September 8, 2009 

To: John P. Holdren, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy 

 Charles F. Bolden, Jr., Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

 Lori B. Garver, Deputy Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Cc: Sally C. Ericsson, Program Associate Director, Office of Management and Budget 

From: Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee 

Subject: Summary Report 

Dear Dr. Holdren and Mr. Bolden, 

On behalf of the Chairman of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee, Norman 

Augustine, Edward Crawley, Sally Ride, and the other members of the Committee, please accept the 

attached Summary Report. 

This Summary Report provides an overview of the key findings, options, and issues identified by 

the Committee during its review of the U.S. human space flight plans and program. 

The committee is currently engaged in preparing the Final Report for delivery to you. The Final 

Report will provide more detail and depth to the attached Summary Report and will include the 

supporting analyses from the Committee’s review. 
 Summary Report 1 

SUMMARY REPORT 

of the 

Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee 

 The U.S. human spaceflight program appears to be on an unsustainable trajectory. It is 

perpetuating the perilous practice of pursuing goals that do not match allocated resources. Space 

operations are among the most complex and unforgiving pursuits ever undertaken by humans. It 

really is rocket science. Space operations become all the more difficult when means do not match 

aspirations. Such is the case today. 

The nation is facing important decisions on the future of human spaceflight. Will we leave 

the close proximity of low-Earth orbit, where astronauts have circled since 1972, and explore the 

solar system, charting a path for the eventual expansion of human civilization into space? If so, 

how will we ensure that our exploration delivers the greatest benefit to the nation? Can we explore 

with reasonable assurances of human safety? And, can the nation marshal the resources to embark 

on the mission? 

 Whatever space program is ultimately selected, it must be matched with the resources 

needed for its execution. How can we marshal the necessary resources? There are actually more 

options available today than in 1961 when President Kennedy challenged NASA and the nation to 

“land a man on the Moon by the end of the decade.” 

 First, space exploration has become a global enterprise. Many nations have aspirations in 

space, and the combined annual budgets of their space programs are comparable to NASA's. If the 

United States is willing to lead a global program of exploration, sharing both the burden and benefit 

of space exploration in a meaningful way, significant benefits could follow. Actively engaging 

international partners in a manner adapted to today’s multi-polar world could strengthen 

geopolitical relationships, leverage global resources, and enhance the exploration enterprise. 

 Second, there is now a burgeoning commercial space industry. If we craft the space 

architecture to provide opportunities to this industry, there is the potential—not without risk—that 

the costs to the government would be reduced. Finally, we are also more experienced than in 1961, 

and able to build on that experience as we design an exploration program. If, after designing 

cleverly, building alliances with partners, and engaging commercial providers, the nation cannot 

afford to fund the effort to pursue the goals it would like to embrace, it should accept the 

disappointment of setting lesser goals. 

 Can we explore with reasonable assurances of human safety? Human space travel has 

many benefits, but it is an inherently dangerous endeavor. Human safety can never be absolutely 

assured, but throughout this report, it is treated as a sine qua non. It is not discussed in extensive 

detail because any concepts falling short in human safety have simply been eliminated from 

consideration. 

 How will we explore to deliver the greatest benefit to the nation? Planning for a human 

spaceflight program should begin with a choice about its goals—rather than a choice of possible 

destinations. Destinations should derive from goals, and alternative architectures may be weighed 

against those goals. There is now a strong consensus in the United States that the next step in 

human spaceflight is to travel beyond low-Earth orbit. This should carry important benefits to 
 Summary Report 2 

Key Questions to Guide the Plan for Human Spaceflight

 The Committee identified the following questions that, if answered, would form the 

basis of a plan for U.S. human spaceflight: 

 1. What should be the future of the Space Shuttle? 

 2. What should be the future of the International Space Station (ISS)? 

 3. On what should the next heavy-lift launch vehicle be based? 

 4. How should crews be carried to low-Earth orbit? 

 5. What is the most practicable strategy for exploration beyond low-Earth 

 orbit? 

