One of the key trades made in the Apollo program was the decision of where to do a rendezvous in preparation for the lunar surface mission. Many credit the decision to do it in earth orbit as a key contributor toward achieving the goal of doing it by the end of the decade. But the quickest way to get the job done wasn't necessarily the best. It looks like NASA is now considering one of the other options originally considered--a lunar orbit rendezvous. And it may be that the Ares IV vehicle described will eliminate the need for the Ares V. This is a step in the right direction, but still much more expensive than it need be, and offering much too little for the money.

[Update in the afternoon]

D'oh!

As is pointed out in comments, in fact lunar orbit rendezvous was the method chosen in Apollo. I was thinking of the reconfiguration in LEO prior to lunar injection, but that didn't involve rendezvous.

I believe Flight ("In the Apollo programme the crew and service module spacecraft docked with the lunar module in Earth orbit.") is somewhere between expressing itself poorly or incorrect, as the Apollo lunar flights didn't do that. The transposition & docking maneuver occurred after TLI (which is technically "in Earth orbit" but definitely not in LEO), and the critical CSM/SM docking occurred in lunar orbit; NASA called the mission architecture "LOR".

EOR was Von Braun's original multiple-launch mission concept, and the Ares I+Ares V lunar mission architecture looks like that.

I guess we need to start talking about "single-launch LOR" (Apollo and Ares IV) or "multiple-launch LOR" (Ares V/Artemis+Ares V/Orion)...

Wouldn't developing the capability to do EOR-based missions be more versatile than recreating the Apollo capability, which is widely regarded as a dead end?

Make that "CSM-LM docking", sorry.

>>Wouldn't developing the capability to do EOR-based missions be more versatile than recreating the Apollo capability, which is widely regarded as a dead end?

If you are talking about flexible, economical, robust beyond LEO transportation infrastructure, then yes, RV at LEO makes a lot of sense. Especially with dry launch and refuelling on LEO.

But once again, this is not the goal for NASA.

NASAs goal is to land men on the moon in the next decade, while keeping the current shuttle workforce on payroll, under fixed budget. These constraints yield different optimal solutions.

.

some interesting informations about the NEW Ares IV:

NASA new "AresIV" [ http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2007/01/02/Navigation/177/211318/NASA+quietly+sets+up+budget+for+Ares+IV+lunar+crew+launch+vehicle+with+2017+test+flight.html ] ...aka (April 12, 2006) "SLV" [ http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/004.html ] ...aka (May 12, 2006) "FAST-SLV" [ http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/005_SLVnow.html ] ...aka (May 21, 2006) "SuperSLV" [ http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/006_superSLV.html ] ...aka (May 27, 2006) "ArianeX" [ http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/007arianeX.html ]

and, without the LSAM, it (absolutely) NEEDS the (September 18, 2006) "SwissKnife Orion" [ http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/014swissCEV.html ] to work (while, despite the F.I. article drawing, it DOESN'T NEED the 5-segments SRBs)

another ghostNASA "decision" that may come true...

also, the NASA "new" strategy uses the "Multiple Launches Architecture" (MLA) I've suggested in my (May 27, 2006) ArianeX article [ http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/007arianeX.html ] ...multiple launches of the same rocket with Capsule/Lander rendezvous/docking in lunar orbit (instead of earth orbit, to avoid the risk of many missions' fails due to a "sum-of-delays") ... or (maybe...) to a (small) Lunar Space Station as suggested in my (June 5, 2006) article [ http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/009_LSS.html ]

not forgotten the SLV-like proposals seen (only) in July 2006 (Stumpy) and (only) in August 2006 (Direct)

if NASA will build the Ares-IV for moon missions, will be no need for an orbital version (nor a smaller rocket) to launch the Orion, since, for ISS and orbital missions, will be (or may be) available...

for crew: Soyuz, Digital-Soyuz, Shenzhou, ACTS, COTS and (maybe) a SAFER Space Shuttle [ http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/015safeShuttle.html ] and/or an Orion-light (the standard Orion with less propellent) launched with a man-rated Ariane5 [ http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/010arianecev.html ] or Delta IV Heavy

for cargo: Progress, ATV, COTS, cargo-ACTS (?), H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV) and (maybe) a CREWLESS Space Shuttle [ http://www.gaetanomarano.it/spaceShuttle/spaceshuttle.html ]

.

"Many credit the decision to do it in earth orbit as a key contributor toward achieving the goal of doing it by the end of the decade."

Huh? The method that NASA picked was "Lunar Orbit Rendezvous" for a reason. They never did any rendezvousing in Earth orbit.

And I'm not sure that the Flight article actually has a point. They're playing this up as an "exclusive" when there seems to be no indication that NASA is actually considering choosing the Ares IV approach.

Rand, you may wish to consider adding this guy to your blogroll, even if he is bl0gspot. Romance to Reality had been popular with many:

http://altairvi.bl0gspot.com/2006/12/whither-romance-to-reality.html

Anyway, Portree also writes about the LaGrangian underground and how the L points may be superior to either LOR or EOR:

A trip to EML1 generally needs more propellant than the Apollo-type lunar orbit rendezvous mission described in the ESAS report, NASA's publicly released blueprint for lunar exploration. Spacecraft bound for EML2, on the other hand, "slingshot" past the moon, which trims the amount of propellant they need to expend. In fact, a mission to EML2 can use significantly less propellant than the ESAS lunar orbit rendezvous mission. In addition, the EML2 outpost could serve as a radio relay for lunar Farside expeditions. A trip from Earth to EML2 typically lasts a few days longer than a trip to EML1 or lunar orbit.

http://altairvi.bl0gspot.com/2006/12/beyond-lagrangia.html

and this

http://altairvi.bl0gspot.com/2006/12/lagrange-underground-and-runaway-bride.html

The throw weight on this thing looks suspiciously similar to that of the Atlas V Phase 1, but for more than ten times the development, annual fixed, and marginal cost.

I gave up trying to post because of the filter. It claimed 'active' and 'com' were prohibited content, and those words weren't even present in my attempted post.