Are your figures calculating that you're going to be reimbursed for the money that you spent on hurricane repairs?

It was. It was engineered to go in the payload bay. In fact, it is a completed spacecraft.

If successful, would that be a source of a ride for DSCOVR or for AMS?

Let's go back to the gap, which you now say is going to be early Fiscal Year 2015.

Is the Administration's FY 2008 budget request sufficient to support full implementation of the missions recommended by the National Academy's decadal survey in Earth science?

And that is that you are going to pick up some efficiencies by virtue of the fact that your selection of the contractor for the CEV is going to have some savings.

This Committee isn't going to wait around very long, because of information that we have received ex parte about the subject of this investigation.

I believe those decisions have forced Dr. Griffin to make the kinds of painful choices we are hearing about from the scientific community.

What are the strategic implications of this 4-year-plus gap in our Nation's ability to send humans into space?

I can assure you that we are absolutely not, and will not, restrict the ability of anybody working at NASA to express their technical opinion.

Well, then, that's newfound money, isn't it? That would go into the Shuttle account.

And according to your answer on AMS, the same would be true of the Deep Space Climate Observatory?

Do you think that NASA will pass its audits this year?

You all do us proud.

if the U.S. does not sustain an active space exploration program, other nations will--and are preparing to--step into that vacuum.

So, it's 2009.

It seems that that language that sets up the process you just described is a little vague.

It's been a long time since I chaired one of these Space Subcommittee hearings.