![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The current title of this article is incorrect. The only correct name is the one specified in the charter:
Official Designation: Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee
. Please move this article to the correct name. (sdsds - talk) 03:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Source for this being conventionally called the Augustine Commission: http://leroychiao.blogspot.com/2009/06/augustine-human-space-flight-review.html
"Today, I was named as a member to the Augustine Commission." - Former astronaut Leroy Chiao, June 1, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.79.206 (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as though the whole point of the review is to consider the future of manned space flight then it may be important to establish what alternatives they may apply as opposed to Human Space Flight. --Medic463 (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
"At the request of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, NASA has established the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee. The Committee will conduct an independent review of ongoing U.S. human space flight plans and programs, as well as alternatives, to ensure the nation is pursuing the best trajectory for the future of human space flight - one that is safe, innovative, affordable, and sustainable." http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/home/index.html--Medic463 (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Quote from GW sims = "If you want the article to include something about alternatives then that is fine..". To say that alternatives to the current planned (or alternatively planned) US Human Space Flight Missions may not include for example sending robotic probes to Europa to drill and test the oceans for possible habitability or establishing a base on the moon - is naive. These may be the future of US Human Space Flight missions and thus good candidates to the current programs and the purpose of the review. --Medic463 (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry sims, my apologies. I didn't realize that you were so high and mighty that you can confirm this, taking into account that NASA quote I found. Perhaps feedback from other people might be helpful for the purpose of the discussion.--Medic463 (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! There is room for both. And this goes on to the "Somethings Wrong with the 1st Sentence Discussion Topic" - no one objected to me changing the 1st sentence because the committee are people and this article is primarily focused about the committee NOT about the review itself, and the processes or possible conclusions. Ok possible conclusions may not be cold, hard facts - but I didn't read this anywhere in Wiki's policies, and as a source of info Wiki is top notch. So maybe 'A Possible Conclusions' section in the new page is not such a bad idea - sure it needs improving and adding some solid references. Perhaps some feedback from other editors.--Medic463 (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Medic, you really need to read this on original research. You will find everything you need to know there. – B.hotep •talk• 11:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I've updated the AFD discussion page which can be found here.--Medic463 (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
← We don't create or write articles with any particular demographic in mind. We do have Simple Wikipedia if anyone has a problem grasping the content. – B.hotep •talk• 15:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The US Human Space Flight Plans Committee ARE a group of people - NOT a review.--Medic463 (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Commitee is singular in the US. Plural in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.9.136 (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Given that the Committee's reports have been published, I'd say this article could do with being updated! Colds7ream (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
More importantly, now that NASA has announced a new (post-Constellation) direction for their plans to get humans into Earth-orbit, and thereby putting into policy some parts of the Augustine Commission recommendations, the article needs to be updated to reflect this (at a high level) and a new NASA-related article probably ought to be created as a successor to Vision for Space Exploration (2004), Aldridge (2004), and Augustine (2009). N2e (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The findings section of the article says, "The Committee judged the 9 year old Constellation program to be so behind schedule, underfunded and over budget that meeting any of its goals would not be possible."
I have read much of the report and I find this twisting of the facts too unbearable to ignore. Here are some quotes directly from the commission final report.
"Most major vehicle-development programs face technical challenges as a normal part of the process, and Constellation is no exception. While significant, these are engineering problems that the Committee expects can be solved. But these solutions may add to the program’s cost and delay its schedule." -page 11
"The Committee has found two executable options that comply with the FY 2010 budget profile. However, neither allows for a viable exploration program. In fact, the Committee finds that no plan compatible with the FY 2010 budget profile permits human exploration to continue in any meaningful way"-page 17
" 9.7 CONCLUDING SUMMARY NASA is the most accomplished space organization in the world. Its human spaceflight activities are nonetheless at a tipping point, primarily due to a mismatch of goals and resources. Either additional funds need to be made available or a far more modest program involving little or no exploration needs to be adopted. Various options can be identified that offer exciting and worthwhile opportunities for the human exploration of space if appropriate funds can be made available. Such funds can be considerably leveraged by having NASA attack its overhead costs and change some of its traditional ways of conducting its affairs—and by giving its management the authority to bring about such changes. The American public can take pride in NASA’s past accomplishments; the opportunity now exists to provide for the future human spaceflight program worthy of a great nation."-page 117,
I saw nothing in the report that said "Constellation is trash, scrap it and start over." There was nothing there that said, "There is no way that hunk of junk will get to the moon." What I got from the report was information about NASA's budget troubles transitioning from the shuttle program (which is in need of additional funding to extend into FY 2011), attempts to extend the ISS as far as 2020 (again, more funding), all while developing the Constellation project.
The source that was cited saying Constellation will never accomplish its goals take you to a white house page for the Office of Science and Technology Policy. There are dozens of links on that page, none of which seems to related to Constellation. I don't know about the rest of you, but I would rather get the facts for this page from the actual report instead of through the White House, which is committed to another direction with NASA.
--Bkmalone86 (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is this article focused on the committee? Shouldn't it be focused on the report and its findings? The title should also be changed. Viriditas (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
See Leopold Report for an example of how this article should read. I am considering a proposed move to Augustine Report. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)