Yes, the article lists a few reasons, none of them convincing. Specifically: > You have to get the propellant into space. This is going to take a large number

Yes, the article lists a few reasons, none of them convincing. Specifically: > You have to get the propellant into space. This is going to take a large number of flights (~15) at a pace that has not been done before for a vehicle of that size (a launch every six days) SpaceX has done 2 Falcon 9 launches in 1 day, and they would have done 3 if the third one had not have been scrubbed [1]. I really don't think that launching Starship is going to be any different, especially as it was specifically designed for reuse, unlike Falcon 9. > You need to launch at pace because otherwise the propellant will boil off, which is another issue - you need to shade or insulate the propellant for a much longer period of time in much harsher conditions First part is same argument as above. Second part (shading) - again, I don't see why it is harder than other hard things. Just add more insulation. Possibly do some passive or active cooling. > There is no gravity: whereas on earth the propellant separates relatively cleanly into liquid and gas this isn't the case in space Very similar problem to how you feed liquid propellant into a rocket engine when it relights in zero gravity. You use a small ullage thruster for this. [1] https://news.satnews.com/2024/03/31/spacex-enjoys-two-out-of-three-in-one-day-two-launches-from-florida-but-californias-scrubbed/ https://news.satnews.com/2024/03/31/spacex-enjoys-two-out-of...