And then, you would have to have the government oversight, because it's going to interface with a government facility, the Space Station.

I think that most of us believe it would be more efficient than the government, and, therefore, a good deal.

Excuse me for interrupting, but wasn't there one program that you told us, for example, in the development of the heat shield, that you could take out of exploration and put into aeronautics?

It's just amazing, Mark, how you can just put it on a dime, and you don't have an engine.

I am further concerned that being forced to make those choices can have the effect of undermining the traditional constituency for NASA.

Thank you, also, in an uncertain budget year, where we haven't had budgets submitted by the White House that have matched with the authorization.

Thanks to Senator Hutchison and to Senator Barbara Mikulski, they had added another billion dollars, over and above the White House request.

What we'd like you to come up with is a figure that is realistic that we could go out and try to find for you, so you can keep on the schedule of 2014 or earlier for Orion/Ares.

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

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

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

You all do us proud.