"NASAs new Office of Exploration Systems, known in the jargon as Code T, has already given rise to a number of wisecracks about the agencys new space race. Which will come first, astronauts beyond low Earth orbit or the end of the alphabet? In any case, the idea behind Code T seems logical enough if one accepts the premise that human and robotic exploration must be complementary."
Posted by jburk at March 8, 2026 12:45 PM | TrackBackWhen planning it does become dificult to think of every senerio but if we all pretended that we were boy scouts and followed their motto to always be prepared, then in hind sight the shuttle disintergrating would have never occurred. Life would be grand and the shuttle would be still fliing instead of being grounded indefinitely. IMO Code T could stand for termination of all human space exploration by at least america. Yes the same one that put, men on the moon not so long ago.
what a dreadful thought.
Harold --
Suppose we put on our rose colored glasses, and pretend that the Columbia accident never occurred. Exactly how would life be "grand" knowing that the official NASA policy would still be to extend the life of the Shuttle fleet to 2023?
On the one hand, you seem to be longing for the days when the U.S. put men on the moon. On the other hand, you seem to be longing for indefinite LEO missions. You're losing me.
Posted by: Dave K. Smith at March 8, 2026 08:40 PMWell I guess the first way is that it would have forced the shuttle c derivative to be built. Rather than on someones drawing board so as to take over the heavy lift responsibilities to the ISS. We were already struggling with the launch cycles on the four shuttles as it was. I do not know if extending the time out to 2023 is such a great idea if there is no new frames and subskin to be constructed inorder to replace the current units even if the old electronics are recycled into these new cans. I believe metal fatigue would have set in before that time frame of 2023 for end of use.
Now knowing that we are still fliing is half the battle for the vision of going to the moon. Nasa in the construction phase of the ISS needed to find ways of lowering their operating costs so as to be able to do more things with the money that they get and thats where the shuttle c would have come in. Also on NASA plate was a crew transfer, rescue unit that should have been pushed along so as to reduce the flights as well for the shuttles. In both of these thing NASA has cost thenselves and the pride of america dearly with regards to space exploration.
Now for the space vision leveraging the CEV to the shuttle c initially to get the vehicle man rated and tested while in LEO before we get the new rocket boosters for a one shot approach to the moon like appollo would make sense. But time and NASA funding can work against all of this.
NASA can not wait for decisions from the moon to mars or from the lead rocket contractors with regards to building any version of the crew rescue transfer unit or for the CEV at this time both need to be quick time lined like as of yesterday not 10 years from now.
Using LEO for assembly of smaller stages of the moon rocket is made less useful due to the inclination of the ISS though this can not be ruled out or to say that a new staging area which could be constructed near the Hubble for just this purpose can not be done as well. I do not feel that the only thing the ISS should be doing is experimentation. They should be doing more as well for construction and or assembly of any kind inaddition if we ever want to leave LEO.
we need all of this to stay successful or the funding will dry up.