A lot of this is covered in the article, in short: bad politics, poor mission architecture
The alternative they're seeking is probably to create an expendable upper stage using the existing Ship tooling. In this way they'll have created basically a 9m diameter Falcon 9. Blue Origin or Lockheed Martin/Dynetics can then supply their lunar landers which are more conventional along the lines of the Apollo style landers.
By 2030 though? Not likely.
Your statement refers to discussions from mid-last year, a proposal that resurfaces once or twice annually. Recent debates have taken a more intriguing turn. Beyond previous plans, there are now considerations to develop lighter lunar lander solutions using upgraded Dragon spacecraft, Falcon Heavy rockets, and Blue Origin's New Glenn. However, none of these approaches are projected to achieve crewed lunar landing by the 2030 deadline, as acknowledged by U.S. space communities.
Gutting NASA is crazy though. It is a great agency that had a hand in a ton of aerospace technology that most people take for granted now (
see my comment from earlier), including almost everything SpaceX uses.
Btw experts are not sleeping on China's aerospace sector in the mid 2030s. And reusable rockets are just the tip of the iceberg. There is so much going on right now. There are plenty of hints from Space Force, the former deputy of NASA technology already.
As an example:
From your referenced information, I can see that you still pay too little attention to what’s currently happening at NASA. Additionally, you haven’t deeply engaged with Chinese space enthusiast communities or seen their discussions. This isn’t just you—most space enthusiasts worldwide, including many active ones in China, remain unaware of certain developments and debates.
We closely follow what the U.S., especially NASA, is doing, constantly comparing and refining our perspectives. Thus, you fail to grasp the implications of NASA’s recent actions—what they’re attempting, what consequences they’ll bring, and what they signify—because you lack a deep understanding of China’s system (a globally recognized success). This makes it impossible for you to comprehend what I observe and foresee.
I can’t explain this simply, but I’ll tell you the outcome I see: **the U.S. is destroying its own system and doesn’t know how to rebuild it properly. Everything they’re doing will lead to their comprehensive defeat in future competition.**
Most people worldwide misjudge China’s true capabilities, distracted by superficial appearances. While China’s space sector still lags behind the U.S., it’s actively closing foundational gaps—likely within a decade. Once this phase ends, China’s progress will astonish everyone.
Take sixth-generation fighter jets as an analogy: For informed technical enthusiasts, China’s advancements in critical components and technical levels have long been evident. The physical unveiling of China’s sixth-gen fighter wasn’t a shock to us—it was confirmation. To outsiders, however, it seemed like the U.S. aeronautical advantage vanished overnight.
NASA’s fundamental problem is its failure to recognize systemic flaws. Its responses remain misguided, focusing on short-term fixes while neglecting core issues. In the mid-to-long-term competition, the U.S. is destined to lose.
NASA’s crisis lies not in technology but in **management systems, organizational strategies, and execution effectiveness**. Current technical measures can’t resolve the U.S. space industry’s strategic misalignment.
Personally, I don’t need to wait a decade to conclude: **The U.S. will lose in space**.
Expanding this topic would require tens of thousands of words to dissect U.S. space industry failures, contrasting American and Chinese perspectives. To understand why China’s approach prevails (as even the current U.S. administration acknowledges in other fields), one must analyze not just U.S. actions but also China’s methodologies through comparative, detail-level examination. A key reason America struggles to find solutions is its arrogance—the refusal to consider that its "intuition" might be wrong or that alternative approaches could be superior.
