The old Shuttle-C is indeed a real way out of the Ares mess. I'd go one step further, and continue to develop a beefy six-man Orion CEV - but launch it, LES system and all, upon the Shuttle-C too! After launch Orion would do an Apollo style transposition and docking with an ATV-derived node at the tip of the cargo module and take over command of the whole vehicle. A couple of OMS firings later and the whole stack is on a heading to the ISS for docking, either with an ATV-style system direct to an ISS node (with the Orion docking elsewhere) or with a secondary port on the Orion/Cargo Module stack. At EOM the cargo system is simply de-orbited on initial missions, but as time goes on the propulsion pod is recovered.

Safety for the crew, a decent sized Orion, 'man in the loop' cargo delivery if required, ESA involvement and a queue of experimenters willing to do some real work aboard the ISS.

Bob Shaw

The Shuttle-C concept was a great idea then, and it's good idea now.

It would be great though if someone could explain why it was blatantly ignored!

I think the whole VSE mess is going to go straight down the drain, along with alot of its sub-programs, when Bush leaves office. As essentially an unfunded mandate, I can't say this is a bad thing...

The reason the original Shuttle C was not built was that the astronauts wanted to keep flying the Shuttle as much as possible. The Shuttle C would have flown up far more ISS components than the Shuttle could have. The original long modules could have flown as well. Instead of doing that NASA blew almost two billion dollars on an ASRM plant in Mississippi that was as much as the Shuttle C would have cost to develop. Then because the Shuttle could not lift even the short modules and Jamie Whitten was gone, the ASRM's were tanked and they built the new Aluminum Lithium tanks.