[iso947]

About that yes, but remember that a fully loaded starship in orbit can land on any solid surface in the solar system and return to earth (except for Venus)

Starship’s usable volume is over 100 times that of an Apollo lunar lander.

[z3t4]

You could also add 3-4 extra stages and put an even bigger tanker into space. But I guess there will be diminishing returns due to the crushing weight. It would probably be cheaper to make many smaller unmanned vessels and boost them via an electromagnetic rail, then assemble it in orbit.

[samstave]

Why not launch a bunch of larger payload tanker bays, empty, then link them together in orbit and then send Many smaller multiple regular trips to fill it up such that you have an orbital fueling station?

[dxdm]

I don't get it, how does that answer the question about the economics of lifting fuel into orbit? Could you elaborate your point?

[tjah1087]

I think they are trying to imply that refueling a starship in orbit is worth it, whatever the cost - it gives a capability we didn't have before.

[iso947]

To land the volume of one starship on the moon takes 3 or 4 launches of a fully reusable craft - so just the fuel.

To land that with Apollo would take 100 launches of a single use craft.