 The Committee considers the framing and answering of these questions 

individually, and in a consistent way, to be at least as important as their combinations 

in the integrated options for a human spaceflight program. 

society, including: driving technological innovation; developing commercial industries and 

important national capabilities; and contributing to our expertise in further exploration. Human 

exploration can contribute appropriately to the expansion of scientific knowledge, particularly in 

areas such as field geology, and it is in the interest of both science and human spaceflight that a 

credible and well-rationalized strategy of coordination between them be developed. Crucially, 

human spaceflight objectives should broadly align with key national objectives. 

 These more tangible benefits exist within a larger context. Exploration provides an 

opportunity to demonstrate space leadership while deeply engaging international partners; to inspire 

the next generation of scientists and engineers; and to shape human perceptions of our place in the 

universe. The Committee concluded that the ultimate goal of human exploration is to chart a path 

for human expansion into the solar system. This is an ambitious goal, but one worthy of U.S. 

leadership in concert with a broad range of international partners. 

 The Committee’s task was to review the U.S. plans for human spaceflight. In doing so, it 

assessed the programs within the current human spaceflight portfolio; considered capabilities and 

technologies a future program might require; and considered the roles of commercial industry and 

our international partners in this enterprise. From these deliberations, the Committee developed 

five integrated alternatives for the U.S. human spaceflight program. The considerations and the 

five alternatives are summarized in the pages that follow.

1.0 CURRENT PROGRAMS 

 Before addressing options for the future human exploration program, it is appropriate to 

discuss the current programs: the Space Shuttle, ISS and Constellation, as well as the looming 

problem of “the Gap.” 
 Summary Report 3 

 1.1. Space Shuttle 

What should be the future of the Space Shuttle? The present plan is to retire it at the end of 

FY 2010, with its final flight scheduled for the last month of that fiscal year. Although the current 

Administration has relaxed the requirement to complete the last mission before the end of FY 2010, 

there are no funds in the FY 2011 budget for continuing Shuttle operations. 

 

 In considering the future of the Shuttle, the Committee assessed the realism of the current 

schedule; examined issues related to Shuttle workforce, reliability and cost; and weighed the risks 

and possible benefits of a Shuttle extension. The Committee noted that the projected flight rate is 

nearly twice that of the actual flight rate since return to flight after the Columbia accident. 

Recognizing that undue schedule and budget pressure can subtly impose a negative influence on 

safety, the Committee finds that a more realistic schedule is prudent. With the remaining flights 

likely to stretch into the second quarter of 2011, the Committee considers it important to budget for 

Shuttle operations through that time. 

 Although a thorough analysis of Shuttle safety was not part of its charter, the Committee 

did examine the Shuttle’s safety record and reliability. New human-rated launch vehicles will likely 

be more reliable once they reach maturity, but in the meantime, the Shuttle is in the enviable 

position of being through its infant mortality phase. Its flight experience and demonstrated 

reliability should not be discounted. 

 Once the Shuttle is retired, there will be a gap in America’s capability to launch humans 

into space. That gap will extend until the next U.S. human-rated launch system becomes available. 

The Committee estimates that, under the current plan, this gap will be at least seven years long. 

There has not been this long a gap in U.S. human launch capability since the U.S. human space 

program began. 

 Most of the integrated options presented below would retire the Shuttle after a prudent flyout of the current manifest, indicating that the Committee found the interim reliance on 

international crew services acceptable. However, one option does provide for an extension of 

Shuttle at a minimum safe flight rate to preserve U.S. capability to launch astronauts into space. 

