Earlier quoted context omitted.
So...you're comparing reducing the costs of getting into space with the achievement of developing the technology that actually made it possible to get into space? The latter is a revolution. The former is just an incremental evolution. Laudable, but nowhere close to the same level of accomplishment.
> So...you're comparing reducing the costs of getting into space with the achievement of developing the technology that actually made it possible to get into space? Not at all. I am just pointing out that the popularity of SpaceX stems from much more than just ‘wishful thinking’. In a short time and against all odds, they’ve established themselves as the leading space launch provider, and they have a realistic chance…
For example, here's the CNES (French space agency) Director of Launchers discussing SpaceX's achievements, and his desire to design Ariane NEXT to be similar to Falcon 9:
https://satelliteobservation.net/2018/06/02/cnes-director-of...
> For Falcon 9 for instance, they use a toss-back trajectory. An engine is relit while going against the aerodynamic flow, which is actually quite complicated to achieve. We worked on that with ONERA, the French national aerospace lab, and realized it’s pretty complicated.
and, right after talking about how SpaceX's design stages lower, has a common engine between stages, and allows experimentation in landings:
> Prometheus can be used in a new architecture which we call Ariane Next. It will have 7 such engines on the first stage and 1 on the second stage, and can be used in expendable or reusable mode, allowing to experiment reuse easily. The objective is to learn by testing, which is not a European speciality.
There's no greater endorsement than by a competitor.