This is a big month for NASA. The Augustine committee, appointed by the White House to review NASA's human space flight programme, is set to release its final report on Thursday.



The panel has created a menu of five plans for the space agency. It has given each 12 scores in various categories (PDF), including science benefits, safety, benefit to the US workforce and schedule.



The committee says it will not assign single overall scores to the options in its final report, so New Scientist has ranked the five plans by adding up the category scores that have been read out by the committee in public meetings. These scores are on a scale of -2 to 2.



So in ascending order, here are the results – and the main pros and cons.



(Image: Nigel Hawtin/New Scientist)

1 The status quo



If NASA continues on its current path with no extra money, its new Ares I rocket and Orion capsule (planned design illustrated here) will not be ready until after the International Space Station has been de-orbited – which is scheduled to happen in 2016. The return to the moon for which Ares and Orion have been designed would not happen until "well into the 2030s, if ever", according to the committee's summary report



Destination reached: ISS (but only until 2016, when it is de-orbited)



For: safety (0) – astronauts stay relatively safe by not venturing beyond Earth orbit



Against: schedule (-2) – human moon landings still wanted, but lack of funds could postpone them indefinitely



Overall score: -15



(Image: NASA)

2 An ISS extension and a cash-strapped moon programme



In this option, Ares I is cancelled and NASA sends astronauts to the ISS on commercial vehicles such as SpaceX's Dragon capsule , shown here. A moon return plan may run out of money.



Destinations reached: ISS, moon (maybe)



For: international cooperation (0) – NASA support extends ISS to 2020, pleasing international partners



Against: schedule (-2) – human moon landings still wanted, but lack of funds could postpone them indefinitely



Overall score: -5



(Image: NASA) Advertisement

3 The status quo, but with extra money



With $3 billion a year more in its budget, NASA could return astronauts to the moon, but only by sacrificing the ISS after 2015.



Destinations reached: ISS, moon



For: schedule (0) – human moon landings by mid-2020s



Against: international cooperation (-2) – NASA support for ISS ends in 2015, to the dismay of international partners



Overall score: -1



(Image: NASA)

4 Return to the moon first, but no further for now



This option also requires an extra $3 billion. One version of it would delay retiring the space shuttle and use a close derivative of it, seen here, for trips to the moon. The other version would get there with a variant of the Ares V rocket. Both versions would use commercial vehicles to access the ISS, which would be extended to 2020.



Destinations reached: ISS, moon



For: US skills retention (0) – one version of this option delays space shuttle retirement to 2015, which helps retain workers with key skills



Against: public engagement (0) – the committee believes returning to the moon will excite the public less than going to new destinations, as in option 5



Overall score: 4 or 5, depending on variant



(Image: NASA)