SpaceX offers payloads to space at an order of magnitude lower price than its competitors.
Infinity times cheaper in the case of the CRS contract, where the competitor has to date delivered 0 kg of human mass to space
Interesting that you have to point to Boeing because no such case exists for SpaceX.
And all of those contracts for SpaceX were cheaper then what Arianespace could have offered, or any US competitor.
You are just parating lies that ArianeGroup has been spouting for a decade because they have no technical way to compete. Its literally just false propaganda.
The reality is ArianeGroup has and had subsidies far, far, far larger then what SpaceX had. The total cost of the original Falcon 9 was maybe 400M and maybe 300M of that was part of the governments program to get private supply for ISS (that the Europeans handed over to the US and SpaceX to do because they couldn't do it cheaply).
In comparison Ariane 6 is costing the government 4 billion $ minimum, likely more.
If anybody has grounds to complain with the WTO its SpaceX.
According to the WTO, those are overgenerous and the same as subsidies (check Airbus' cases against Boeing for illegal subsidies).
> It explains nothing about why spacex succeeded
Indeed, just money (even government money) is not sufficient. Never said it was, only that it is a flat out lie to say only private funding can innovate and that SpaceX/Tesla did it all on their own and Musk is a self-made man/billionaire.