[thatoneguy]

How does that matter? It's doing a thing already done nearly 70 years ago but at its own pace.

I bet it will get to the moon cheaper, too, and the Muskonauts will use less expensive lenses than Hasselblads to take photos.

[fluoridation]

Starship isn't exactly the same as Saturn V. It's bigger, for one.

The reason why it matters is that efficiency matters. It's fine if it takes longer, not so much if it costs way, way more, especially if such a huge rocket has limited applications. And as I understand it the consensus is that Starship (or at least a fully-loaded Starship) will never go to the Moon. Once it's in orbit it takes like twenty refueling launches and space rendezvous to fill it up again so it can make the transfer burn. In other words, it's never happening.

[stetrain]

I think that understanding of the consensus is incorrect. The mission plan for Artemis 3 is that a specialized Starship upper stage will be refueled in LEO and then transfer to lunar orbit where it will wait for astronauts arriving on SLS/Orion.

Yes the mission profile is more complex, but that complexity can mostly be settled before the astronauts launch on their mission.

NASA seems to think it is a viable plan which is why they selected SpaceX to execute that part of the mission.

[ajmurmann]

"It's fine if it takes longer, not so much if it costs way, way more, especially if such a huge rocket has limited applications."

Taking longer at lower cost is a great trade-off for Starship but wasn't for Saturn V. The main driver for Saturn V was the space race against the Soviet Union. Economic interests played a very small role. It was all about being first and compensating for the Sputnik shock.