You are missing the point that size makes a difference. Obviously SpaceX has the technology to do what Honda did, but SpaceX can do ti with a real rocket.
But they can't do it with the bigger Starship rocket. Scale matters.

a rocket is a wingless airplane IMO

Edit: with oxygen tanks, as you said.

While what you said is true,

i guess that most people's motivation is rather the economic benefits. Think of it this way:

The 1960s space race created jobs all across the US and inspired a generation of scientists.

Mars settlement could do the same, but bigger. At least that's the idea.

Yeah, if by "going over", you mean accelerating in the horizontal direction, then you're right.

Just to illustrate this: Consider we want to put 1 kg of mass into orbit.

First, we have to raise it by 100 km. That requires 1e6 J = 1 MJ of energy (formula is m*g*h).

Then, we have to accelerate it sideways, to a speed of 8 km/s. The energy to do that is 32 MJ (formula is ½*m*v²).

So, most of the energy (97%) is actually in the sideways movement.

I suspect it's because the hydrogen molecules are bigger than a single helium atom, which doesn't form molecules (since it's a noble gas).

So the hydrogen molecule only seeps through if it's oriented right (since the hydrogen molecule is a stick-shaped molecule).

isn't that Hitachi?

The Top Gear Reliant Robin launch reached 3000ft / 900m, although they were unable to stick the landing.

Also with starlink even one company's constellation is causing issues with astronomers and launches.

How bad will it be if there are 5-6 different companies with their own network floating around up there. And then other countries with their own network.

Reusable rockets, in particular.

Imagine having a reusable car in a world where they were all disposable.

My buddy’s 2 million mile ‘95 civic says this is a sure bet

Size is only a proof of logistics. Not tech. Physics don't change fundamentally between 6 meters and 120 meters. You learn a lot from scale modeling without the added costs. Starship's real challenge is actually the logistics necessary to fulfill the desired specifications and experimenting with engineering to reach the scale. The most innovative aspect of Starship would be orbital refueling, and they aren't there since the thing hasn't reached orbit yet. SpaceX problem right now is insisting on high turnover engineering, which doesn't work at scale without heavy costs, because it is a logistic problem, not a engineering problem.

Honda giving a whole new meaning to crotch rocket.
Oh wait, it's an actual rocket!

The satellite constellation is the natural consequence of cheaper rockets. It's a true paradigm shift, but the pioneer in this case has only the moat of being able to spend less money per launch. If someone else can deliver payloads to low earth orbit for less than $2,000/kg, then they'll easily be able to launch a Starlink competitor.

Physics don't change fundamentally between 6 meters and 120 meters

Yes it does. Mass to strength ratio of structural components changes with scale. So does the thrust to mass ratio of a rocket and its fuel. So does heat dissipation (affected by ratio of surface area to mass).

And I don't know shit about fluid dynamics, but I'm skeptical that things scale cleanly, either.

Scaling upward will encounter challenges not apparent at small sizes. That goes for everything from engineering bridges to buildings to cars to boats to aircraft to spacecraft.

You mean like Starship?

My personal opinion is that it fails because SpaceX, like a lot of space startups, embrace a silicon valley coding mindset of 'move fast and break things', which results in them spending much more of their time and effort on testing than on design. Make a change, test, make a subsequent change, test. It gets them to a working prototype more quickly than legacy space/ defense companies. However, there's no emphasis on modeling or design, which is problematic for solving complex problems that haven't been solved for 50 years already.

Yeah, it's a bad situation. I'm against monopolies, but I also see how filling the sky with redundant satellites is a terrible plan, so I don't like the idea of lots of competition either.

I think low orbit satellite communications is a pretty awesome concept. It has the potential to become like a second Internet backbone, but a backbone that can bring data directly to users without the additional router hops that local ISPs introduce. On paper, it's amazingly efficient and can distribute service to all of the world... But in practice the business and management side is deeply problematic. One company should absolutely not be in charge of global Internet service. And one country would not be any better.

The only solution I can see is to make it safe and feasible to have way more satellites operating in low earth orbit. I'm really not sure what that solution might look like...

Here's an off-the-cuff idea though: One solution could be an extremely robust low earth orbit maintenance and "pruning" system. All satellites would need to be monitored by third parties. And those third parties would need the authority and ability to quickly deorbit (prune) any satellite that deviates from its exact expected orbit. If satellites can ensure no deviation from their path and can safely maneuver to avoid collisions, it could be possible for many more satellites to safely share an orbital altitude.

Deorbiting is all well and good, but more and more we're finding that these satellites contain chemicals that are very disruptive to the ozone layer. It's going to be CFCs all over again, but with even more corporate capture of government.

Also a very capable downhill bike that was using a gearbox well before it got popular

You have it the wrong way round. SpaceX's accomplishments are impressive despite Elon.