>>13923916>Yes it was.It wasn’t.
>So? Most commercial payloads even now are telecommunication and the likes.God you are dumb. Launch companies weren’t “booming” in the 90s. The internet was and internet satellites were the main demand for commercial launches.
Now launch companies are booming due to innovations in technology and inducing demand for launches (mega constellations).
>There were a shit ton of newly founded commercial launch platforms in the late 90's retard.A shit ton of cash grabbing startups trying to surf the internet satellite wave. They were not innovative, they were more of the same. That’s a stagnant industry.
(Also all of them went bankrupt)
>It was literally booming and you saw large investments into the commercial launch market. But like what we will probably see now only a few rockets will be left. No innovation means stagnant.
>Ariane 5 and Proton undercut the industry by being so price competitive.Ariane 5 launched 4 times in the 90s you dumb fuck. One was a failure and the other a partial failure (wrong orbit).
They “undercut” the industry by being a jobs program in an “industry” of cash grabbing startups fueled by a business model that would never work (satellite internet in the 90s).
> Just like it currently has been for the past like 5 years in comparison to the late 90's? Hypocritical retard.Yes you illiterate fuck. That was my point. Being more powerful doesn’t make it non stagnant.
Simply having launches 1000x cheaper in 20 years won’t mean the industry is stagnant today.
>What is cheap is relative you fucking retard. It was back then. A Falcon 9 will be expensive in a decade.Ariane 5 was expensive back then and remained expensive until the end of its life.
1/2
