Note: neither Booster 7, nor Booster 8, or Ship 20 and 24 for that matter, are even close to being anything that could be considered "Starship" by even the most generous observer.
Even if B7/S24 do launch in a test flight they are so far removed from anything that could potentially be in the far future an operational and usable spacecraft that they resemble "starship" the same way a wooden mockup of an airplane resembles an actual airplane.
An object being the same general shape and dimensions of something doesn't make that object the "something".
At least SLS exists and has problems that can be, perhaps, probably at tremendous expense, fixed.
In 20 years, I've seen SpaceX start from scratch and develop and launch the Falcon 1, Falcon 9, and Falcon Heavy, and nail propulsive landings on Earth.
Since it's members joined forces to form ULA 15 years ago, I've watched them launch the same machines they've been using since 2002.
I have a lot more faith that SpaceX will launch something new than that ULA will get anything done.
How much is B7/S24 missing compared to an operational vehicle?
Artemis 1 doesn't have the configuration of a fully operational vehicle either. Artemis 1's Orion doesn't have a fully functioning life support system, launch abort system, or docking system – and probably is missing other components too.
To compare apples to apples – SLS (without Orion), to just the components of Starship/SuperHeavy which form part of launch vehicle proper (as opposed to payload) – what is Starship/SuperHeavy actually missing?
Back in 2016, Musk was talking about landing a Crew Dragon capsule on Mars, albeit with no crew on it.
His original 2018 timeline was likely over ambitious, but SpaceX probably could have achieved it by now – if they'd stuck with their plan to do it. By all accounts, it was abandoned, not because of any technical or financial obstacles, but simply because they decided to redirect their resources towards a far more ambitious alternative (Starship).
I think landing an uncrewed Starship on Mars has a fair likelihood of actually happening, before this decade is over.
SpaceX could absolutely launch a mars mission with their existing rocket platforms and launch infrastructure.
It would be tedious launching little pieces of a larger ship and assembling them in orbit but it could absolutely be done.
Instead of doing that they're choosing to build better, bigger rockets, and more infrastructure to make the eventual launches to mars more cost-effective and substantial.
> SpaceX could absolutely launch a mars mission with their existing rocket platforms and launch infrastructure.
Which highlights the major difference between public and private sector exploration. SpaceX killing everyone on their first attempt is a tragedy and they quickly move on, NASA doing it is a 10 year halt to any further work until a full public investigation takes place.
