Well they are pretty big and also I don’t know how to build one
I can’t respect anyone saying spaceX is in a category of their own. Not only have they merely replicated what MDouglas did already in the 90s, their costs are wholly subsidised by the US government in an attempt to become relevant in space launches again rather than subcontracting launches from ESA or Russia. Remove the subsidies and it’s far cheaper to use Arianne for the launches than any of the falcons. It’s the US usual playbook: If you can’t compete, claim national defense and subsidise to the wazoo against WTO rules.
It does say “with reusable rockets”, which is technically correct because as far as I know nobody else has reused theirs.
The way they explain how advancements are possible by throwing money at it and ramping up man-hours doesn‘t sit right with me. That’s not how it really works. There‘s a reason why the US suddenly caught up to the technology in the mid 1940s. The engineers and scientists who joined their jet engine force weren‘t just random university grads that suddenly spawned.
It gives an example of two British engines right after that, and the UK’s jet engines were both independent of Germany’s and better than them by the end of the war