If that option is selected, there should be a thorough review of Shuttle recertification conducted to 

date and overall Shuttle reliability to ensure that the risk associated with that extension would be 

acceptable. This review should be performed by an independent committee, with the purpose to 

ensure that NASA has met the intent behind the relevant recommendation of the Columbia 

Accident Investigation Board.1

 

 1.2 International Space Station 

 In considering the future of the International Space Station (ISS), the Committee asked two 

basic questions: What is the outlook between now and 2015? Should ISS be extended beyond 

2015? 

 

1

 "Prior to operating the Shuttle beyond 2010, develop and conduct a vehicle recertification at the material, 

component, subsystem, and system levels. Recertification requirements should be included in the Service 

Life Extension Program." [Columbia Accident Investigation Board, R9.2-1] 
 Summary Report 4 

 The Committee is concerned that the ISS, and particularly its utilization, may be vulnerable 

after Shuttle retirement. ISS was designed, assembled and operated with the capabilities of the 

Space Shuttle in mind. The present approach to its utilization is based on Shuttle-era experience. 

After Shuttle retirement, ISS will rely on a combination of new, and as yet unproven, international 

and commercial vehicles for cargo transport. Because the planned commercial resupply capability 

will be crucial to both ISS operations and utilization, it may be prudent to strengthen the incentives 

to the commercial providers to meet the schedule milestones. 

 Now that the ISS is nearly completed and is staffed by a full crew of six, its future success 

will depend on how well it is used. Up to now, the focus has been on assembling ISS, and this has 

come at the expense of using the Station. Utilization should have first priority in the years ahead. 

 The Committee finds that the return on investment of ISS to both the United States and the 

international partners would be significantly enhanced by an extension of ISS life to 2020. It seems 

unwise to de-orbit the Station after 25 years of assembly and only five years of operational life. Not

to extend its operation would significantly impair U.S. ability to develop and lead future 

international spaceflight partnerships. Further, the ISS should be funded to enable it to achieve its 

full potential: as the nation’s newest national laboratory, as an enhanced test bed for technologies 

and operational techniques that support exploration, and as a framework that can support expanded 

international collaboration. 

 The strong and tested working relationship among international partners is perhaps the most 

important outcome of the ISS program. The partnership expresses a “first among equals” U.S. 

leadership style adapted to today’s multi-polar world. That leadership could extend to exploration, 

as the ISS partners could engage at an early stage if aspects of exploration beyond low-Earth orbit 

were included in the goals of the partnership agreement. 

1.3 The Constellation Program 

The Constellation Program includes: the Ares I launch vehicle, capable of launching 

astronauts to low-Earth orbit; the Ares V heavy-lift launch vehicle, to send astronauts and 

equipment to the Moon; the Orion capsule, intended to carry astronauts to low-Earth orbit and 

beyond; and the Altair lunar lander and lunar surface systems astronauts will need to explore the 

lunar surface. As the Committee assessed the current status and possible future of the Constellation 

Program, it reviewed the technical, budgetary and schedule challenges that the program faces today. 

Given the funding originally expected, the Constellation Program was a reasonable 

architecture for human exploration. However, even when it was announced, its budget depended on 

funds becoming available from the retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2010 and the 

decommissioning of ISS in early 2016. Since then, as a result of technical and budgetary issues, the 

development schedules of Ares I and Orion have slipped, and work on Ares V and Altair has been 

delayed. 

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, and 

the Committee expects that they can be solved. But these solutions may add to the program’s cost 

and/or delay its schedule. 
 Summary Report 5 

The original 2005 schedule showed Ares I and Orion available to support ISS in 2012, only 

two years after scheduled Shuttle retirement. The current schedule now shows that date as 2015. 

An independent assessment of the technical, budgetary and schedule risk to the Constellation 

Program performed for the Committee indicates that an additional delay of at least two years is 

likely.2

 This means that Ares I and Orion will not reach ISS before the Station’s currently planned 

termination, and the length of the gap in U.S. ability to launch astronauts into space will be no less 

than seven years. 

