Neither mission put people on the moon, they're both just risk reduction missions. They're just reducing risk on different things. So it depends on your opi

Neither mission put people on the moon, they're both just risk reduction missions. They're just reducing risk on different things. So it depends on your opinion on where the risk is. There's a ton of risk in both Starship and Orion, so the proposed mission reduces a lot of risk. Angry's proposed mission would push back the eventual moon landing date. The Apollo 9 style mission wouldn't, if it can be done without ICPS. We're only going to build 3 ICPS's, so if we expend 1 of them for Angry's mission then we'll need EUS to land on the moon, making it highly unlikely we'll land on the moon before 2030. OTOH, the boosters and core stage of SLS can be built a rate of about 1 mission per year, so if we do the Apollo 9 thing in 2026 it means we can't do the moon landing before 2027. Which is the scenario we're already in, so no big deal. Even better would be to use a Falcon Heavy or a Vulcan to get Orion into LEO.