Ed Kyle has a new lunar architecture proposal (or rather, a variant on an old NASA lunar architecture proposal). It's an improvement on ESAS (a low bar, of course), but it would still be horrendously expensive, and in the long run, neither affordable or sustainable.

[Update]

Sorry, link is fixed now.

Link doesn't work, but I found the plan anyway.

Key parts are a redesign of the lunar mission architecture (using an existing NASA design from the 90's) to lower the maximum payload needed to 90 tons. One rocket instead of two (manned missions to the ISS handled by Soyuz after Shuttle phased out). It uses lots of RS-68 engines (optionally RD-180's). Somewhat higher launch frequency (about double) than the Ares 5.

Got to agree with Rand, it's better, but no one will use those rockets for anything else.

He and Henry have it close to right, but I'm looking forward to using something else:

Two BFRs, baby. Let's hope the new guys steal BoMart's lunch money.

Musk said the Falcon 9 Heavy with a cryo upper could loft 50 tons.

Standard Falcon 9 with Cryo upper for CEV perhaps. Falcon 9 Heavy cryo for the LSAM. Another with a partially fulled EDS and another with top off propellants for the EDS.

Possible four launch solution for delivering the proposed CLV and LSAM to Luna.

I still prefer a Saturn V class for first choice, the above is just a fallback.

Once Hill is in office, this is all moot anyway.

Actually, maybe BLoMart aren't the main motivators here. Maybe Marshall is... anything that doesn't send a big ol' plate of pork down to Alabama, or that threatens pork already being served up, seems to bring down Sen. Shelby's wrath, as demonstrated by MSFC's grab of RLEP management (under which their rover was grossly over budget) and termination of the Moon microlanders from Ames.

"Once Hill is in office, this is all moot anyway."

Hillary has expressed strong support for the VSE, and (unlike Bush) would probably be willing to fully fund its mandates. I'd be more worried if some ignorant country bumpkin got the Republican nomination, because people like that tend to be less willing to fund large civilian programs.

"Key parts are a redesign of the lunar mission architecture (using an existing NASA design from the 90's) to lower the maximum payload needed to 90 tons."

Why not lower it to 70 tonnes and just build Atlas Phase 2?

BS: "I'd be more worried if some ignorant country bumpkin got the Republican nomination,"

I don't think Sen Byrd has a chance at getting the Republican nomination.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the HLV is being designed for usability in short stay lunar missions, extended stay (or permanent presence) lunar missions, and Mars missions. While 90 tonnes per lift vehicle seems to be sufficient for a short stay lunar mission, is that also sufficient for extended lunar stays and Mars missions? Doesn't it make sense to build a ship that is extensible for all three? Isn't that the reason that NASA requires a heavy lift vehicle? Isn't the ESAS architecture supposed to be a baseline for all three projects?

Someone please set me straight on this.

You're right kayawanee, but don't expect many here to agree with you.

"I don't think Sen Byrd has a chance at getting the Republican nomination."

Of course not, he actually left the Klan.

Are you sure about that BS?

Well,

He shows many signs of onset Dementia so he should be an automatic moonbat favorite for President in 08.

"While 90 tonnes per lift vehicle seems to be sufficient for a short stay lunar mission, is that also sufficient for extended lunar stays and Mars missions?"

I'm not really convinced that even 125 tonnes is going to be sufficient for extended Mars stays with useful scientific payloads. What we really need is a multi kiloton Sea Dragon type vehicle.

No! I have it! Enough with these rockets, let's just move the Earth over to the moon!

The ultimate heavy lift vehicle!