 The Committee also examined the design and development of Orion. Many concepts are 

possible for crew-exploration vehicles, and NASA clearly needs a new spacecraft for travel beyond 

low-Earth orbit. The Committee found no compelling evidence that the current design will not be 

acceptable for its wide variety of tasks in the exploration program. However, the Committee is 

concerned about Orion’s recurring costs. The capsule is considerably larger and more massive than 

previous capsules (e.g., the Apollo capsule), and there is some indication that a smaller and lighter 

four-person Orion could reduce operational costs. However, a redesign of this magnitude would 

likely result in over a year of additional development time and a significant increase in cost, so such 

a redesign should be considered carefully before being implemented. 

2.0 CABABILITY FOR LAUNCH TO LOW-EARTH ORBIT AND 

EXPLORATION BEYOND 

 2.1 Heavy-Lift Launch to Low-Earth Orbit and Beyond: 

No one knows the mass or dimensions of the largest piece that will be required for future 

exploration missions, but it will likely be significantly larger than 25 metric tons (mt) in launch 

mass to low-Earth orbit, the capability of current launchers. As the size of the launcher increases, 

fewer launches and less operational complexity to assemble and/or refuel them results, and the net 

availability of launch capability increases. Combined with considerations of launch availability and 

on-orbit operations, the Committee finds that exploration will benefit from the availability of a 

heavy-lift vehicle. In addition, heavy lift would enable the launching of large scientific 

observatories and more capable deep-space missions. It may also provide benefit in national 

security applications. The question is: On what system should the next heavy-lift launch vehicle be 

based? 

Table 2-1. Characteristics of heavy-lift launch vehicles, indicating the EELV and NASA heritage 

families. 

 

2

 The independent assessment was conducted for the Committee by the Aerospace Corporation. 

Family Launch Mass to LEO 

Ares Ares V + Ares I 160 mt + 25 mt 

Family Ares V Lite 140 mt 

NASA 

Heritage 

Shuttle Derived Family 100 -110 mt 

EELV Heritage Family 75 mt 
 Summary Report 6 

 Potential approaches to developing heavy-lift vehicles (Table 2-1) are based on NASA 

heritage (Shuttle and Apollo) and EELV (evolved expendable launch vehicle) heritage. Each has 

its distinct advantages and disadvantages. 

 In the Ares-V-plus-Ares-I system planned by the Constellation program, the Ares I 

launches the Orion and docks in low-Earth orbit with the Altair lander launched on the Ares V. It 

has the advantage of projected very high ascent crew safety, but it delays the development of the 

Ares V heavy lift vehicle until after the independently operated Ares I is developed. 

 In a different, related architecture, the Orion and Altair are launched on two separate “Lite” 

versions of the Ares V, providing for more robust mass margins. Building a single NASA vehicle 

could reduce carrying and operations costs, and accelerate heavy-lift development. Of these two 

Ares system alternatives, the Committee finds the Ares V Lite in the dual mode the preferred 

reference option. 

 The more directly Shuttle-derived family consists of in-line and side-mount vehicles 

substantially derived from the Shuttle, providing more continuity in workforce. The development 

cost of the more Shuttle-derived system would be lower, but it would be less capable than the Ares 

V family and have higher recurring costs. The lower launch capability could eventually be offset 

by developing on-orbit refueling. 

 The EELV-heritage systems have the least lift capability, so that to provide equal 

performance, almost twice as many launches would be required, when compared to the Ares family. 

If on-orbit refueling were developed and used, the number of launches could be reduced, but 

operational complexity would be added. However, the EELV approach would also represent a new 

way of doing business for NASA, which would have the benefit of potentially lowering 

development and operational costs. This would come at the cost of ending a substantial portion of 

the internal NASA capability to develop and operate launchers. It would also require that NASA 

and the Department of Defense jointly develop the new system. 

