NASA is eager to see SpaceX make progress on the orbital refueling plan, seeing it as a potential bottleneck that entails the delicate transfer of thousands of gallons of supercooled, flammable propellants in orbit, three of the people said.
There's a lot of ground covered in this article across multiple contractors, but I think this right here is going to be the defining factor of whether or not NASA can land someone safely on the Moon during what's left of this decade unless someone else cranks out a trustworthy lunar lander, but I feel it'd be back to "flags and footprints" territory, because so much of Artemis depended on SpaceX's BFR, and in hindsight it's astounding that we trusted such a massive undertaking to them using so many unproven and untested techniques.
If SpaceX can't figure out on-orbit refuelling, Artemis likely has to be rethought from the ground-up. This is a devastating blow to a program already on flimsy footing and way over budget.
... and SpaceX was going to lead the way to a brighter human spaceflight future when all we're getting is real-life KSP replete with worksite injuries galore because Elon doesn't like the colour yellow.
With sufficient political willpower, I think NASA could still limp forward without SpaceX if they fail. Gateway, a mini-space station in cislunar orbit, was always part of the plan, and Blue Origin managed to muscle its way into a lander contract, but building a moonbase will be much more difficult
It's very likely, unfortunately, that human spaceflight missions to our Moon will flounder because we trusted SpaceX, and commercial interests will come to dominate; interests that have no need for a staffed polar research station. Much of what CLPS wants can be done robotically, and more cheaply.
I feel that NASA flew too close to the privatized sun. NASA got it into its head after Apollo that it had to justify its existence financially (understandably), and after STS was retired, NASA went hard on being private industry's bitch for researching off-world extraction tech for billionaires.
There's a natural tension between human spaceflight programs and robotic exploration, but I'm coming around to the idea that human spaceflight is a necessary aspect of a space agency's existence because it's unlikely human spaceflight will ever be profitable.
I mean 10, 15 years ago was kind of a depressing time for space nerds too, with the end of the Shuttle era, the Constellation Program's spectacular, if inevitable failure, and the financial crisis giving the austerity fetishists in governments across the western hemisphere the excuse to slash funding for everything except war, cops and fossil fuel subsidies.
At least that's how I felt, the NewSpace hype offered a convenient narrative to latch on to, and the red flags weren't quite as prominent, easy to ignore. And, as I got close to finishing my aerospace degree, there was also the prospect of landing a highly-paid job in the industry.
Dodged a bullet there!
(Though I'd still prefer it didn't involve falling off a motorcycle and cracking my spine in half.)
But yeah, looking back at those days feels embarrassing to say the least.
Well luckily we're all a little older and wiser now, right? (lol, no)
