Floors all year. So you can ask all the questions you want. Just the straight your hand, tell us your name and your media, and if you have a specific space or you would like to answer your question okay. Jeff masters space do. Everybody seems to be on the same page about the importance of corporation in exploration. What do those words get transformed into concrete acaions like an extension of the ip . Ecological agreements, or something for him and binding that gets the various agencies working together on our out our space . So i try to answer what you are saying you are asking for. So you are asking in very general terms, and of course with all these agencies over here that are already activities going on in cooperation, not only in the International Space station but also in other programs of the bilateral and multilateral agreements. If you ask completely about the get to the way this is another question for. That we are looking for is more important than just agreement this is an agreement that has to follow us i hope concretely about gateway, you now, since two, three years, at least, working on it, and to this is more important than just the agreements. The agreements is something which has to follow us, i hope. Jim . Thats right. So, you know, it starts with those of us up here working together to come up with the concepts that we think would work and then it ultimately ends with us taking it back to the Political Leadership of our countries or our organizations. The European Space agency, for example, has to go to its ministerial. Nasa has to go to the United States congress. And so we are working to make sure that at the end of the day, our programs get funded and were so its its kind of like a jigsaw puzzle. It takes some time to put it together, but all the pieces will come together. We just have to continue to work on it until they all come together. And so thats what all of us are working on right now. Oh, hello. Im a writer based in the uk, my name, s rupia singh. I have two questions. The first one for administrator bridenstine. I was so impressed and pleased and surprised to hear the announcement of u. S. Going back to the moon and landing on the surface by 2024. At the time, i thought, thats a tough call. Since then, ive been really impressed with what youve done in engaging the private sector and other International Partners and im a bit more hopeful that that will happen. So, question about how thats progressing, particularly on the funding. Are you getting all the support and the budget at the rate you need to hit that goal . We are confident that were going to get the resources necessary to achieve the end state. Right now, were operating under a very shortterm continuing resolution as the house has passed a nasa appropriation bill, that is very good, by the way. It increases nasas budget. Now, they passed that bill the same week that nasa announced that we would like to, we amended our budget requests so that we could go to the moon in an accelerated fashion. So, so they passed their bill, or they marked it up in committee the very week that we asked for the amended budget request. The senate has now marked up a bill thats very positive for an accelerated path to the moon. Its not everything that we asked for, but what we need to do is we need to get those two bills to agree in what we call conference and not just agree with each other but agree at the funding level that is necessary to accomplish the moon landing. So i think i think we are capable of getting the budget that is necessary. Im confident that it will happen. I would also say that as you mentioned, you know, one of the challenges with the timeline is not just budgetary. Its also process. The historical way by which nasa goes about acquiring these capabilities takes a long time. We put out an rfi. That takes six months. Industry spends six months responding to the rfi. We spend six months putting out an rfp. Industry spends six months responding to the rfp. Then industry spends a couple of years protesting the source selection. And at the end of the day, we spend three years before we get under contract. I dont know i mean, you guys can do the math. Its a long time. And and when we go fast, what that means is we got to do things differently, so instead of nasa purchasing, owning and operating the hardware, what were looking at doing is buying the service to get from the gateway down to the surface of the moon then back to the gateway. And that is what we have put out in what we call a broad agency announcement. A baa. And right now, were in a blackout period about how those proposals are coming back. But i can tell you this, theres a lot of interest. And i think during the course of this week here at the International Astronautical congress, i think youre going to see a lot of announcements regarding Different Companies and organizations that are interested in going to the the timeline is still verythin achievable. I do think that, you know, we need to make sure that the budget is commensurate with the timeline and were with thehat every day. Were and as we work through it, domestically, were working with our International Partners to get as much International Support as we can in order to achieve the objective. The goal is to land on the moon within five years and to be sustainable with, by the year 2028. When i say sustainable, thats where the gateway comes in. Its a reusable command module. We want reusable landers that can go back and forth from the surface of the moon to the reusable command module and go back to the moon. We need to drive down the cost for the oryan crew capsule, as time goes on, costs will come down. At the end of the day were trying to achieve a sustainable return to the moon where we have People Living and working on another world for long periods of time. Yeah, esm1 is already delivered. Esm2 is in production. Esm3 is in the procurement phase. Were trying to