This is an interesting concept, but I think that it would be a tough sell politically, partially because of the false lessons learned from ISS:

The notional mission design that Farquhar presented is based on what he calls the “Deep Space Shuttle”, which is similar to Orion but features a reusable service module that would aerobrake into Earth orbit at the end of the mission. The vehicle would also have “drop tanks” carrying the propellant needed to send the spacecraft to SEL2 and back; as the name suggests, the tanks would be jettisoned after use. A 35-day round-trip mission to SEL2, including five days at the libration point to carry out telescope servicing, could be carried out with a total delta-v only marginally higher than a round-trip mission into lunar orbit.

...One disadvantage of this proposed architecture is that rather than going to a universally-known destination like the Moon or Mars, it involves, at least initially, going to quite literally an empty location in space, a concept that may be a little too abstract and difficult to grasp for the general public or politicians. As one person noted in a Q&A session after the talk, “once you’re there, there’s nothing to plant a flag in.”

I don't think that Farquhar endeared himself to the administrator with this comment, either, even (maybe especially) if it's true:

“There’s a tremendous performance advantage doing it this way,” he said. “I did talk to [NASA administrator] Mike Griffin about this once, and I think it went over his head.”

NewSpace should be hesitant to embrace Farquhar.

He calls the Moon a cul-de-sac:

Farquhar added that the expense involved with going back to the Moon could prevent missions to Mars or elsewhere in the solar system for decades. “I think that if we get stuck on the cul-de-sac of going to the Moon, I don’t see us going anywhere else for the next 75 to 100 years, because that’s such a huge program,” he said. His alternative, he said, “is not going to be cheap, but it’s a lot cheaper than what they’re talking about as far as the lunar program is concerned” because a lot less hardware is involved.

and his proposals assume the Ares 1 and Orion spacecraft:

With that initial destination and purpose in mind, Farquhar described how an alternative human space exploration program might operate. The IAA study assumes the existence of two key components of NASA’s current program, the Ares 1 launch vehicle and the Orion spacecraft. “We’re starting with those pieces of hardware and saying, ‘Well, what else can we do with them?’” he said.

However, if NASA moved to Ross Tierney's Direct architecture, then it might be possible to do both a lunar program and SEL-2 missions at the same time.

And if we develop refueling infrastucture and methods, we can almost do all of the above for the same price as building NASA's new toys.

Big D -

On orbit refueling is a useful skill yet what do you propose to re-fuel?

A re-useable lunar lander re-fueled at an L point is a terrific idea (especially combined with lunar LOX ISRU) however full tanks of fuel for that lunar lander can be shipped to that L point and swapped in without the need cryogenic fuel transfer. If the lander uses an RL-10 variant, instead of swapping only fuel tanks, swap in an entire Centaur-like stage, fuel and engine in one package.

A re-useable LEO to Luna shuttle? How do you propose to return to a stable Earth orbit? Propulsive braking costs fuel and aerobraking requires a reliable heat shield.

Pure dry-launch? Might be easier to simply mate a fuel-less crew capsule with a fully fueled Centaur stage, with the filled fuel tank and RL-10 launched as a single package.

On-orbit fuel depots are a terrific idea yet hardly seem the "silver bullet" that solves everything.

= = =

Lunar LOX ISRU strikes me as the best near term leverage point -- not that we cannot do several things at once.

Orbital refuelling decouples the payload size from the launcher size and enables one to use any launcher of any size, whatever is cheapest. (Except for the dry launch.) It even avoids timing issues as you can top off boiled propellant.

That makes it very flexible and futureproof and encourages developing new, cheaper and more reliable rockets. Even reusables, if they are cost effective.
It potentially takes a huge stone from NASA's back, as NASA wouldn't need to maintain it's own launcher fleet anymore.

I heard today from a source at GSFC that the James Webb Telescope is getting a grapple fixture.

Somewhere to go, something to do at EML-2.

Dennis

"On orbit refueling is a useful skill yet what do you propose to re-fuel?"

As long as you're going somewhere where there are no in-situ resources to produce fuel with, you've got no, repeat NO advantage in terms of the amount of mass you have to put into space to get something somewhere.

Orbital refueling is the same whether it takes place next to a space-station or in the middle of nowhere. You still have to launch all your fuel from Earth. Constructing a fuel-factory base on the moon, on the other hand, means that you only have to get the payload in an agreeable orbit for the booster rockets/tanks to be launched to it from the moon.

I believe that Webb is at ESL2, not EML2, Dennis.

I like Bill White's RL-10 variant swap idea but am wondering where the LH2 would come from -- my (possibly incorrect) understanding is that LH2 can only be stored for a few hours. LEO to EML1 is at least a couple of days.

And yes, JWST is at ESL2, 1.5 million km antisunward. That's interesting about the grapple, to say the least ...

...my (possibly incorrect) understanding is that LH2 can only be stored for a few hours.

You can store it as long as you want to. It's just a trade against weight for insulation and/or refrigeration.

Mars will be a useless stunt, the same as Apollo was, if it's done the way NASA seems to want.

Mining Moonbase, manufacturing in cislunar space somewhere (maybe L5) with materials launched from the Moon by electromagnetic catapult, start corraling asteroids (particularly ones with lots of water and organics) and go to Mars when we're good and ready - that's the way to go.

On the way to this, we'll get enormous amounts of power at no marginal cost and a lot of raw materials. Space becomes a resource and money source rather than a sink.

It won't happen that way of course - partly because the expressed purpose of NASA would disappear, and the ultimate end of the process involves the end of America's hegemony. (When there are a trillion people scattered all over the Solar System from the orbit of Mercury to the ice giants, who's even going to listen to a few hundred million Americans?)

Of course, we all know that the real purpose of NASA is to give jobs to bureaucrats and buy votes - just like any other government organisation, in any country.

The universal language of the Solar System will probably be Chinese.

Now, if Bill Gates or Warren Buffett had spent their money on this instead of on enriching Third World dictators, then we might have got somewhere.