These premises may or may not make sense, but the thing that matters is capturable revenue.

European settlers being on the north american continent would be an amazing technical tour de force. But relatively speaking, there isn't much revenue there.

Jamestown was a failure.

The Pilgrims starved their first year.

Okay? The US is the largest country market in the world.

I'm not sure that the continental Colonies brought in much revenue, though. The individual colonists could do quite well, but viewed as an financial investment for the British Crown (which they were not, but that's the OP's analogy) I don't think they were very good. Plus, when they wanted to extract revenue via taxes, the Colonies revolted. Eight years of war probably cost a pretty penny, too.

(Sourcing my claim is difficult. I include this reference [1], which says that the Caribbean colonies were more profitable than all the continental colonies together. It doesn't comment on the cost of the war.)

[1] https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-ushistory1ay/chapter/...

America became a success much later.

I think you are in agreement. The poster you replied to seem to insinuate that immediate revenue (in the Americas/space) isn't the best indicator of latter successful pioneering markets.