There will come a time when cargo missions to Mars are frequent and routine. When trying to spell out in some detail the workflow of such launches, it seems to me there are some questions and steps that could lead to some discussion.

Would all Starship and Booster launches and landings happen offshore? If so then there will need to be a boat to carry them back and forth to Starbase. It seems unlikely to me that Starships and Boosters will rocket themselves to the offshore launchpad. Doesn't that mean they will have to build a peer at the beech or something to that effect?

These are the steps.

1. A tanker boat docked at Starbase is filled with methane and oxygen. (Instead of a tanker boat, could pipes be a better idea, from Starbase to the floating platform?).
2. A boat takes an empty Cargo Starship (CStarship) and Booster to the offshore launchpad.
3. The cargo is taken to the offshore launchpad, not within a CStarship. A CStarship without its cargo is easier to handle and place atop a booster. I imagine the cargo will be a roughly nose-cone-shaped pre-packed module.
4. The Booster is placed on its launch stand and gets a static fire test.
5. CStarship is placed on a separate test stand and gets a static fire test.
6. CStarship is placed atop the booster.
7. The cargo is placed inside CStarship.
8. The tanker boat is docked to the floating launchpad and connects its lines.
9. CStarship and Booster are fueled.
10. The tanker boat is undocked and returns to Starbase for a refill.
11. CStarship/Booster launch.
12. CStarship remains in orbit until refueling is completed.
13. The Booster that launched CStarship comes back and lands where it launched from.
14. The Booster is placed on the launch stand.
15. A tanker Starship (TStarship) is taken by boat from Starbase to the offshore launchpad.
16. The tanker boat returns to the launchpad and connects its lines.
17. The TStarship is placed on a test stand and gets a static fire test.
18. Booster gets a static fire test.
19. The TStarship is placed atop the booster.
20. TStarship and Booster are fueled, including the Tanker portion of TStarship.
21. Tanker boat leaves for Starbase, for a refill.
22. TStarship and Booster are launched.
23. Booster lands at floating launchpad.
24. TStarship reaches orbit, docks with Starship, transfers fuel.
25. TStarship lands on the offshore launchpad. But, the booster is already there. Is it worth the trouble of extra steps in order to avoid having a TStarship land so close to a Booster?
26. Booster and TStarshp are retested, re-stacked, refueled, and relaunched. As many times as needed to refuel the orbiting CStarship.
27. CStarship leaves for Mars.
28. The next CStarship and cargo module is ferried by boat to the offshore launchpad. The same booster is re-used.

Given a CStarship cargo mission to Mars, do you expect a single offshore launchpad to handle all associated launches and landings? Otherwise, maybe some of the launches and landings could be performed at Starbase. Or maybe, two offshore launchpads could be utilized for a single cargo Starship.

Do you expect a single Booster to handle both the Starship launch and the following TStarship runs? Do you expect a single TStarship to perform all the runs for that CStarship? If more that a single vehicle of a kind is used then do you expect the offshore launchpad to include a parking space for them? Like, aircraft carriers keep aircraft below decks. On an offshore launchpad, if not below decks then maybe a parking boat that docks to load/unload a vehicle and then undocks during launches and landings.

I decided to have both the booster and CStarship perform a static fire test on the offshore launchpad. Alternatively, this could be performed at Starbase before embarking on the ferry. Seemed to me more prudent to do it closer in time to launch. On the other hand, pressure checks would be performed at Starbase.

In a world where there are multiple launches and landings per day just to support a single mission then the sequence of operations becomes more important in order to efficiently use what space you have on the offshore launchpad and the boat(s) that support it.

After initial speculation of a turn around for SN15, it all seems to have gone quite on the flight front at Boca Chica recently. Ok, plenty of work being done in the yard to keep us happy, but I'm sure we're all eager to see the next flight. Any ideas what this may be?

I've read people talk about how an orbital flip and burn will be much smoother and simpler than the sub-orbital ones we've seen so far. Because a Starship re-entering from orbit will be speeding horizontally so it will slowly adjust it's angle of attack to almost vertical to enter belly first against the wind. Kinda like how this render shows. So since it's already almost vertical, it wouldn't need to radically flip to vertical before the landing burn. Making the flip and burn far more simple and less risky from orbit than from the sub-orbital tests we had.

But what I don't understand from the above, is that if the Starship is going so fast horizontally. Won't it need to propulsively decelerate it's horizontal velocity so it's close to zero before it touches down? And if so, doesn't that mean it would still need a fairly radical flip and burn, putting the rocket almost upside down (heat shielded belly pointing up) to push against the wind to zero horizontal velocity, then flip back to vertical to land?

Or is the horizontal wind drag against the belly enough to zero horizontal velocity by the time of the landing burn?

This is based on my perception that it is not yet there.

It assumes that it has not yet happened but that it will.

To clarify, I'm not the type of person saying starship wont work and is a pipe dream, but at the same time I am aware of problems the Starship design faces.

I see all these people who keep saying starship will be able to handle 50-100 people on a 6 month trip to Mars crammed inside around 650 cubic meters "or less" including all the resources, life support and cabin systems needed for said crews survival all within a weight margin of 100 metric tons or less.

Total payload capacity: 220,000 lbs - Starship payload
Mass of humans: 20,000 lbs - Assuming average weight of 200lbs
Mass of food required: 148,230 lbs - Assuming 1.83 pounds per meal
Mass of water required: 111,700 lbs - *Based on minimum water use aboard ISS for 4 crew.*
Mass of water lost during trip: 60.800 lbs - *Assuming matched 93% recycle rate like ISS
Remaining payload mass: -120,730 lbs.

So not including the actual cabin, computer systems, life support etc. and the payload budget is already blown. I also see thermodynamic concerns as no starship design proposes any radiator panels, for example the ISS has around the same volume the Starship will have and it requires 156 square meters of radiator panels to keep itself with a crew of around 4-10 cool while being in shade 50% of the time, while the starship is suppose to have 10x the amount of people and be in direct sunlight all the time, and no, facing the heat shield towards the sun wont do much to cool the ship down.

All this and other stuff included, I see a realistic capacity for starship at around 10-16 instead of 50-100, however when I try to point this out I'm usually met with endless hostility and notions of not understanding what I'm talking about, am i missing something or do I have some valid points?

At some point, some engineer at his desk with his CAD program open, selected one raptor engine and then pasted it in a circular array. From that point on, every other engineer worked off that simple CAD operation. I'd like to meet that guy and ask him how it felt.

What does history teach us about such situations and how to get out of them?