from the european side to deliver as early as possible to make it thats right. On day one, the moon mission is international in nature on day one. We want to expand it from here for sure with more International Partners, but were very excited, and, in fact, as we make this sustainable, were going to need more European Service modules. So jan has his work cut out for him, too. Yeah. You bet. Yvon couronne of afp. Mr. Werner, first, do you use the gateway to land european astro astroyachtnauts on the moon . Is this part of the discussion . And some question for the other countries, also, for you, mr. Bridenstine, do you want to see other nonu. S. Astronauts use the gateway but also walk onand walk on the moon, if so, whats the timeline . I think theres lots of room on the moon. We need all our International Partners to go with us to the moon. Thats the vision. Thats what were trying to achieve. If we can come to agreements on the contributions of all the nations and how theyre going to be a part of the architecture then certainly i would see that thered be no reason we cant have all of our International Partners with us on the moon. I dont think we hp e to duplicate the descent module to the surface of the moon. We can Work Together, therefore, were in discuss also with nasa we have european astronauts on the surface of the moon. This is, of course, a european intention. This does not mean were starting to build our own human lander. This is is not necessary for that because its important that we have that we are doing it together. As i said, esm is something which brings us together to the gateway and then we are discussing right now how to go down to the surface. There is a plan also to have a european lander but not for humans at this moment. So, therefore, yes, we want to have europeans on the surface of the moon but in cooperation, in addition, were asking Member States in the space 19 plus for robotic landing systems in addition. Addition because we need both at the same time. Can i . Its a simple question to me. Jaxa would like to send a japanese astronaut onto the surface of the moon. So thats it. Yeah. For russian program, from the very beginning, we said that our primary goal would be the surface. Thats why we were kind of late joining Gateway Program because we were trying to optimize what is the best trajectory to fly and actually there are advantages and disadvantages of gateway trajectory, but we decided that most efficiqt way would be Work Together. We would do some parts of the system ourselves. Something we are planning to do for gateway, even Transportation System which we are going to build is going to be a joint system and the way we do it now for International Space station, we have several opportunities to send cargo. We, at this point we have one but in the future, well have several opportunities to send humans in space and we did it before with shuttle. So we think like the redundant system, Transportation System, and one of the modules for gateway would be our participation in the program, and the way and how we will do this, we will decide a little later. Coming to india, this is a question of priority. As you know, we need to harness our capability. We already started our program. Obviously it was clear the elephant in the room today was china, judging from all questions that were asked including questions coming over the internet. And their absence, of course, was recognized by everybody and is an important absence. Its also my question, however, is with regard to the formulation of Vice President of talking the United States taking the lead together with all the freedomloving nations of the world, obviously, chinas probably not included in that, but there may be other countries that are not included in that, either. And my question is, isnt this a significant change from how the Space Program has been dealt with by the United States ever since kennedy when his first his first thought was to Work Together with the soviet union to go to the moon, they refused and we went alone. But ever since then, there was an attempt to use space as a means of bringing countries together, not of separating them. But the formulations of the Vice President today were pretty strident in many peoples ears and i was wondering, is that a shift in policy now and what would the United States be willing to work with china on . Have we gone a step further from the wolf amendment now . Were not going to work with them at all on space . Or what does that actually mean . So your point on the wolf amendment is right on. We are prohibited by law from working with china in a bilateral sense on atp q exploration by the wolf amendment which every year gets re reappropriated in an appropriations bill. As far as cooperation in space, i think space does represent that unique opportunity to bring nations together that historically dont come together. I would tell you im sharing this stage with russia and there is no doubt, we are aware that we have terrestrial disputes that are very clear and transparent and everybody sees them. When if comet comes to cooperate on the International Space station, our relationship is very, very strong, it has been strong and we want to keep it strong. Of course, we would like to extend it even further. All this i think is whats unique about space. I would also say that when we think about the future, we do need to be careful about things like the theft of intellectual property. We need to be careful about the, you know, how we go about bringing new partners in that ultimately could be more harmful than helpful in the future. And i think thats probably what the Vice President was referencing in his speech today. Hi. Irene with aviation week in space technology. For every for all the agencies aside from the United States, im familiar with our position, but what is the balance between requests to continue funding of iss past 2024 with the desire to move