to even launch it. Arianespace has a huge amount of resources and experience too. Yet, when asked, they said landing a rocket couldn’t be done. Then, back-pedalling, that it was pointless and would never make any economic sense. Yet, SpaceX has developed three generations of rockets (Falcon 1, 9 and heavy), builds them, launches them, iterates on them, lands them, reuses them, and is now working on a fourth rocket (SuperHeavy). They have also created 4 different rocket engines and are working on two others. Honestly, where are Boeing and Arianespace? Another example? Microsoft, their incredible wealth of resources and superior position falling flat on their face with smartphones. Funnily enough, Google getting the greatest share of the global smartphone OS market, despite having had no real experience with operating systems, consumer hardware, or licensing operating systems before. Kodak, which had some of the first patent on digital camera sensors, going pretty much extinct despite their massive resources and market position. Xerox, failing to ever enter the personal computer market despite designing what everyone else would copy for the next 10 or 20 years. Sure, the amounts of resources and experience seem to help, a lot, but it also certainly doesn’t seem to help reliably predict any outcome.