What does time-domain reflectometry have to do with this?

I'm pretty sure that intra-group violence is generally more common than inter-group violence and hence the latter is the one that stands out as an intentional decision.

And yet, Australian National University identified significant pumped hydro storage potential in Australia many years ago. Definitely more than they'd ever need.

Yes.

Why would it be "a wet dream" when they're now free to implement it?

Well Eastern Bloc socialism famously didn't have free enterprise, so you can see how that's an easy connection to make.

Rockets only need to store hydrogen for minutes to hours. Not days to weeks. That makes a crucial design difference in the tanks for both.

The point you obviously missed: hydrogen would be created by means of electrolysis taking advantage of low or negative spot prices of electricity, not using methane.

141,86 vs. 18,6...Isn't that *less* than an order of magnitude, not "over"? Anyway, raw gravimetric energy density isn't all that favourable but hydrogen storage incurs its own costs in terms of weight, so I wonder how large-scale storage fares with both. Storing ammonia in a tank is "slightly" easier.

They might get killed, or worse, expelled...

...oh, wait.

Sure, if you launch once a month, something like Sea Launch's platform would work. If you launch thrice a week? Logistically, probably not.

I was talking about the F-1 though, not the E-1, since that's what Saturn V used.

...and there it is. You can't compare the two timelines if one of them contains things the other one doesn't. Especially if you consider that Raptor has *already* undergone two major redesigns since 2016. In light of the fact that engines like F-1, RS-25 received *zero* major redesigns (RS-25 in decades, in fact), it's pretty hard to argue that SpaceX's timelines for development aren't vastly shorter than their competitors'.

I have no idea how you can say this with straight face if you look at what Blue Origin, ULA, and Arianespace have been doing for the past 15 years.

By your own standards, you're being hypocritical here. Test firings of the F-1 engine used on Saturn V started in 1957. Test firings of Raptor 1 started in 2016. By what logic do you justify the "the start of Saturn V's development process" POST-dating its own engine's test firing by 4 years but the Starship's one PRE-dating the first test firing by 4 years?

...or more expressive?

STS had *many* "perfect landings". Still was a deathtrap, so your single "perfect landing" isn't the argument you seem to think it is. And as for your comparison, the developmental prototypes currently tested by SpaceX have no people on board. That's why sane people aren't anywhere as concerned about them as they are with Starliner, which was supposed to be already fully operational and problem-free.