The Presidential committee led by Norman Augustine chairman of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee gave their results this week http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0908/12augustine/ in case anyone was interested. Here are some highlights and from it I took it to mean that the current plan is not feasible as funded so changes will be forth coming. Sally Ride a panel member and former astronaut explained that the "unconstrained budge" which would cost an estimated $50 billion means that Orion and Ares I arrive after a 2016 ISS deorbit (at a cost of 1.5 billion) since ISS is only funded through 2015. So the two rockets arrive but have no where to go. If NASA has to live wit the 2010 budget guidelines provided by the Obama administration the Ares 5 heavy lift rocket will not be ready until 2028. Here we have a heavy rocket designed to go to the moon and take material with it but nothing is deployed and no money to fund a lunar system. $3 billion was cut by the Office of Management and Budget from NASA's long-range budget projected last spring, money to be used for the development of the Ares V prior to the Augustine panel being formed. Knowing that a large budget would not pass the Office of Management and Budget right now, and a small budget would not forward exploration I guess they are trying for the just right size. So the proposal does this: 1. Ramps up slowly to $3 billion a year over the budget they've been given until 2020 when the budget follows inflation of 2.4% 2. Astronauts return to the moon in the 2025 timeframe 3. ISS as Russia, Japan, Canada and the ESA want, is left up through at least 2020. 4. IF ISS is left up then Ares I development is probably suspended fueling the money for booster development away from Ares I into the ISS operations (better go see the test on August 25!). 5. Augustine panel favors the development of commercial rockets and capsules to ferry astronauts to and from low-Earth orbit. 6. Augustine panel assessing the trade-off of flying 1 or 2 Space Shuttle Missions a year reducing the gap before the new rocket systems are developed. 7. I found this one perhaps intriguing: "the panel is assessing options for deep space exploration that might bypass the moon in favor of near-Earth asteroids, lunar reconnaissance flybys and even flybys of Mars, with "off ramps" for development of systems for use on the lunar surface and eventual manned landings on Mars." 8. Ares V rocket would be modified and made man rated to carry astronauts. No Ares I development with any of these cases though. Sally Ride's final comment was ""We kept coming up with a common theme, which is this budget is very, very, very hard to fit and still have an exploration program," Ride said. "In fact, we are still looking for an existence proof that we can actually find one. We haven't found one yet, but we're still looking." A few other items are listed, you can read the article. I am beginning to think that if I live to around 75 (2041) I may not live to see man leave low earth orbit. I wonder if we will get out of low earth orbit before the end of this century? I also wonder if emphasis is being placed on non-human exploration methods as they are less risky and can provide scientific breakthroughs with less cost? Or are they facing the same budget constraints as the human exploration side? I think of the comment I read lately by the director of the Mars Explorers. As successful as they have been they have done in 18 months what a man could have done in several weeks. Should we push back human explorations and put that money into other projects of exploration? Do you think you'll see human spaceflight beyond low- earth oribit in your lifetime?