As for Starlink's commercial viability, it seems reasonable enough if they can launch hundreds of satellites at once with a cheap fully-reusable rocket. Right now they can't do that, they can only use a semi-reusable rocket that launches tens of satellites at a time. So far they've used this to launch 2000+ satellites, which is impressive, but is that enough? I don't think so, because they've received approval for 12,000 and sought approval for 30,000. What they've launched thusfar with Falcon 9 seems to only be a small fraction of what they want. The constellation isn't a one-time expense either; it requires constant upkeep because these satellites are low and only last a few years.

I think they've been making do with what they have, knowing that Starship will be necessary to make the business work in the full scale / long term.

> Also companies are trying to support themselves by "only" being a rocket launch for hire.

Well that's the other thing isn't it? SpaceX is very invested in designing rockets, but doesn't seem to give a shit about colony technology. Doesn't that seem odd to you? Elon Musk constantly talks about going to Mars, but isn't interested in actually developing a Mars colony. Instead he'll leave that part to other groups, and focus on making the spaceship that will get them there. In other words, he's building a bridge to nowhere and is counting on somebody else building the destination required for his bridge to make sense. For a man who supposedly endeavors for Mars, this seems absurd. Instead of buying twitter, he could be throwing tens of billions of dollars at colony R&D. But he isn't.

I don't think Starship is for going to Mars. I think it's for rapidly launching and replenishing large constellations of satellites. Probably for military purposes.