Why, NASA?!

[Kryten]

  We also would have trouble reproducing parts even with the plans, because back then there were a lot of little production tweaks that weren't in the plans, just in the worker's heads. 

This was still the case in russia quite recently, and it caused the failure of the soyuz-fregat with a galileo a little while back. The plans for fregat are ambiguous; the main helium line could be interpreted as being in two different positions. One position would put it too close to the fuel line, freezing the fuel, and the workers knew to always use the second position. Then the workers who knew this retired, new people came in, started working from the plans only, and the rest is history.

[RCgothic]

1 hour ago, adsii1970 said:

Because not only for all the reasons above, (consider the posts of @Bill Phil, @captainb, and others) but the Orion space vehicle is a lot heavier than the Apollo command module and lunar excursion module (LEM). It's larger, can carry a significantly increased crew and cargo, and is ultimately designed to get humankind to Mars in the long term. For these reasons, the Saturn V would not even be able to meet mission expectations.

Orion isn't designed to go to Mars. It has nowhere near the required habitable volume for that duration. Neither is SLS - it can't loft nearly enough propellant for a crewed mission to mars and the hydrogen upper stage doesn't have the endurance for on-orbit assembly at the proposed launch cadence.

Nasa does not yet have a serious plan to get there and the hardware required is currently all vapourware.

[adsii1970]

@RCgothic You're partially right; the Orion crew module is being designed as a transfer vehicle, at least according to the NASA tour I did last week with my daughter at both the Stennis Space Center and Huntsville NASA Center. My 6 year old asked the same question in both places... 

[Bill Phil]

3 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

Yes, humankind and for the following reasons:

1. The SLS is designed to be used by humans, not chimpanzees, Vulcans or even Cylons. Therefore, humankind is correct!
2. To use the term, "mankind" isn't "politically correct," even though it has been understood for nearly 300 years that "mankind" refers to BOTH genders. But because it has "man" in the title, in our current century and mindset, all that can be focused on is the term, "man." Therefore, humankind is correct.

So, in short, humankind is correct in referring to something made on Earth by and for the use by humans.

Humankind still has "man" in it...

On topic:

They stopped building saturns in 1968. That's almost 50 years ago.

[adsii1970]

1 minute ago, Bill Phil said:

Humankind still has "man" in it...

On topic:

They stopped building saturns in 1968. That's almost 50 years ago.

Yes, you're right. That is why some segments of the American population now use the term, humyn. That way it is truly gender ambiguous. Personally, I think it is stupid...

On topic: Yes, and what parts were left either became museum exhibits OR became a part of Skylab.

[RCgothic]

1 hour ago, adsii1970 said:

@RCgothic You're partially right; the Orion crew module is being designed as a transfer vehicle, at least according to the NASA tour I did last week with my daughter at both the Stennis Space Center and Huntsville NASA Center. My 6 year old asked the same question in both places... 

Still doesn't make sense. Orion is massively over engineered for trips to LEO which for the foreseeable is the most sensible place to assemble the mars mothership. It's rated for lunar returns. In that respect it's well suited for DSG, but DSG is just make-work. DSG isn't a sensible assembly location because it takes more propellant to send assembly materials to DSG and then to mars than it does to just send straight to mars from LEO. There are still no serious plans to revisit the lunar surface.

As far as Martian returns go, the Orion is a heavy piece of hardware you don't want to take with you. On return the mothership is expensive enough that you're going to brake it into LEO rather than lose it and re-enter direct from Mars in an Orion whilst losing the rest of the ship.

Edited June 28, 2017 by RCgothic

[adsii1970]

7 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

Still doesn't make sense. Orion is massively over engineered for trips to LEO which for the foreseeable is the most sensible place to assemble the mars mothership. It's rated for lunar returns. In that respect it's well suited for DSG, but DSG is just make-work. DSG isn't a sensible assembly location because it takes more propellant to send assembly materials to DSG and then to mars than it does to just send straight to mars from LEO. There are still no serious plans to revisit the lunar surface.

As far as Martian returns go, the Orion is a heavy piece of hardware you don't want to take with you. On return the mothership is expensive enough that you're going to brake it into LEO rather than lose it and re-enter direct from Mars in an Orion whilst losing the rest of the ship.

I'm not disagreeing with you; just telling you what NASA is saying. I believe they've tried to sell the Orion craft as a multi-role vehicle in order to gain additional funding. But in the end, remember, the STS system underwent seven major design changes from 1957 (initial concept introduction) until the 1970s, when the STS Enterprise entered glide tests.  I imagine it will be the same with the Orion. Maybe we'll see an ORION II as a Martian vehicle or something.

[_Augustus_]

45 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

Still doesn't make sense. Orion is massively over engineered for trips to LEO which for the foreseeable is the most sensible place to assemble the mars mothership. It's rated for lunar returns. In that respect it's well suited for DSG, but DSG is just make-work. DSG isn't a sensible assembly location because it takes more propellant to send assembly materials to DSG and then to mars than it does to just send straight to mars from LEO. There are still no serious plans to revisit the lunar surface.

As far as Martian returns go, the Orion is a heavy piece of hardware you don't want to take with you. On return the mothership is expensive enough that you're going to brake it into LEO rather than lose it and re-enter direct from Mars in an Orion whilst losing the rest of the ship.

Orion was originally designed in the mid 2000s for lunar surface missions back before Commercial Crew was a thing. It's actually more useless than SLS.

[Dman979]

Locked at OP request.