Former NASA administrator wants to scrap lunar mission plans, start over

Does not sound particularly convincing. First, fixed-price contracts can be quite convenient for government when they pay for the fact and at the same time have other options. Look how it was with rocket launchers - Atlas-V and Delta-IV and at the same time Falcon-9. Second, what's wrong with many refueling flights? Tell Pentagon they have too many satellites you're going to be laughed out of the room. Third, for the critic's side, exploding Starships shouldn't distract from the fact the testing program is going really well.

We can revert to something like proposed by Blue Origin, but that would significantly slow down the pace of activities on the Moon, just because the payload which can be delivered by Starship HLS to the Moon dwarfs other options we have at the moment. I'd prefer to have say a couple of launches of refueling Starships per day, and three times a month a refueled Starship will fly to the Moon, that'll bring enough humans and equipment to the Moon to keep activities there going well.

I agree, this reminds me RFC 1925 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1925), that states:

"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead"

I interested to this topic after watching this video related to a presentation of an engineer owner of Youtube channel in presence of NASA staff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoJsPvmFixU&pp=ygUZc21hcnRlc...

so I read the documentation and , yes , I agree.

Anyway, the NASA book he mentions is really worth to read.

The cynic in me would conclude that the former NASA admin has personal, professional and perhaps economic ties to Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman.