>>12836201Fuck anon, are you going to make me draw up another mspaint diagram that I can just repost every time?
Getting onto a transfer to Mars requires not even 1km/s more delta V than getting a Moon intercept. It takes 5-7 refuels to get to a Mars intercept and it takes 4-6 refuels to get a Moon intercept.
When Starship gets to Mars it hits the atmosphere, aerobraking and scrubbing off its velocity until it goes suborbital, and continues to keep its terminal velocity as slow as possible until the las minute where it lights the engines, flips backwards, and descends to the surface for landing. Then it either sets up ISRU or hooks up to the already-built-up ISRU propellant plant for a refill, and once it has full tanks it can launch back to an Earth intercept, where it will aerobrake to landing.
On the Moon however there's no atmosphere to brake with. Therefore, on arrival, you need more propellant to perform an engine burn to slow down. In fact you need to burn to capture, then burn to deorbit, and then burn to land, which combined all costs around 3 km/s of delta V. Then, since you likely don't have ISRU propellant production because the Moon is lacking in easily accessed volatiles compared to Mars, you need to use propellant you brought with you to launch back to an Earth intercept.
Overall, in terms of true delta V cost, the Moon is much closer than Mars. However, in terms of PROPULSIVE delta V, Mars is BY FAR the easier target. Our technology today limits us to around 6.5 to 7 km/s per chemical stage with payload mass involved, and for a round trip Mars mission the most delta V we need to supply without a chance for refueling is around 5.8-6.5 km/s, which occurs during the launch off of Mars and return to Earth. The Moon is over 9 km/s round trip, which means either Starship needs to refill after applying ~3 km/s of delta V on the way to the Moon (which can be done by sending a Tanker in tandem with Starship onto an elliptical orbit), or lunar methalox ISRU.
