No and no.
It is true that we have the benefit of experience with respect to the last sixty years of human spaceflight, and advances in certain areas, primarily computing and environmental control and life support systems (ELCSS), but chemical rocket propulsion still has the same fundamental limits as it had in the Apollo era, and the modest improvements in material capabilities is only of marginal improvement in reduced inert mass.
NASA probably couldn’t get a prime integrator and major system contractors through the competitive bidding process and on contract in two years, but setting aside the contract issues, they would still have to develop all of the individual systems essentially from scratch; assuming the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous mission profile used in the Apollo Lunar Landing program, it would require an Earth ascent vehicle (comparable to the Saturn V), a trans-Lunar injection stage (S-IVB), a command and service module (Apollo CSM), and a lunar descent and ascent module (for Apollo, the Lunar Module which was a two stage vehicle).
The NASA Space Launch System (SLS) is not “ready for use yet”, and Artemis 1 test launch of an uncrewed SLS launcher and a mostly-functional Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) is scheduled for “No Earlier Than” (NET) January 2022. Assuming that goes without significant issues to prevent qualification (such as it is with a single flight), the first crewed launch of the system into Low Earth Orbit (LEO) is NET September 2023. The current date for the first Lunar mission is NET October 2024, although that schedule is entirely risible as NASA does not even have a lunar module in design much less on path to be qualified for flight by that date. There was a thread a number of years ago on this same topic in which I laid out a schedule that would be a minimum of 5 and more like 7-10 years for even a highly directed Lunar landing program. And no, we could not just refurbish Apollo-era hardware and fly it on some kind of “crash mission”, unless you are using that term literally. Of course, we’ve been “on track”, so to speak, for a Lunar landing program since the early days of the W Bush administration with very little to show for it other than cancellations, massive schedule revisions, and the occasional mostly successful test of ancillary and emergency escape systems.
And before someone pipes up with “Elon Musk will do it!”, I’ll point out that while NASA did award SpaceX a contract under the previous presidential administration and Jim Bridenstein’s tenure as NASA Adminstrator, neither “Starship” nor its as-yet unflown carrier rocket are anywhere near the point of even missions to LEO much less for a Lunar mission, nor is “Starship” in any way designed for a Lunar landing on uncompacted regolith, much less refueling and ascent from the Lunar surface, and notwithstanding all of the other issues with assuming the use of a long-way-from-crew-qualified vehicle that has spent more time self-immolating than it has in flight.
Stranger