Yup and that's a perfect reason there shouldn't be this manufactured choice to where these these things compete with each other when really they work great together.
Once reason I have been so hyped on Starship is the type of science it could enable NASA to do, suddenly having giant planetary orbiters becomes way more feasible with way shorter timespans. The first boots on Mars should be NASA astronauts carried by a SpaceX ship.
What to you think about the fact that it keeps rapidly disassembling? I hear people talk about "Move fast and break things".
Would you buy a car that blows up every time, using the concept of move fast and break things?
Now that sounds kinda of specious at least to me, because liquid fueled Rocketry is over 100 years old. And modern rockets are pretty well based on the concepts of the V2 rocket designed and built in Germany in WW2.
Now if were me in charge of the StarShip program, I'd be placing a hard hold to assess why StarShip is so far - a failure. That thing is nowhere near ready for primetime.
This is not to disparage the Falcon Fleet - really good rockets.
Let's say I was in charge of StarShip. I'd change the "move fast and break things" concept to incremental steps. First thing I would do is wrap a stainless steel reentry vehicle that would simulate a upper stage Starship - but smaller - and it's tiling on a Falcon 9 heavy, launch it to orbit, return it and see what happens.
Assuming that worked okay, the next step would be to static launch an upper stage, and only after all the bugs are worked out, then mate it to the first stage and launch.