We have got to be a reliable partner in order to keep an alliance like that going.

So would we be looking at something that would go to Mars while maybe the Curiosity might still be working, but yet another one that might have the return capability that would be a next goal to achieve, again looking toward humans going…

Just to follow up, we always hear that the most important thing that we could find is that there might be evidence of water, which then might lead to some thought that there was some kind of life.

I think what you all are doing is actually putting forth the long-term, clear goal that you discussed as the first policy directive.

Well, we have certainly tried to lower the number of commercial operators that are going to get the Federal seed money just because I think we agreed that that was just more than we could take away from SLS and Orion.

We are talking about the kind of commitment that you suggest, which is putting different vehicles' capabilities together so that it doesn't all fall on us.

the purpose was to have the technology in the shuttle that is going to go to and from the space station that would be transferable to the heavy launch vehicle with Orion, so that we maximize efficiency with our taxpayer dollars.

Will you be able to tell how long ago it became extinct or the water went away?

Do we know from what we have up there, whether it's something orbiting Mars or the rover, that the atmosphere will not be dangerous for a human--obviously in a space suit?

Let me ask you this. You mentioned better utilizing the Space Station as one of the things that we ought to do because there may be a term limit on that of 2020.

The goal is to have one. So that is the goal, and we are looking at the efficiency and making sure we are not paying just as much as we would had we kept it all in NASA.

How fast--you are talking about an area bigger than Connecticut. How fast can the Curiosity move so that it can cover the amount of land that you are trying to cover in the time that you have?