Yes, timeliness mattered back then.

Nope. Actually, Wernher von Braun thought Earth Orbit Rendezvous would result in lower operational cost compared to Lunar Orbit Rendezvous. Apollo selected LOR not because the designers wished to avoid EOR, but because it was quicker – John Houbolt managed to convince them that LOR was the only way to meet Kennedy’s deadline. That was one example of how the crash-program mentality led to design decisions that would have been made differently if money were more important than time.

The S-IVB third stage, also used as a second stage on the Saturn IB, was manufactured by Douglas Aircraft. It measured 58 feet, 8 inches tall by 21 feet, 8 inches wide. The S-IVB employed one Rocketdyne J-2 engine which could produce a thrust of 200,000 pounds.

A NASA-designed and built Instrument Unit (IU) attached to the top of the S-IVB by special adapter measured 3 feet tall by 21 feet, 8 inches wide. The IU housed equipment which controlled all electronic commands for Saturn V control and guidance during ascent.

In my low cost proposal, a Shuttle would launch the capsule, a.k.a. Command Module, and the Lunar Excursion Module.

The heavy version of a Delta IV would launch our third stage/space tug, which might incorporate the functions of both the Saturn IVB third stage and the Apollo Command Module. This third stage/space tug could accelerate the Apollo capsule and LEM to lunar orbit, then drop its tanks for the return home in the process of departing lunar orbit.

This lunar mission third stage/space tug would be a derivative of a space tug developed to help complete the space station.

Note that NASA’s new space architecture requires Earth orbit rendezvous of two launches per each lunar mission, and that this proposal requires docking the Capsule on Steroids with an L2/O2 “Departure Stage” in order to fly to the Moon.

/////////////////

A NASA-designed and built Instrument Unit (IU) attached to the top of the S-IVB by special adapter measured 3 feet tall by 21 feet, 8 inches wide. The IU housed equipment which controlled all electronic commands for Saturn V control and guidance during ascent.

Nowadays, aside from the Inertial Measurement Unit, one could replace most of that with a cheap PC.

I have been advised that the proposed new architecture requires Earth orbit rendezvous of one Saturn V functional equivalent plus one Saturn IB equivalent — that’s what I call the corndog missile, the one that uses a skinny-looking single solid rocket booster under the larger diameter second and top stages.

The new proposal requires what the Apollo designers wanted to avoid — Earth orbit rendezvous of two launches per each lunar mission.

Just a minor question on your “Shuttle+Apollo CSM+Apollo LM” architecture – where does the S-IVB stage analogue fit?

Experienced at what? Building those no-count External Tanks?

and being able to use existing (and amortized) facilities is such a negative trade

The the cost of designing, building, and testing the two proposed new launch missiles and the Apollo on Steroids (TM) capsule is not yet amortized.

for a limited-budget program in a period of significant pressure on the federal budget…

That’s a good argument for using a different, lower cost architecture for manned lunar missions. Maybe a design requiring one Shuttle launch and one EELV launch to lift one reverse-engineered Apollo set. Launch the Command capsule in a Shuttle’s cargo bay. Save all kinds of $ that way, sidestepping the need to develop a new “man-rated” launch system.

The Shuttle system is fully amortized, innit, with an experienced supporting cast of thousands?
Heck, this alternative architecture would also keep the existing STS team working together longer.

Particularly when the goal is series production.

My lower cost alternative design would allow continued, “series” production of those groovalicious SRB’s, ET’s and SSME’s.

Particularly when the goal is series production.