 All of the options would benefit from the development of in-space refueling, and the 

smaller rockets would benefit most of all. The potential government-guaranteed market for fuel in 

low-Earth orbit would create a stimulus to the commercial launch industry. In the design of the 

new launcher, in-space stages and in-space refueling, the Committee cautions against the tradition 

of designing for ultimate performance, at the cost of reliability, operational efficiency and life-cycle 

cost. 

2.2 Crew Access to Low-Earth Orbit 

 How should U.S. astronauts be transported to low-Earth orbit? There are two basic 

approaches: a government-operated system and a commercial crew-delivery service. The current 

Constellation Program plan is to use the government-operated Ares I launch vehicle and the Orion 

crew capsule. However, the Committee found that, because of technical and budget issues, the 

Ares I schedule no longer supports the ISS. 

 Ares I was designed to a high standard in order to provide astronauts with access to low-Earth 

orbit at lower risk and a considerably higher level of reliability than is available today. To achieve 

this, it uses a high-reliability rocket and a crew capsule with a launch-escape system. But other 

potential combinations of high-reliability rockets and capsules with escape systems could also 

provide that reliability. The Committee was unconvinced that enough is known about any of the 
 Summary Report 7 

potential high-reliability launcher-plus-capsule systems to distinguish their levels of safety in a 

meaningful way. 

 The United States needs a way to launch astronauts to low-Earth orbit, but it does not 

necessarily have to be provided by the government. As we move from the complex, reusable 

Shuttle back to a simpler, smaller capsule, it is an appropriate time to consider turning this transport 

service over to the commercial sector. This approach is not without technical and programmatic 

risks, but it creates the possibility of lower operating costs for the system and potentially accelerates 

the availability of U.S. access to low-Earth orbit by about a year, to 2016. The Committee suggests 

establishing a new competition for this service, in which both large and small companies could 

participate. 

 2.3 Lowering the cost of space exploration 

The cost of exploration is dominated by the costs of launch to low-Earth orbit and of the inspace systems. It seems improbable that significant reductions in launch costs will be realized in 

the short term until launch rates increase substantially—perhaps through expanded commercial 

activity in space. How can the nation stimulate such activity? In the 1920s, the federal government 

awarded a series of guaranteed contracts for carrying airmail, stimulating the growth of the airline 

industry. The Committee concludes that an architecture for exploration employing a similar policy 

of guaranteed contracts has the potential to stimulate a vigorous and competitive commercial space 

industry. Such commercial ventures could include supply of cargo to the ISS (already underway), 

transport of crew to orbit and transport of fuel to orbit. Establishing these commercial opportunities 

could increase launch volume and potentially lower costs to NASA and all other launch-services 

customers. 

 This would have the additional benefit of focusing NASA on a more challenging role, 

permitting it to concentrate its efforts where its inherent capability resides: for example, developing 

cutting-edge technologies and concepts, and defining programs and overseeing the development 

and operation of exploration systems, particularly those beyond low-Earth orbit. 

 The Committee strongly believes it is time for NASA to reassume its crucial role of 

developing new technologies for space. Today, the alternatives available for exploration systems 

are severely limited because of the lack of a strategic investment in technology development in past 

decades. NASA now has an opportunity to develop a technology roadmap that is aligned with an 

exploration mission that will last for decades. If appropriately funded, a technology development 

program would re-engage the minds at American universities, in industry and within NASA. The 

investments should be designed to increase the capabilities and reduce the costs of future 

exploration. This will benefit human and robotic exploration, the commercial space community, 

and other U.S. government users. 

3.0 FUTURE DESTINATIONS FOR EXPLORATION 

What is the strategy for exploration beyond low-Earth orbit? Humans could embark on the 

following paths to explore the inner solar system: 

• Mars first, with a Mars landing, perhaps after a brief test of equipment and procedures on 

the Moon.
 Summary Report 8 

• Moon first, with lunar surface exploration focused on developing the capability to 

explore Mars. 

