The Augustine panel meeting is now in progress and available on NASA TV.

Here is an interview with Norman Augustine: Interview: White House Panel's Chief Discusses NASA's Future - SPACE.com.

Update 1: Notes on the presentations are being posted at twitter.com/NASA_HSF

Update 2: Crawley says it is a strong consensus of the committee that NASA support commercial crew rocket and capsule development.

Update 3: Crawley presents the fuel depot concept and ends with a statement that it is the committee's strong recommendation that NASA support R&D for new transport technology. Doesn't explicitly say that NASA should implement fuel depots. (Fuel depot slide)

Update 4: The presentations are very info dense and I've been trying to absorb them. Since the charts and videos will be on line, I hope soon, I won't post more than a few notes:
/-- The panel recommends $2.5B for commercial crew competition modeled after COTS.
/-- Enough for several competitors.
/-- Recommend $1.5B/year for tech development.
/-- Sally Ride goes through a lengthy presentation of various program scenarios for two cases: within budget guidance and with a growth up to $3B per year.
/-- Sally Ride made a good comment earlier in the session about the importance for NASA to start to design with operations costs in mind. This is illustrated by the charts that show that total budget doesn't go down after development is done.
/-- The mostly commercial scenario - i.e. commercial LEO and commercial heavy lift - doesn't go much beyond budget guidance. Would mean big reductions in NASA workforce and infrastructure.
/-- Bejmuk strongly attacks this scenario for hurting NASA, especially since it is uncertain if the commercial systems will work as intended.
/-- Jeff Greason responds they have to deal with the uncertainty of the technology development vs the certainty that the budget is not enough for business as usual.
/-- This is the Ride's summary slide.
/-- Ares I looks in big trouble. All the scenarios show it either coming on line after ISS is deorbited or not included at all.

Update 5: The final part of the session initially dealt with the scoring framework for the various features of each program option.

Then they went through some of the options and tried to whittle them down and refine the remaining ones.

At the moment they are discussing the scoring of individual option features.

Some discussion items that stand out include:
/-- Agreed that splashing the ISS in 2015 is not realistic so all program options that include it will be eliminated.
/-- The program of record (i.e. Ares I/V/Orion/Altair), which exceeds the expected budget substantially, will no longer be in the options table but kept separately just as a reference.
/-- There will be two options that fit the expected budget. Others will assume growth up to $3B more than current annual budget.
/-- A lengthy discussion of the Mars First option seems to have led to its removal. Instead the Lunar and Deep Space options will be presented as preparing the technology and in-space infrastructure for Mars missions later. The current baseline is far too expensive and any other scenario would involve too much sci-fi.

Update 6: Here is the options chart that they are scoring.

Augustine says they are required by law to carry out such discussions in public. So even though it is not fun for the audience to watch, they may be here for a hours working on it.