Now, as the Trump administration departs in defeat, it is clear that the 2024 deadline will not be met, and was likely never an achievable goal, despite having the backing of the White House and a massive lobbying effort by NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine.

To meet the White House’s mandate, which moved up the moon landing from 2028, Bridenstine had said that the agency would need $3. 6 billion from NASA'€™s existing portfolio (without forgoing any new funding), or...

NASA may have to create its own rockets and space organizations if it hopes to deliver a major rocket and crew capsule to the orbiting 'space port' of ISS in the next few years. At least 10 private companies have expressed interest in participating in developing the multibillion-dollar move. Several of those listed have Rocketplane plans requiring high-end composite composite materials.

NASA has a dedicated office dedicated to developing "American role in space" in part because there is no institutionalized capability for doing so.

As detailed by the New York Times (taxpayers: "a huge burden"):

The office began to work with the industry community last December. It reached out to Boeing, SpaceX and United Launch Alliance, supplying seating for investor panels, dream teams and astronauts, and studying the potential for commercial crew and cargo missions to the space station. [. . .] Once the White House forecast for 2024 became this year's requirement, Mr. Bridenstine made another discovery: It does not stretch out the competition. The NASA strategy addressed competition, but it left the question of providing business for the country as a whole open. It is difficult to argue that the country's core priorities have proved to be less compelling than commercial, in this economy. So far, Mr. Bridenstine's office has spent $100 million of its $600 million in initial sessions working with industry. [. . .] Once the current private-sector focus is embraced, NASA no longer needs to take 60 to 90 days to plan a mission to Mars or the asteroid. The new strategy places too little emphasis on research, according to Mr. Ochoa, because there is too little interest. A slip in housing and employment trends may affect NASA's science goals as well, he suggested, arguing that large public investments in space produce more opportunities than small private ones.

It looks like NASA now running off a global budget that the U.S. can't afford to support.

The Trump administration's failure to rein in NASA's spending resulted in a sharp drop in its overall budget. The president was fond of saying "I'm reducing about our budget by 25 percent" and boasted about the increasing efficiency of NASA agency (like comments we noted above where he said: "a big promise", "I'm the first person on earth to call him" and an admonition that is bogus because its a promise it