• Flexible path to inner solar system locations, such as lunar orbit, Lagrange points, nearEarth objects and the moons of Mars, followed by exploration of the lunar surface and/or 

Martian surface. 

 A human landing followed by an extended human presence on Mars stands prominently 

above all other opportunities for exploration. Mars is unquestionably the most scientifically 

interesting destination in the inner solar system, with a history much like Earth’s. It possesses 

resources, which can be used for life support and propellants. If humans are ever to live for long 

periods on another planetary surface, it is likely to be on Mars. But Mars is not an easy place to 

visit with existing technology and without a substantial investment of resources. The Committee 

finds that Mars is the ultimate destination for human exploration; but it is not the best first 

destination. 

 What about the Moon first, then Mars? By first exploring the Moon, we could develop the 

operational skills and technology for landing on, launching from and working on a planetary 

surface. In the process, we could acquire an understanding of human adaptation to another world 

that would one day allow us to go to Mars. 

 There are two main strategies for exploring the Moon. Both begin with a few short sorties 

to various sites to scout the region and validate the lunar landing and ascent systems. In one 

strategy, the next step would be to build a base. Over many missions, a small colony of habitats 

would be assembled, and explorers would begin to live there for many months, conducting 

scientific studies and prospecting for resources that could be used as fuel. In the other strategy, 

sorties would continue to different sites, spending weeks and then months at each one. More 

equipment would have to be brought on each trip, but more diverse sites would be explored and in 

greater detail. 

 There is a third possible path for human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit, which the 

Committee calls the Flexible Path. On this path, humans would visit sites never visited before and 

extend our knowledge of how to operate in space—while traveling greater and greater distances 

from Earth. Successive missions would visit: lunar orbit; the Lagrange points (special points in 

space that are important sites for scientific observations and the future space transportation 

infrastructure); near-Earth objects (asteroids that cross the Earth’s path); and orbit around Mars. 

Most interestingly, humans could rendezvous with a moon of Mars, then coordinate with or control 

robots on the Martian surface. 

 The Flexible Path represents a different type of exploration strategy. We would learn how 

to live and work in space, to visit small bodies, and to work with robotic probes on the planetary 

surface. It would provide the public and other stakeholders with a series of interesting “firsts” to 

keep them engaged and supportive. Most important, because the path is flexible, it would allow 

many different options as exploration progresses, including a return to the Moon’s surface, or a 

continuation to the surface of Mars. 

 The Committee finds that both Moon First and Flexible Path are viable exploration 

strategies. It also finds that they are not necessarily mutually exclusive; before traveling to Mars, 

we might be well served to both extend our presence in free space and gain experience working on 

the lunar surface. 
 Summary Report 9 

4.0 INTEGRATED PROGRAM OPTIONS 

The Committee has identified five principal alternatives for the human spaceflight program. 

They include one baseline case, which the Committee believes to be an executable version of the 

current program of record, funded to achieve its stated exploration goals, as well as four 

alternatives. These options are summarized in Table 4-1. 

Table 4-1. A summary of the integrated program options. 

The committee was asked to provide two options that fit within the FY 2010 budget profile. This 

funding is essentially flat or decreasing through 2014, then increases at 1.4 percent per year 

thereafter, which is less than the 2.4 percent per year used to estimate cost inflation. The first two 

options are constrained to that budget. 

Option 1. Program of Record as assessed by the Committee, constrained to the FY 2010 budget. 

This option is the Program of Record, with only two changes the Committee deems necessary: 

providing funds for the Shuttle into FY 2011 and including sufficient funds to de-orbit the ISS in 

2016. When constrained to this budget profile, Ares I and Orion are not available until after the ISS 

has been de-orbited. The heavy-lift vehicle, Ares V, is not available until the late 2020s, and worse, 

there are insufficient funds to develop the lunar lander and lunar surface systems until well into the 

2030s, if ever. 

