Disaster response? Humanitarian crisis? Rapid military response?
None of which this would be particularly useful or cost effective for.
A 747 could move the same amount of cargo per trip, for roughly 4-9
million dollars per trip less money.
The flight might be a few hours longer- but can land at any airport in the world with a decent sized runway--- versus Starship which besides costing many millions more per trip and only take off or land at a location there's an entire (still functional) starbase.
The only thing on your list I could see any real-world use of would be the military-- if they developed some rapidly deployable temporary starbase facility they could somehow drop somewhere--- but you'd still need to deliver THAT stuff via cargo plane and deploy the temp starbase (ditto the fuel to refuel the ships at the target site)... It would still be hideously cost
ineffective compared to just cargo planes- but when has the military ever cared about that?
There'd be no economic case at all for doing any of that for disaster or humanitarian stuff vs just using cargo planes.
(nor do any of these weird niche cases make much of a dent, economically, in the volume of global shipping--which was the original thing Starship was suggested as impacting- see below on that)
What are you even arguing against?
If you don't know what the argument was about, why are you trying to participate in it without determining that first?
The argument was about if Starship would revolutionize "global cargo/shipping in the next half a decade". I was arguing it won't, and there's no economic case to be made otherwise- then cited the insanely higher costs compared to either sea or air shipping and asked what could possibly justify that cost.
Nothing you posted in reply actually addressed that since, again, the only source you gave was not citing a "slow transport of a fix" problem at all which is the only aspect Starship would be relevant to (and not even then unless both sides of the supply and demand HAPPENED to be really close to an existing Starbase).
There is your hours = millions situation, that's all (see also Giga Berlin power loss).
But "faster than an airplane at 10 million dollars more cost" would not have fixed that. Nobody was waiting on slow aircraft to bring in cargo there.
So you appear to have not read what the actual discussion was about, then made up your own argument where the actual "solution" under discussion doesn't fix the actual problem.
A transition quarter or 2 will not depress the stock permanently.
Nobody said it would?
Is this strawman day or something?
That said- the relatively flat growth isn't a quarter or two, it's looking like a year or two. There are no new products this year, only the start of a ramp of one introduced last year (CT) and which Elon already said won't ramp enough to be material to the financials this year... and data is increasingly showing the S3XY markets are basically at or near peak volume in terms of available buyers.
Next year we'll get the rest of the CT ramp, but that's still planning for only maybe a 10% total unit growth fleet-size-wide, and hopefully Semi will start to ramp.
It's 2026 before you can present much of a case for returning to high unit growth with new product-- it'll be a massive growth spurt though assuming next-gen goes well and on schedule.
(there'll be some nice stuff in energy this year, and more of it next as Shanghai megapack plant finishes and ramps, but vehicles- this isn't a 1-2 quarter lull)