The biggest problem, it seems, is that everything is designed for on-off use. We need to build RV’s for space (something similar to the Bigelow concept). I prefer to think of them as construction trailers in space, much like the portable offices you see at every construction site - fully self-contained and refillable life support units that can be ganged together when needed. We need orbital tugboats and refueling capabilities. It makes no sense to have to loft a life support cage, fuel, and all the engines and structure every time you need to go somewhere. Simpler to just loft the supplies for existing devices still in orbit. I also imagine given the right satellite design, tugs would eventually pay for themselves allowing robotic and human repairs or enhancements to be done to the critical geostationary satellites.
Which would bring us back to what we see discussed above. What would be the practical fuel type and mode for craft intended to sit in orbit for years and be refueled regularly? The lander would simply be a variant of that craft - plenty of redundant systems with no immediate help around, engines able to stop and restart, use the same fuel as the orbital tugs but unlike the orbital tugs it would need legs, and unlike the Apollo lander, it would not leave half of its body behind on the moon. Also, capable of autonomous flight for both testing and to deploy unmanned cargo.
The whole problem with spaceflight is that up to now the throw-away mentality has dominated. We need to look at space equipment as reusable in the long term, considering what it takes to get it up there.
Others here know far more than I about this subject, but in principle I think everyone would agree with you. The problem is that such developments are potentially “bridge to nowhere” infrastructure. An orbital tug was planned during the early stages of the space station but without anything to tug around it was dropped. Orbital refueling seems like a no-brainer but no one has ever done it. The technology needs to be developed-and right now it isn’t needed. Everything we send into space carries enough fuel to do it’s job. A classic chicken and egg kind of problem. Until NASA funds (and they are the only entity that can possibly afford to fund it) the development of in orbit refueling, no one can build a ship that relies on the idea. And NASA has proposed exactly that kind of program in the past. But since no existing mission or ship needs the capability, well Congress hasn’t funded it.
FYI, nothing I’ve found implies there’s any desire to actually land on the moon in the near future. Everything I’ve found is about setting up the Lunar Orbit Platform- Gateway, and then using that as a base to launch a Mars mission from.
The Blue Origin proposal actually represents the conventional approach, using a three part lander, ascent module, and transfer module as outlined in the early Artemis program plans. It’s part of a consortium formed with Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman.
I have to admit I haven’t heard anything about the Dynetics lander before now. It sounds like there’s a single lander and crew module that will use some sort of swappable drop tank system to refuel before descent.
The big surprise is SpaceX. They’re going to develop a Starship variant optimized for trips between LEO and the Moon’s surface - the most notable changes seem to be a lack of aerodynamic fins and thermal protection for Earth re-entry, and a set of top-mounted landing thrusters. It seems like it could bypass the Lunar Gateway completely, but could still dock with it or Orion if that’s what NASA wants. I have to admit I kind of want to see that just for the absurdity alone…