Option 2. ISS and Lunar Exploration, constrained to FY 2010 budget. This option extends the ISS 

to 2020, and it begins a program of lunar exploration using Ares V (Lite). The option assumes 

Shuttle fly-out in FY 2011, and it includes a technology development program, a program to 

develop commercial crew services to low-Earth orbit, and funds for enhanced utilization of ISS. 

This option does not deliver heavy-lift capability until the late 2020s and does not have funds to 

develop the systems needed to land on or explore the Moon. 
 Summary Report 10 

 The remaining three alternatives are fit to a different budget profile—one that the Committee 

judged more appropriate for an exploration program designed to carry humans beyond low-Earth 

orbit. This budget increases to $3 billion above the FY 2010 guidance by FY 2014, then grows 

with inflation at a more reasonable 2.4 percent per year. 

Option 3. Baseline Case —Implementable Program of Record. This is an executable version of the 

program of record. It consists of the content and sequence of that program – de-orbiting the ISS in 

2016, developing Orion, Ares I and Ares V, and beginning exploration of the Moon. The 

Committee made only two additions it felt essential: budgeting for the fly-out of the Shuttle in 2011 

and including additional funds for ISS de-orbit. The Committee’s assessment is that, under this 

funding profile, the option delivers Ares1/Orion in FY 2017, with human lunar return in the mid2020s. 

Option 4. Moon First. This option preserves the Moon as the first destination for human 

exploration beyond low-Earth orbit. It also extends the ISS to 2020, funds technology 

advancement, and uses commercial vehicles to carry crew to low-Earth orbit. There are two 

significantly different variants to this option. 

Variant 4A is the Ares Lite variant. This retires the Shuttle in FY 2011 and develops the Ares 

V (Lite) heavy-lift launcher for lunar exploration. Variant 4B is the Shuttle extension variant. This 

variant includes the only foreseeable way to eliminate the gap in U.S. human-launch capability: it 

extends the Shuttle to 2015 at a minimum safe-flight rate. It also takes advantage of synergy with 

the Shuttle by developing a heavy-lift vehicle that is more directly Shuttle-derived. Both variants 

of Option 4 permit human lunar return by the mid-2020s. 

Option 5. Flexible Path. This option follows the Flexible Path as an exploration strategy. It operates 

the Shuttle into FY 2011, extends the ISS until 2020, funds technology development and develops 

commercial crew services to low-Earth orbit. There are three variants within this option; they differ 

only in the heavy-lift vehicle.

Variant 5A is the Ares Lite variant. It develops the Ares Lite, the most capable of the heavylift vehicles in this option. Variant 5B employs an EELV-heritage commercial heavy-lift launcher 

and assumes a different (and significantly reduced) role for NASA. It has an advantage of 

potentially lower operational costs, but requires significant restructuring of NASA. Variant 5C

uses a directly Shuttle-derived, heavy-lift vehicle, taking maximum advantage of existing 

infrastructure, facilities and production capabilities. 

 All variants of Option 5 begin exploration along the flexible path in the early 2020s, with 

lunar fly-bys, visits to Lagrange points and near-Earth objects and Mars fly-bys occurring at a rate 

of about one major event per year, and possible rendezvous with Mars’s moons or human lunar 

return by the mid to late 2020s. 

The Committee has found two executable options that comply with the FY 2010 budget. 

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. 

 The Committee further finds that it is possible to conduct a viable exploration program with a 

budget rising to about $3 billion annually above the FY 2010 budget profile. At this budget level, 

both the Moon First strategy and the Flexible Path strategies begin human exploration on a 
 Summary Report 11 

reasonable, though hardly aggressive, timetable. The Committee believes an exploration program 

that will be a source of pride for the nation requires resources at such a level. 

 

5.0 ORGANIZATIONAL AND PROGRAMMATIC ISSUES 

How might NASA organize to explore? The NASA Administrator needs to be given the 

authority to manage NASA’s resources, including its workforce and facilities. Even the bestmanaged human spaceflight programs will encounter developmental problems. Such activities 

must be adequately funded, including reserves to account for the unforeseen and unforeseeable. 

