During the Apollo era, every time the goal was the Moon, the stack waited for one and a half orbit before igniting the SIVB engine for Trans Lunar Injection. The time in LEO for check up never resulted in cancelling the trip and yet, Apollo 13 didn't make it to the Moon. They simply couldn't check the upcoming problem.

When the Shuttle (in LEO) released satellites, the astronauts checked lots of systems but never left (maybe one tiny satellite exception) the satellite in its cradle.
Yet, the HST had a flawed mirror, the Palapa B2 , the Westar 6 , the Syncom 4 B satellites couldn't reach their intended orbits. All those failures were later repaired with other shuttle flights. None of the failures were spottable before release.

This is why I'm wondering about a rocket not meant for LEO, but directly for TLI!!!
The Ariane rockets had a third stage that took satellites directly to Geostationnary Transfer Orbit, rather than LEO.
From 0 km/h to 39,000 km/h (and not 28,000 km/h) or 11km/s instead of 8km/s. And releasing a 28 to 35 tonnes spacecraft aimed for the Moon surface rather than Moon Orbit.
True, for LEO, 1 ton in LEO meant 9 tons of fuel. And it's going to be much worse for TLI, but it would depend on the frequency of flights to the Moon. And such a rocket can be used to send humans to Mars, later on.

I wonder what kind of CEV will be produced, if it's going to be aimed directly at the moon or require another spacecraft from Moon orbit to the Moon ground. There's no need to have a heatshield on the Moon, but multiplying rendez-vous
operations, would that be reliable?

Raoul