Fuel transfer seems like a trivial problem next to the reusable heat shield. And even if for some weird reason it never works, the program could likely pay for itself just launching Starlink/Starshield with full reuse.
replyOr use SuperHeavy to launch non-reusable second stage and fueled Moon module of different design. After all SuperHeavy doesn’t have to be used exclusively for Starship.
replyI don't know -- that fuel transfer scene in Armageddon was pretty sketchy!
replyOnly for going to the Moon or Mars. As a launch system, Starship will still be a phenomenal success even if they struggle with fuel transfer, which is really an entirely different problem.
replyFuel transfer isn't needed to launch to LEO at much lower cost.
replyIt’s needed to go to the Moon based on the current Artemis design
replyWhich is of secondary concern. SpaceX makes money on Starlink, not launches.
replyThis depends on what you're considering to be the main goal of Starship. Both of you are correct that Starship's stated goals included what you're considering the goal.
replyIf the simple industrial process of pumping liquid from one tank to another is too difficult, one wonders exactly what sort of society anyone could imagine building in space.
replyThe main reason fuel depots and fuel transfer were disparaged was to protect the gravy train of SLS. But that's essentially over.
Nothing is simple in zero g. All our industrial processes have baked in assumption about gravity (and most also about the composition and pressure of surrounding air).
replyEven without enabling missions requiring refuelling this is still a huge step change in orbital capabilities.
replyOrbital refueling seems like a small problem compared to a reusable starship.
replyNo really it can now launch 20x the Starlinks per flight and StarMind is possible now economically.
replyplenty of use cases were fuel transfer is not needed.
replyIt changes cost to put up satellites, which is very significant.
replyIt might not change much for mars