Good management is especially difficult when funds cannot be moved from one human spaceflight 

budget line to another—and where new funds can ordinarily be obtained only after a two-year delay 

(if at all). NASA should be given the maximum flexibility possible under the law to establish and 

manage its systems. 

 Finally, significant space achievements require continuity of support over many years. One 

way to ensure that no successes are achieved is to continually pull up the flowers to see if the roots 

are healthy. (This Committee might be accused of being part of this pattern!) NASA and its human 

spaceflight program are in need of stability in both resources and direction. 

 

6.0 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS 

The Committee summarizes its key findings below. Additional findings are included in the body of 

the report.

The right mission and the right size: NASA’s budget should match its mission and goals. 

Further, NASA should be given the ability to shape its organization and infrastructure accordingly, 

while maintaining facilities deemed to be of national importance. 

International partnerships: The U.S. can lead a bold new international effort in the human 

exploration of space. If international partners are actively engaged, including on the “critical path” 

to success, there could be substantial benefits to foreign relations, and more resources overall could 

become available. 

Short-term Space Shuttle planning: The current Shuttle manifest should be flown in a safe and 

prudent manner. The current manifest will likely extend to the second quarter of FY 2011. It is 

important to budget for this likelihood. 

The human-spaceflight gap: Under current conditions, the gap in U.S. ability to launch astronauts 

into space will stretch to at least seven years. The Committee did not identify any credible 

approach employing new capabilities that could shorten the gap to less than six years. The only 

way to significantly close the gap is to extend the life of the Shuttle Program. 

Extending the International Space Station: The return on investment to both the United States 

and our international partners would be significantly enhanced by an extension of ISS life. Not to 

extend its operation would significantly impair U.S. ability to develop and lead future international 

spaceflight partnerships. 
 Summary Report 12 

Heavy-lift: A heavy-lift launch capability to low-Earth orbit, combined with the ability to inject 

heavy payloads away from the Earth, is beneficial to exploration, and it also will be useful to the 

national security space and scientific communities. The Committee reviewed: the Ares family of 

launchers; more directly Shuttle-derived vehicles; and launchers derived from the EELV family. 

Each approach has advantages and disadvantages, trading capability, lifecycle costs, operational 

complexity and the “way of doing business” within the program and NASA. 

Commercial crew launch to low-Earth orbit: Commercial services to deliver crew to low-Earth 

orbit are within reach. While this presents some risk, it could provide an earlier capability at lower 

initial and lifecycle costs than government could achieve. A new competition with adequate 

incentives should be open to all U.S. aerospace companies. This would allow NASA to focus on 

more challenging roles, including human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit, based on the 

continued development of the current or modified Orion spacecraft. 

Technology development for exploration and commercial space: Investment in a well-designed 

and adequately funded space technology program is critical to enable progress in exploration. 

Exploration strategies can proceed more readily and economically if the requisite technology has 

been developed in advance. This investment will also benefit robotic exploration, the U.S. 

commercial space industry and other U.S. government users. 

Pathways to Mars: Mars is the ultimate destination for human exploration; but it is not the best 

first destination. Both visiting the Moon First and following the Flexible Path are viable 

exploration strategies. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive; before traveling to Mars, we 

might be well served to both extend our presence in free space and gain experience working on the 

lunar surface. 

Options for the Human Spaceflight Program: The Committee developed five alternatives for the 

Human Spaceflight Program. It found: 

• Human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit is not viable under the FY 2010 budget 

guideline. 

• Meaningful human exploration is possible under a less constrained budget, ramping to 

approximately $3 billion per year above the FY 2010 guidance in total resources. 

• Funding at the increased level would allow either an exploration program to explore Moon 

First or one that follows a Flexible Path of exploration. Either could produce results in a 

reasonable timeframe.