[panick21_]

I think the fundamentally disconnect here is that its not 'the same' mission. Sure if you break it down to the extreme the mission to the extreme, its the same 'people on moon'. But if you think about it beyond that, Artemis makes quite a bit more sense.

> We are supposedly going to the moon in two years, but we have never attempted a cryogenic refuel in orbit (this seems like a biggie).

The 2024 date was always politics and its an open secret that it won happen. Everybody who has followed this topic kind of knows this.

> - Have many layers of redundancy. Apollo had 6-7 backup procedures for what to do if they couldn't launch the lander off the moon.

While true, its also the case that Apollo lander had 1 ascent engine that couldn't be tested and wasn't redundant.

> - Test. small tests, big tests, real tests, skin-in-the-game tests.

I think its strange that he points this out but then doesn't point out that this is exactly the testing Starship proposed to prove out the rocket and things like the Cryo transfer.