Not 'maybe', but beyond all doubt and explicitly stated by SpaceX employees who have not claimed repeatedly that Full Self Driving will be ready real soon now. There will be at least one more fractional orbit launch because of the change to Raptor 3. The change to V3 Starship requires completion of the new launch tower. That will be ready early next year. Boca Chica was launch license limited to 5/year while the environmental effects were quantified. You will see a step up in cadence next year because the limit has been changed to 25/year. Your concerns about refilling Starship will be met with rapid iteration from SpaceX. Blue has yet to demonstrate iteration for New Glenn and has not demonstrated rapid for New Shepard. Anything beyond flags and footprints requires refilling.
Self levelling: the legs can extend different amounts so the landing surface does not need to be flat. It does need to be stable so there is an advantage to clearing it. Engine damage from clearing the site is a concern. I am glad there will be at least one uncrewed test run.
We have the engine performance and mixture ratio. This means we know about 50% of the take-off mass will be propellant. 78% of the propellant will be oxygen at the bottom of the lower tank. With that in my mind's eye, Starship looks more stable than Blue Moon 2. Blue employs skilled rocket scientists, which is why Blue Moon has and needs splayed legs. Apollo could take off from an 11 degree slope. I assume that with modern technology NASA could pick more level landing sites. We will see if HLS can find one. I assume the legs are designed to cope with the slope they expect to find - or they will abort the landing. In recent cargo landing failures, tipping over was the result of earlier problems, not the cause of the failure.
NASA has stated that human rated space craft must fly at least once per year to retain institutional knowledge. SLS is a long way short of the target. Last time there were delays from the ground support equipment. That has remained idle so long that I am confident it will have issues for A2 and A3. A3 cannot start stacking until A2 gets off the mobile launch platform. A1 required a stack of waivers for parts that were past their sell-by dates. A4 will have a new second stage which requires a new mobile launch platform. That second stage will be tested with crew - if it doesn't get cancelled. The only way the new launch platform will not be very late is if it is cancelled.
Parts of Orion died of old age waiting for A1 and launched with less redundancy than planned because it would have taken months to fix. The Orion for A1 did not have life support. We will find out if it works in space with A2. The Orion from A2 lacks a docking hatch. We will find out if it works in A3. Issues with Orion's heat shield had to be fixed without changing the vehicle and without an uncrewed test flight because that would have moved the crewed Moon landing flight onto the non-existent next generation mobile launch platform. NASA did an excellent job with that restriction, but it does hint at what will happen if there are issues with A2. If A3 is needed as a do-over for A2 then NASA will not get people back on the Moon before 2030.
Calling SLS+Orion a solved problem is being generous.
The realistic time frame was 2028 in 2016. You would have to be as gullible as a president to believe the NASA schedule of the month for Artemis. Why beat the Chinese back to the Moon? Ask someone who cares. I want a step up in technology that reduces the price of access to space. Flags and footprints 2 doesn't do that and for me is just a waste of time and money. The president wants distractions and legacy. Moon theatre does that.
Your prediction is perfectly reasonable. I do not particularly care if the HLS is from SpaceX or Blue Origin but with the information available today, SpaceX is clearly ahead of Blue but it is not clear if they will cause longer delays the space suits or SLS being ready for a third launch.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
