NASA reveals that the second flight of SLS in 20210 might not be manned.

My annual birthday-month fund-raising drive for Behind the Black is now on-going. Not only do your donations help pay my bills, they give me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.


Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.


Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:

If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652


You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.

Pigs in space: NASA reveals that the second flight of SLS in 20210 might not be manned.

This project officially started in 2010, which means this second flight will come more than a decade later. They will have spent more than $20 billion by that time, not counting the money spent on Orion. They will have also spent billions developing one engine for the upper stage, only to shelve it to develop another which they will need to test. Hence, the possibility that the second flight will be unmanned. NASA has also admitted that the third flight of SLS won’t come until 2024 at the earliest.

What kind of crap is this? This isn’t a space program or a project to explore the solar system. It is pure pork, a boondoggle designed to spend as much taxpayer dollars as possible for as long as possible. It is time to shut it down.



  • wodun

    $20 billion would buy a lot of Falcon 9 launches even at NASA prices. NASA should stick to building payloads for existing launchers.

  • Pzatchok

    NASA should stick to the overall design acceptance of those payloads.
    They are not manufacturing anything now, they farm that work out. Often times at a no bid rate (anything the company asks for) because they claim only one company can do the job.
    They should be happy to be the launch controller for all US launches. Air traffic control for space.
    They should be happy maintaining all science missions while out in space. And not farm it out to others like JPL.
    They should be happy doing research like on the station.
    And if they want they can be the facility for testing and training astronauts. But they even fluff that one up quite a bit. Seriously, they have something like 25 astronauts now and not a single ship ready to fly them for the next 5 plus years. Why maintain that many at all? Are 80% going to get sick the week of the flight?
    NASA’s major job is to dispense cash out to other companies that actually do the real physical work.
    How they decide who gets the cash and for what is very often in question.
    NASA doesn’t even develop new technologies anymore (if they ever did). Name the last new tech they developed and designed.
    DARPA initiates more new development than NASA, and they do it at a very cheap price. And demand workable results. Such as their work with self driving military trucks for general cargo hulling. Its costs the design teams more to actually develop and do the work than they are getting in awards from DARPA. (they are hoping to eventually sell the products at a nice profit)

  • The rationale for the SLS is that we as a nation are going to eventually need that level of capacity for a crewed mission to the surface of Mars. The Falcon X(X) is too uncertain at the present. So, for me it comes down to the issues of:
    1) Whether we want to forget humans to the surface of Mars — I’m thinking that there is enough of a consensus to keep this objective.
    2) Whether we should kill the SLS and have the faith (i.e. take the risk) that we will have available that capability by the time we need it, or
    3) Whether several Falcon Heavies docked together would be safely up to the tasks. Given that the countries of the world have had more than 300 successful dockings, I think that it would be a fair question to look at.

  • Pzatchok

    I don’t believe in any manned mission to Mars that doesn’t have a permanent aspect to it.

    Going there just to say we were the first is BS. In todays show me the money now atmosphere it will pretty much be forgotten by the masses in about 5 years. Thus any PR gains will be shot. Useless.
    Anyone mentioning 911 much? Not really, in fact the MSM would pretty much like to even forget about it. As evidenced by their attitude to the last two or three anniversaries. I don’t see a Mars landing as being much bigger. In fact it will be pretty ho hum since everyone will know about it and expect it.

    No if we start missions to Mars they have to be with the real and working goal of a permanent colony on Mars. Each mission bringing more and more for longer and longer stays with the eventual and reachable goal of self sustainability.
    If that can not be reached inside 5 years from the first man on Mars then its not worth it at this time in history. Our technology is not up to it yet.

    People got their hopes up about a Moon base after the Apolo missions. And were severely disappointed. Don’t do it again unless your willing to have the populous give up on space totally.
    they think we have far more important problems right here on Earth like equality for transgenders and gun control. Space is fluff and an expense they do not see as worth much except when it involves telecommunications.
    Convince them building a moon base will help the internet and bring them free telecommunications and they will over fund you. They will cover you in gold.
    But tell them its for that nebulous thing called research or just to be first and they will kick you to the curb.

  • Edward

    Is it coincidence?

    The following two commentaries came out in Space News a couple of days before the NASA announcement that they may not fly a manned Orion/SLS in 2021. Is it possible that the Mars flyby mission proposed by some in Congress, based upon Dennis Tito’s idea, is being cut off before any enthusiasm can be developed?

    It seems that the US government and NASA have lost their spirit for bold exploration, but these editorialists haven’t:
    “Some lawmakers, including Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who chairs the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, have taken to the idea of a crewed Mars flyby mission that originally was proposed as a purely private venture by pioneering space tourist Dennis Tito.”
    “We must rekindle within NASA the fire that blazed the trail to the Moon. The future of this nation’s exploration efforts lead to Mars. The first flag to fly on another planet in our solar system should be that of the United States.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *