Like the container ship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maersk_Triple_E_class
and the jumbo jet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380

Space is of course quite different. Though space analogies using nautical and aviation precedents are common, they are almost without fail very bad analogies. Space is not an ocean and spacecraft are not airliners. It does help matters that what actually worked for lunar travel is now considered “old space” and no longer relevant. That is the big lie.

Actually “NewSpace” is fast becoming irrelevant.

What is needed is something lifting in the neighborhood of 400 tons into LEO. Before the scorn and mocking begin, it should be understood such vehicles were considered no big technical challenge a half a century ago.

http://www.astronautix.com/s/saturnv4-260.html

Launching 8 to 10 such vehicles per year for the next 30 years is not so great a leap from launching the shuttle for the last 30. This is what it takes to enable a state-sponsored lunar return program constructing true spaceships on the Moon propelled by nuclear energy and shielded with thousands of tons of water.

We have the money- a new 100 billion dollar stealth bomber program, 350 billion dollar missile submarine program, and most amazingly of all, 1.5 trillion over the next half a century to support a fleet of single engine fighter planes (the F-35). Norm Augustine could explain exactly why these cold war toys are being built but space exploration is virtually verboten.

I will give you the short explanation: spaceships have to work.

“multiple paths to LEO will be available for differing needs”

Yep.

And It could be useful to have various versions of the Stick which might encourage more first stage builders around the world to have the performance enhancing options of various solid rocket boosters.

See:

Orbital ATK, CRS-2, and the return of “The Stick”
by Jeffrey Smith November 7, 2016
At: http://thespacereview.com/article/3097/1

Not sure what the full mining and other implications are, but found this interesting:

“A team of researchers affiliated with several institutions in Japan, examining data from that country’s moon-orbiting Kaguya spacecraft, has found evidence of oxygen from Earth’s atmosphere making its way to the surface of the moon for a few days every month.

From: ‘Moon found to be periodically showered with oxygen ions from Earth’
By Bob Yirka January 31, 2017
At: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-moon-periodically-showered-oxygen-ions.html

But I think its time to stop foolin’ around a start deploying LOX/LH2 propellant depots derived from rocket upper stages (Centaur, SLS-EUS, and the future ACES 68) using the ULA’s emerging IVF technology. I’d retain the rocket engines and thrusters to allow such depots the ability to maneuver and to deploy themselves into a variety of orbits. Congress should make this one of NASA’s top priorities, IMO!

I’d also like to see water stored at such depots and even manufactured into propellant. Large Orbital ATK type of solar arrays exceeding 500 KWe could easily be deployed almost anywhere within cis-lunar space with current commercial vehicles. Even in Earth orbit, that would be enough power to produce more than 500 tonnes of LOX/LH2 propellant annually. Orbiting water depots could dock at the space solar power plants when converting water into propellant and then move behind orbiting sunshades to reduce boiloff.

A propellant manufacturing water depot derived from the SLS EUS could store up to 125 tonnes of LOX/LH2 propellant plus perhaps 200 tonnes of water. Water could be supplied to depots at LEO and EML1 by commercial launch vehicles until lunar water becomes available.

Cryogenic propellant production depot for low Earth orbit

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20010039031.pdf

They replied something like – “That I always overestimated what I could accomplish in 5 years and underestimated what would be accomplished, even if in spite of me, in 30 years.”

That has not been the case in Aerospace development recently (to put it mildly), hopefully we are overdue.

This is what I like about ULA. They present visions based on practical needs.

I think the idea ought to become NASA’s official plan, as well. Far better than the non-starter of Journey to Mars.

I am skeptical about the time frame. To be conservative, I’d say it may be closer to 60 years for 1000 people to work in space.
I’d like to be proven wrong on that one.

launch was specifically excluded from consideration (it was assumed that multiple paths to LEO will be available for differing needs)

So the lack of consideration of “heavy lift” was deliberate.

Now you’ve had your say and all know what you think. Enough.

The reality is even Saturn V was under-powered for lunar missions and used only because LOR (Lunar Orbit Rendezvous) made it mission capable. At 130 metric tons the evolved SLS is the lower range for an appropriate launcher while using inappropriate solid fuel boosters. What is needed is yet another iteration with pressure-fed ocean recovered boosters and possibly some form of recoverable core engine package. And of course a wet workshop to send to the Moon. I give ULA credit for the IFV concept but it is certainly not a “game changer” and their proposal to transfer liquid hydrogen is…not believable. That stuff really is a problem in space and in my view it is more likely methane is going to be the propellant derived from lunar ice and trapped volatiles.

ULA is not proposing any kind of SHLV “architecture” so I am not taking them seriously and I don’t think space advocates should expect any progress in Human Space Flight as a result of their efforts- though their stuff certainly looks good for launching satellites.

(1) Human vs. Robotic.
(2) Commercial vs. Government.
(3) Exploration vs. Settlement vs. Applications.

Etc. only serve the purposes of politicians who want to manipulate all of those advocates to the detriment of all their interests.

An approach (using Lunar Resources/Cis-Lunar Space Development – the most practical starting point) serving all those goals (and probably many others) is a winning approach for all space advocates.

Actually, they are talking about exactly that — people and machines in cislunar. Here is a brief on the overall architecture that ULA is proposing.