How do you answer this question that we have spent $8 billion thus far on the present architecture, which includes Ares I, and now we are going to abandon that, having spent $8 billion?

the President is going to have to answer the question whether or not the cost of human space exploration is worth it.

So that would still get you out on things like asteroids or one of the Martian moons utilizing an EELV?

The Ares V, of course, is part of the current Program of Record, although, unfortunately, it has not been able to be funded because to keep the budget for the Ares I and the Orion unchanged, we have been delayed in starting the Ares V and…

the goal that the Committee has set is to get out beyond low-Earth orbit, that NASA ought to be exploring the heavens with the human space program.

Did you have in your discussions any idea of the time in mind as to when we should try to target for on-orbit refueling?

Why would we spend $100 billion building the Space Station and then put it in the Pacific?

Of course, you remember that the President said in the campaign, he wanted to be on the Moon by 2020.

It is clear to me that this Nation could afford a strong human spaceflight program. It is simply a question of priority.

I will not ascribe that to the President.

to eliminate the gap or significantly reduce it would have a significant negative impact on the long-term exploration program.

As your committee discussed these intangible benefits, no doubt you noted also some of the tangible benefits.