>>11621285the moon is a lot closer than Mars
it's way easier to GET to Mars, but way harder to get back
also the trip takes like four years, and NASA just isn't really ready for that
SpaceX don't give a fuck and are willing to just throw steel at the problem until it goes away so it'll work out for them
>>11622255lol retard
>>11622727that's what the burn is for
I don't know how well it would work though, you need a LOT of delta v for that and starship would only have 6.5 km/s or so out of the 9 km/s you need do to it purely propulsively
and I'm not sure how you'd control the Starship without aerofeatures if you turned the engines off
you know what, it's a bad idea, just leave it on the moon
>>11622748it's not much more complicated than Apollo, anon
the big differences are that Apollo was single launch and this is multi-launch, the staging happens in NRHO instead of low lunar parking orbit, and instead of using the Apollo service module to drag the whole command/service/LEM down to low lunar orbit they're only bringing the lunar excursion module down and leaving the command module in a higher orbit
