You're still rewriting the proposals to get your figures.
It isn't 100 tons of fuel per launch, it is closer to 150 that they are figuring. Hundreds of m/s is still many tons of fuel.
10 launches, not 16.
400 tons of fuel plus 220 tons is 620T total, that is about 65% fuel, easily enough to reach the moon.
Landing with 220T would need some more, but as I said, i discounted Musk's statement.

Besides, who says we'll go to the moon with v3 instead of the 200t v4?

And with saying a year or more for 5 launches, SpaceX is expending starships faster now. There isn’t any real reason to thing that they won't have 4 or more rockets and be able to turn them around quickly to get the fuel launched rapidly. Lots of testing and development first though. I'll fully admit that.
Basically just figure that starship will have to same reuse abilities as falcon 9, roughly.

They still aren't reducing payload. 200 tons is intended for block 4, block 3 is 100 tons. 100 tons was the planned payloads for the starships I was looking at.
What you might be missing is that a "refueler" starship isn't necessarily restricted to just its payload capacity for fuel transfer. It could be deliberately redesigned for holding more fuel more efficiently, so when I looked it up, the plan is 8 launches. Not to mention that maybe Starship doesn't need the full 1600 tons for a moon mission. Right now, I'm seeing estimates of 8-10, though higher is possible of course. It's active development, things could change. Musk said it could be as few as four, but I tend to discount him.

Looking, it's around 6 km/s of delta-v to land on the moon from LEO. It should have right around 6 km/s when fully loaded (100 tons). So a full fuel load would be mandated. But they're also figuring on the lunar starship having some fuel on board after launch, and tanker starships being able to move ~150 tons per launch.

16 flights would be a worst case scenario.

Looking at figures for SLS for deliveries to LEO vs TLI, you're looking at needing ~60-70% of the payload to LEO to be propellant for TLI. In an ideal sense, around 50% might work, but 55% is probably the realistic minimum.

I moved zero goalposts. Moving the goalposts is when a person initially supports one position, then changes it when challenged. Given that I'd only made ONE post of the topic, that's hard to do.

The discussion was about equivalency, as you say. Personally, I consider "cost" a very important metric when considering equivalency. It's not like I only looked at cost either, I looked at the total payload as well. I considered the number of launches as well, for which Starship would still be cheaper even if it takes 10 times as many launches.

As for it being a "fucking month" of launches, who says? SpaceX is building multiple starship launch points, they've launched 3 falcon rockets in a single day before, 14 rockets in a single month.
If it takes 10 launches for the mission, that would be closer to two weeks, not a month. They CAN keep it up right now. They've done it before. Yes, lots of stuff to scale up, but you should recognize that Starship is still in development, they can build more hardware and ground equipment as necessary to support this stuff.

Also, is it really worth spending 10 times as much in order to send 1/3rd the stuff "in a single shot" in order to save a week or so? Odds are, given the costs of SLS, that they wouldn't save the time anyways - delays and overruns will still let Starship launch faster (once in service).

And you've actually identified yourself as the moron, thank you very much. You see, I'm not the one that called SLS obsolete. You did.

Somebody did make a price comparison, I did.

And yes, I looked into it. Looking into something doesn't have to be a deep dive, I don't need to be 100% up on the topic.

Besides, v3 is only v3. There's more development room. Besides, you must not have looked into it by your own standard, because v3 is bigger than V2, increasing capacity, bot decreasing it.

For all the savings of launch capacity if it takes 3 launches of starship to equal 1 launch of SLS, Starship costs so much less that we can just build more launch capacity. Ground facilities are not that expensive.

Looking, SLS is 47 metric tons to lunar transfer orbit, starship is 100 to the surface.
But you are right, it is 10-20 expended starships for 1 SLS launch. Closer to 100 for recovered reusable starships.

I've looked into that.
1 SLS launch to the moon, ~46 metric tons to lunar transfer orbit, $4B for the launch.
Starship: 100 metric tons to the surface of the moon, around $100M for the single use lunar craft, around $10M a launch for the reusable refuelers. It is expected to take about 8 refuelings for the moon trip, not 16.
So, still around an order of magnitude cheaper for around 3 times the payload to the surface.

