4 ms·
But there really isn't any difference; they started off in exactly the same place. SpaceX' having its captive client (Starlink) isn't some external factor that
by perihelions 2y ago
But there really isn't any difference; they started off in exactly the same place. SpaceX' having its captive client (Starlink) isn't some external factor that favored them and disfavored Arianespace: it's a business choice SpaceX made—a choice with enormous risks* of failure—which Arianespace did not. Arianespace took no risks, tried nothing, achieved nothing. That's the difference.
*(People seem to have completely forgotten how incredibly unpopular the LEO megaconstellation idea was when Musk started working on it, mid-2010's. No one understood the point of it; pretty much everyone was skeptical that it could even find enough business customers to break even).
- pyrale 2y ago> SpaceX' having its captive client (Starlink) isn't some external factor that favored them No, but it's an additional information they had to make their decision. > Arianespace took no risks, tried nothing, achieved nothing. If you replace Arianespace by Airbus, your point has merit. Airbus, as a publicly traded company, of which 25% is owned by nation-states, has a different risk appetite compared to a privately-owned company funded by someone with deep pockets.