Earlier quoted context omitted.
The crazies, maybe. I hope not most NASA folk; there really is no way for lunar landings to have been common using chemical propellants and disposable rockets. Even today alternatives are mere speculations. So either our NASA dreamer was a poor engineer, or a nut job willing to nuke Earth to visit a lifeless rock. Which is not a bad thing: given the immensity and ludicrousness of the Apollo accomplishment, I think NA…
It takes about as much energy to get into orbit as it does to fly from NY to Japan. So, regular trips to the moon could end up fairly cheap even with chemical rocks.
The OP was referring to NASA's shot term (ten year) delusion. Flying a rocket to the moon is orders of magnitude more expensive that couldn't have been matched by chem rockets (and weren't, even for the very generously funded ICBM projects)