Police detectives tend to not work "a beat", but instead a selection of cases. Reviewing paperwork from the field can easily take up most of their time. They could have to be reading like a hundred witness statements to try to figure out what actually happened, most likely, who's lying, and why. Collaborating testimony with other evidence, reviewing security camera footage, reading test results - DNA, fingerprint, drug, residue, etc... Deciding whether or not there's enough evidence to try for a warrant or the UK's equivalent. Following up with witnesses, scheduling interviews, etc...

Well, that's $489 per kWh, which is over $100 USD/kWh, but that also includes engineering, facility construction, grid integration, and all that.

I might be being pessimistic, but I'm not being massively so like the original poster, who was assuming replacement every 15 years. I was pushing that out to 20-30 and suggesting even longer. But, well, I wanted to stick to tested information. And most of that information is with EVs at this point, not grid reserve. We shall have to see.

I mentioned Sodium though? $400B AUD for LFP, $100B AUD for sodium.
And right now LFP cells are tested to last longer than Sodium Ion. But they are supposed to theoretically be able to last longer than LFP, which is why I said there's room for R&D to extend that.

By the sound of it, he’s arguing that in a 100% renewable electric grid, to keep outages from rare production lulls—like multi-day periods that are both overcast (cutting solar) and calm (cutting wind)—to less than once per decade, you’d need about 3 days’ worth of energy storage. That’s plausible. Even a 30-day stretch producing only 90% of demand could be buffered with that reserve.

Australia’s annual electricity use is around 200 TWh, so 2 TWh is roughly 1%—closer to 3.7 days of average demand. That’s in the right ballpark, especially with rounding and overhead. Back-of-napkin accuracy is fine here; maybe the extra cost is wiring, inverters, and grid integration.

What’s not reasonable are the cost comparisons.

Australia’s public healthcare budget is about $180 billion AUD/year. A lithium-ion buildout at ~$100 USD/kWh would cost around $400 billion AUD for 2 TWh. Spread over 15 years, that’s ~$26 billion AUD/year—just 14% of healthcare spending, not more.

If they go with sodium-ion, which is emerging at ~$30 USD/kWh, the total cost drops to ~$100 billion AUD, or ~$6.7 billion/year—less than 4% of healthcare spending.

And that’s assuming a pessimistic 15-year battery lifespan. In reality, the sheer size of the system means shallow daily cycling, which dramatically extends life. Batteries degrade slower when they’re not pushed hard. A system sized for rare deep discharge could last 20–30 years, especially with smart charge management.

Plus, investing $100B+ into grid storage would naturally accelerate R&D, manufacturing scale, and chemistry improvements. LFP cells currently outperform sodium-ion on cycle life, but sodium has room to grow-and in grid use, even 40% remaining capacity can still be useful. You don’t need to scrap a battery at 80%. Just add more cells or shift its role.

I've been thinking about this some. It's NYC, so entry from outside would imply a ground floor, less than ideal. Maybe climbing up a fire escape would work.

Making it look like a utility closet would probably work well. Still have access from inside, not restricted to where you can get at it from outside the building. All depends on the access rating of the place, of course. For example, a painted wooden panel screwed onto the wall concealing the entrance. Sure, can't access it on a whim, but could sit for years.

Keeping an eye on public records to find spaces that are under dispute with said dispute unlikely to be resolved anytime soon, then just change the locks.

There are ultimately lots of options.

I'm actually thinking that it would be "make VOIP calls look local and avoid mass shutdowns for spamming people with scam calls."

They then rent the service out globally to said scammers from China, India, even Pakistan and North Korea.

It doesn't need to be a whole abandoned building - just a specific abandoned spot within it. If anything, a building still otherwise in use would be superior, more noise to hide the power draw in.
I've watched some some specials on NYC buildings. "Useable" floorspace getting walled away or even just forgotten behind a locked door happens regularly. Inheritances, will disputes, remodeling snafus, and more.

As for the use of the servers themselves - I'm guessing they were used to make scam calls and such using local phone numbers.