[estearum]

They really don't though! Starship chose to structure the problem such that they require this groundbreaking several-things-never-before-done design.

[panick21_]

Then tell me how to land 100t on the moon or mars without solving any of these problems.

Even if you want to put less then that on the moon, anything but a tiny lander still needs refueling and reusable launch.

[estearum]

I'm perfectly comfortable with not landing 100t of material on either the moon or Mars. Have yet to hear any compelling argument for why we should except that ermygoerrdd sci-fi!!!11!!

[panick21_]

Because a base for humans needs lots of cargo and large areas to live in ...

[estearum]

Oh! We need a base because we need a base. Okay that solves it.

[panick21_]

Ok I misunderstood your argument. The fact is, its the governments planned to build a base. If your opinion is that instead we should build a base at the bottom of the ocean, you are correct, Starship is not a good engineering solution.

In fact, anything not in space wouldn't be ideal.

But that's a political choice, and Moon base is what NASA and congress are working towards.