It seems the Stick/CLV/Ares I was not the first incarnation of a Shuttle SRB-derived launch vehicle:
Candidate boosters were the Titan T-34D, a hybrid Atlas Centaur G, and the NASA SRB-X/Centaur. The SRB-X was only in the conceptual stage, and it appeared that readiness for the required first launch by 1988 was not possible. Modifications to the two other candidates are also necessary, however, to meet the GEO capabilities, while the SRB-X is designed to make maximum use of existing launch preparation facilities used for the Shuttle.
The idea just keeps coming back around…like a bad penny.
Of course, the same could be said about the CaLV/Ares-V, in that there are about as many “Shuttle-derived heavy lift launch vehicle” concepts as there are tiles on an orbiter.
I agree about the awfulness that is the Ares I. But the Ares V isn’t too terrible, since an HLV is a nice thing to have, though I do think there are better ways to spend the money.
For one thing Ares V development would be cheaper if NASA stuck with using existing engines and structure as much as possible. So ditch the 10m tank and use an ET diameter tank, even though maybe only four RS-68 would fit instead of five. Ditch the 5 segment SRB and only use the existing 4 segment SRB. And ditch the J-2X and use a cluster of RL-10b instead on the upper stage. Even if such a HLV design could not reach the holy-grail payload of 100 tonnes to LEO, the reduced development cost would more than make up for it.
The real benefit of any HLV is the placement of the heavy load of propellant neccessary for a chemical-rocket Earth Departure Stage. Rather than spend development money on an HLV, in a more ideal world the money would be spent on a non-chemical-rocket propulsion system instead. My favorite candidate is the dual-propulsion-mode NTR/NEP hybrid.