>>14216883>>14216920We currently don't have a rocket that is:
1) fully reusable, all existing rockets throw away atleast 1 stage. Only recently have boosters been landed and reused, and fairings caught in the ocean. Both spacex milestones. The space shuttle was refurbishable but it was stupid expensive and dangerous, and its payload was ass.
2) Super Heavy lift. We stopped flying them decades ago. Nasa is almost done with SLS but the cost and delays were taxpayer robbery. I am not exaggerating. It would've been easier for everyone, including you, for lobbyists to just send guys in ski masks to your house.
3) Can refuel in orbit. We can put super heavy things in low earth orbit with a super heavy lift vehicle, but you need to refuel it orbit with a tanker to take any meaningful payload to the moon or mars. Consider that the apollo lunar lander was about 5 tons dry weight after burning almost all its fuel to land. That's the best a saturn V rocket could do with direct ascent to the moon. If starship refuels in orbit, it can send 100-200 tons to the moon's surface. The catch is you need multiple, fast launches to fill the tanker that refills the lunar starship.
