The SLS has actually flown since then, so its hard to say it has gotten worse in "EVERY" aspect. I'm not a fan of the SLS or the way NASA is running Artemis, and I can say plenty to criticize the way they work. Believe me, I've had enough conversations with NASA bureaucrats to get plenty of frustration with them. But this article is hard to follow and seems to miss the fundamental problems (which is not uncommon with people overly focused on technical matters at what is, in essence, a giant governmental organisation).

I don't have the time or inclination to point out every error in the article, but it especially annoyed me when he implied only NASA engineers know how to build space telescopes (false), when he implies Starship conops are simple (they are not), when he implies no progress has been made on NEO asteroid detection (NEO Surveyor is a follow-up to NEOWISE, not something that has taken "30 years" to develop), when he thinks the Europa Clipper MOSFET issue has been ignored (I know some of the people who worked on that over the summer, and I know the outcome), when he seems to think LEO re-entry materials can be used for high-speed lunar returns (no, that's not how this works), and when he seems to think a student project qualifies him to talk on demand for the SLS.

Yes, there are some valid points in all of those, but he is presenting them in an exaggerated and over the top style better suited for X than for a long form article that purports to find a better way forward (which, surprise, surprise, is simply "pay SpaceX to do everything").