> They will need a lot of CGI graphics of the starship flying through the space,
SpaceX in its whole history has shown very, very little CGI. Specially compared to many other traditional rocket companies.
> Orbital refueling - no technical details, just cgi images
We know for a fact that NASA was very, very impressed with SpaceX work on orbital refueling. In their bid for the moon mission they got a special shout out from NASA because their approach to it was so much further developed then anybody else.
They also have a contract with NASA about demonstrating cryo fuel transfer in space.
Have you ever consider that just because they are sharing everything with you personally doesn't mean they haven't thought about it?
> crew capacity - no details
> ship layout - no details
Why would they provide details? The crew capacity is not a fixed thing. Depending on the mission the internals will be different. We know what NASA is planning for the moon. In that version there will be very tiny crew.
Likely a somewhat larger crew for the Polaris program. And probably somewhat more for the DearMoon project.
Compared to making a fully reusable super heavy this is peanuts.
> life support - ummm scaled up dargon??
Do you have anything to say other then '??'? Yes, those are machines exist and if you have a larger inside you need to add more of them. This is totally possible and not a '??'. If you are not constraint by weight then doing that is totally reasonable.
And NASA own evaluation of the HLS bid also thought it was reasonable.
Its not reasonable for a Mars flight, but that by far not one of the first missions, they have lots of time to continue to work on that technology.
> raptor 2 - 'its stripped raptor 1 and much better' (still in tests, not proven tech)
They have produced many more of them that many other rocket engine program produced in their hole history. They have test-fired them many, many, many times and they have done full duration test fires as well.
> refuealing and relaunching withing few hours - Falcon 9 takes 30days!
You can't just look at Falcon 9 and say 'this proves it'. That's nonsense. They have many Falcon 9s, why would they try to rush a landed booster into service when they have 10 others waiting.
Falcon 9 often lands in the ocean and it takes a week+ until they even get it back.
> Also someone made a super cut of his 2022 update talk and its beat for beat the same thing he said in update from 2 years ago. Its not a good sign if you havent done anything in 2 years for a project that promises so much in few years time.
Of course and he talked about the same thing in 2016 as well. Because the talks are not primarily about technical details.
Also, your comment is just plane nonsense. We have cameras on their production and launch site literally every day. If anybody thinks that they have not made progress in 2 years then they have not been paying attention and are just deliberately making disingenuous argument.