You just pitched the case for Ares I. Of course, that ended with a launcher which was incapable of lifting the Orion Capsule, or anything else.

The name Ares V pre-dates Constellation, actually. It was attached to the ESAS study, which produced the Ares V, and of which this rocket is a carry-over from. Ares I was added later on in the program. This may well be called Ares, who knows. This is not a new design, it is something NASA's kicked around, in one guise or another, since the 1970's.

The RS-68 is not capable of being used in manned flight. It lacks the safety features to tell the flight control computer "Oh shit, we're about to blow up!" If the computer doesn't know soon enough, one accident and your astronauts are deep fried spacemen.

In addition, NASA had a program for throwaway SSME's in the late 1980's/early 1990's. The technology for doing that is still there. They would ressurect this plan, removing the reusability from the SSME entirely. Makes them almost as cheap as the RS-68, and are far more capable. Less thrust, more isp. And once out of the atmosphere, isp is king.

Not true, there are two other systems which can match, or surpass, Ares V:

Energia Vulkan, a 200 metric tonne version of their Energia rocket.
Atlas V Phase III, which is fundimentally a US version of the Energia.

The Russians had a better solution than the SRB's, LRB's. I refer, of course, to the Energia Vulkan. It is an Energia rocket, the one they used for their shuttle, the Buran, but with 8 Zenit boosters, rather than just 4. It could deliver almost 200 metric tonnes to orbit.

If you use LRB's, the weight savings and flexibility would enable you to make a scalable solution. Energia, for instance, could scale from 20 metric tonnes to the gigantic 200 metric tonnes, all using the same parts. Even the LRB's are used as standalone launchers by Sea Launch. Our Atlas V and Taurus II rockets both use elements borrowed from the Energia system.

Here are pictures and information about the Energia configurations:

http://www.k26.com/buran/html/energia_variants.html

Not quite. Ares I's shortcomings and ultimate failure had forced Ares V to carry more and more of the load for the mission. This required re-designing it, again, and again, pushing it upwards and onwards, new first stage engines, then new SRB's, then new upper stage engine, then new tank, than new first stage engines....

Being able to kill Ares I, they could return Ares V back to the original, much more affordable version. This is the original Ares V, before Ares I's issues began to mess with it.

Thiokol is now part of ATK, and Constellation was their baby. They destroyed the Shuttle SRB tools before requirement in order to push the Ares one forward. Unfortunately, ATK has Senator Orrin Hatch in their pocket, and he's a stubborn old mule.

There are designs which do away with the SRB, I'm helping out with one myself, but the political lobbying power of ATK is insane. Their SRB production line is a full 0.5% of Utah's GDP, and Senator Hatch is not one to let that go. With the ICBM's gone, they would loose their large segmented solid business entirely. Aerojet, the other SRB maker, saw this coming in the 1960's, and migrated everything to non-segmented solids (they also have the record for the worlds most powerful engine, a solid rocket engine called the AJ-260-2 if you ever want to look that up). There are still solid motors, but nobody else in the US uses, or makes, large segmented solids. Only France also makes large segmented solids, for their Ariene V launcher and their own ICBM's are rumored to use the technology, but nothing is known for certain. And the Ariene is due to have those removed for the Ariene VI and replaced with flyback, liquid boosters.

Falcon 9 can't carry Orion. Too heavy.

Delta IV Heavy can carry Orion, but we're back to the no man-rating for the rocket. In addition to the engine, ULA lists 18 other major changes needed to bring the rocket up to safety standards.

The proposed Atlas V Heavy could do it as well, and it is already man-rated. But it uses a Russian engine, so a political non-starter unless you start domestic production.

A lot of the complexity is, however, due to the need for reuse. For example, the nozzle of the shuttle is made out of individualized tubes formed into shape. This way they could be repaired after flight. This is also useless for an engine which is being thrown out. Swapping this out with a channel-wall nozzle saves money right off the bat. And this is just one of a few dozen steps that could be taken. NASA has already explored the options needed and is prepared for the throw-away SSME.

That actually is what say said, with one additional piece, that they should use Shuttle or Ares components when practicable.

The issue are those huge Solids. They're expensive, as nothing else uses that technology anymore. When the Shuttle was built, our ICBM program used the same technology. Now, we don't build ICBM's, so they are a heavy weight crippling the costs on the whole program.

What they've done is return Ares V to it's original proposal. Constellation was the pairing of Ares I with Ares V. You had to cancel Constellation in order to save Ares V.

The reason for the changes to Ares V are due to the issues of Ares I. If Griffin hadn't forced Ares I down NASA's throat, Ares V would be on schedule.

Your numbers are quite off. Once you get the RS-68 able to fly people, the cost is closer to $40 million. The reason why is the RS-68 is a stripped down, balls to the wall engine. This necessitated the removal of any kind of man-rating potential in the design. Also, the SSME currently have elements which are there for re-use. Rocketdyne says that, for less than the cost to man-rate the RS-68, it can eliminate those pieces, reducing the cost of the SSME to $35 mil each.

No, it doesn't, and no, it isn't. The RS-68B has cooling wraps, correct, but it is not that cheap. The RS-68B is estimated at $26 mil each. In addition, it was never intended for man-rating either, so a further redesign is required, with the final "RS-68R" as it's called coming in at $35 mil each.

The SSME, mind you, comes in at $35 mil each after you remove the reusability from it. And it is a better performing engine.

The RS-68 cannot be used on a manned vehicle, simply put. There are no other LH2 main engines which they can use, simple as that. As the RS-25 (SSME) is not that expensive an engine, if you don't bother adding the systems to enable reuse. NASA already researched this back in the 1990's for the NLS program. The changes needed would bring the cost of the RS-25e to less than $5m more than the RS-68, and the SSME is far more capable an engine.

The majority of the cost is, indeed, due to the reusable nature. People assume that SSME's in such a vehicle would retain such things as being able to disassemble the turbopump after the flight, and being able to replace invidivual nozzle hoses in between flights.

They ignore that NASA's already put down the RS-25e. E is for Expendible. They simply don't add the ability to reuse the engine, cuts the production cost down, dramatically.