Talk:Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee

Current title of this article is incorrect
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)
 * ✅ Thanks. – B.hotep •talk• 08:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the official name is "Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee". -- G W … 08:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. I had a feeling there would be a raft of redirects coming up! When I hit the button to move, funnily enough I thought: "I'm sure that should be United States not U.S." – I will move again, but let the bots figure out the double redirects for now! – B.hotep •talk• 08:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Augustine Commission
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)


 * It's official name is as stated above. There are multiple redirects to this article from "Augustine Commission", "HSF Commission", and more. Everything is fine here. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently, there was an Augustine Commission in 1990 as well. – B.hotep •talk• 22:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, another reason why this article properly has a non-ambiguous title. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible Conclusions
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)
 * So far, you have presented nothing but original research and synthesis. If you want the article to include something about alternatives then that is fine, as long as you can provide reliable sources that show that the committee will review options other than manned spaceflight. So far, of the two sources you have provided, one doesn't mention the committee, and the other contradicts your claim. -- G W … 19:40, 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)
 * I would read that as "The Committee will conduct an independent review of ongoing U.S. human space flight plans and programs, as well as alternative...[ human spaceflight plans and programmes]". The rest of your quote confirms that, as a "safe, innovative, affordable, and sustainable" future of manned spaceflight is hardly its abolition. -- G W … 20:10, 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)
 * I don't deny that they are possible alternatives, but they are not conclusions that this committe could reach. -- G W … 11:18, 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 need for sarcasm. I'm just saying that the quote does not appear to support your viewpoint, as from the second half of the quote, it is quite clear that the committee will only report on manned programmes, and will not suggest unmanned alternatives. -- G W … 11:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Medic, if it is this edit we are talking about then Hunster was right to remove it, and the reason nobody else has chipped in on this thread is because GW is right – I created this article to reflect cold, hard, reliable and verifiable facts, as is the Wikipedia way – not to insert what you think may be a likely outcome of the Review, or what they could or might do. Please read up on Wikipedia policies before assuming the worst of established editors. – B.hotep •talk• 11:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

AFD of Review of United States Human Space Flight

 * I have nominated Review of United States Human Space Flight for deletion as it seems to be a POV fork of this article. No prizes for guessing who created it. The AFD can be found here -- G W … 07:05, 25 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)
 * You've taken a copy of this article, removed a couple of sentences, and stuck in a couple of paragraphs lifted directly from a press release to make it look less like a duplicate. To me it looks like a blatant attempt to circumvent the discussion above. So other than expressing your own (unencyclopedic) views on the "possible conclusions", the other article is redundant in content if not in purpose (and I would be inclined argue that the same article could be used for the committee and report anyway). -- G  W … 10:16, 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)


 * The original research was only part of the problem...that article is just a fork of this one, and has no real place. I don't really care what the article is called, so long as the information is there, but there must not be two versions. Wherever consensus lie, go with that name and that name alone. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 12:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is why I am going to let the AfD run its course. That way, community consensus will be reached and Medic has no option but to follow it – given they have no intention of following consensus here. – B.hotep •talk• 12:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans - should be the correct title.--Medic463 (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find consensus is that the current title is correct (after a lot of changing around). The actual plans themselves and the committee findings, as someone else has mentioned elsewhere, as and when they become apparent, can be included here. But only from a verifiable source, with absolutely no original research, synthesis, or crystal-balling whatsoever. – B.hotep •talk• 13:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Review of United States Human Space Flight is an independent review requested by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) on May 7, 2009, on the future of sending humans into space.[1][2] The review will be OR WAS carried out by the Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee. ITS KNOWN AS PAST TENSE. - I'm concerned for all those grade 9 students trying to find info about the review for their science project and all they can find on wikipedia is a page entitled and / or containing specific information about the reviews committee members.  Why confuse people? --Medic463 (talk) 15:15, 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)
 * That would be a good reply if it came from rubbish reply land.--Medic463 (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * IMPORTANT UPDATE to AFD page = Proposed changes - urgent attention required - Can be seen here.--Medic463 (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Somethings wrong with the title / 1st sentence
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)

Out of date
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)
 * Subsequently, between late-Oct 2009 and late-Jan 2010, many edits have been made to the article, hopefully satisfying Colds7ream's concerns that the commission report was not adequately reflected in the Wikipedia article.

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)

"findings" section doesn't seem to support what is in the actual report
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)

Strange focus
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)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513130114/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/10/no-nasa-augusti.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/10/no-nasa-augusti.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)