 Okay, Jim, do you have a short opening statement before we begin? Thanks for the opportunity. Welcome on board Columbia. We're just over the middle of the Atlantic Ocean headed toward Africa at this time. And as everybody knows by now, this is our next glass day in space. We'll be coming home early because of the fuel cell degradation. But I think the message that we want to leave everybody with from here on board Columbia is that in the short time that we've been here, thanks to the hard work of the people on board Columbia Plus at Huntsville, we've been able to put together a good science program that we're going to bring back some meaningful science in the short period that we have been here. It's true that everybody is disappointed that we are going to have to come home early, allowing the crew, but the investigators and the researchers who science that we were up here to accomplish. But still, I think we packed a lot into a short period of time. With that as our theme, I'd like to open up for questions at this time. Did the shuttle crew have any sort of a role or a voice in the decision that was made? And if you did, could you describe that please? Although we could tell from our information here that fuel cell 2 was suffering some degradation. And it's really based upon the greater level of understanding and information and expertise, to be honest with you, that the mission management team acted upon based on the input from the flight controllers and the engineers and the people who actually built the fuel cells at the decision to come home early was made. Okay, and from the ground, the perspective of course has been that this has been a really a pretty orderly event. It's unfolded with a lot of deliberation. I just wonder though, from your perspective, is there any sense of risk or danger added because of the fuel cell problem? So we're talking about the capacity for the airplane to fly. Therefore when you lose one third of your electrical producing capacity, you have to consider that. So as a result, after we had to save fuel cell 2, we had a little powwow here on the flight deck. We made sure we understood all the emergency procedures as modified by the fact that fuel cell 2 had been shut down. So I don't want to convey the opinion that we thought we were in imminent danger. Certainly not. We felt that the situation was well in hand. But on the other hand, we want to be prepared for the next possible failure and we feel like that's where we're at right now. This is Marsha Dunn of the Associated Press for the Commander. That same fuel had trouble during the countdown and the shuttle program manager now admits it should have been swapped out before flight. How unsettling is it for you to be in this situation now considering you could have had a full flight if that fuel cell had been replaced before flight? I'd say it's always going to be 2020. But this is a situation where with the best information that everybody had in hand at the time, the decision was made. I believe it was the correct one at the time to go ahead and launch. After the problems developed on orbit, the decision was made. Again, I believe the correct one based on additional information and also degradation of fuel cell to take the safe path and bring us home early. I think everybody's acted in the best interest of the crew and the best interest of the program. They've tried to make the right decisions based on the information that you had at that time. So we have no hesitation about the people who are helping us out on the ground. We had an exciting time yesterday going through all the procedures. But I felt we were in sync 100% with the ground. They were helping us out every step of the way. And we have total confidence in the people in mission control and in the mission management that are making these decisions. To Stephen Young with Reuters, I was just wondering what kind of extraordinary measures you've been taking to try and squeeze as much power out of those last two fuel cells to use for the science. I think I heard some references last night to people working by flashlight, for example. Yes, what we did was we powered down all non-essential equipment including most of the lighting on board and only turned things on as we needed it. This enabled us to continue powering experiments in the lab and staying under the required amount of power running only two fuel cells. Thank you, Ann, for whoever would like to take this. I'm just wondering if this incident gives any of you a heightened sense of vulnerability of spaceflight. I understand from the very beginning how complicated a piece of equipment this is and how many things have to be working just right. We also know simultaneously how many levels of redundancy and backup systems there are in order to keep us safe even though things go wrong and things malfunction as they do on Earth. This is Seth Bornstein from the Orlando Center. We heard Commander Hossel's reaction yesterday when you were told the news about the shortened mission. Can the other three of you tell us what went through your mind when that was radioed up and who told the blue shift and what was their reaction? Training for this mission for over a year and a half or so, working hard on the science. The people on the ground at the Marshall Space Flight Center and the principal investigators all across the country and around the world, they've been working on this mission even longer, so it was a big disappointment to end the mission. But we've been working as hard as we can, working double time up here trying to make up for what we're losing by shortening the mission. And two of the crew members I told on the blue shift when they woke up and it was a shock and disbelief at first because nobody anticipated that we'd be coming home so soon. We thought we were going to go for the full 16 days. Of course I was disappointed as well that the mission was cut short, particularly from the perspective of the scientists who've been waiting and working so long to try and get these experiments in space. On the other hand, in just a few days that we've had, we've managed to get results that were described to me by the investigators. They told me before the mission, hey look, if we get a single data point, we'll be ecstatic because these experiments are so difficult to do and they've never been done before that that result in itself will make us very happy and we've gotten that many times over in just these four days. So on the one hand I'm disappointed, but on the other hand I'm very happy that in the short time we've had we've gotten them some good results that will move them on into the future. Bill Horowitz, CBS with I guess maybe another question for Dr. Wouteris along those same lines. I mean if that's the case, I mean you're only getting a four day flight, you would plan 16. I mean you can't call the flight, it's not a failure obviously, but it's not a success either. How do you characterize the results of this mission? Days of work into four days, but we're doing our best at it. One of the experiments that I've been working on is called CSLM, coarsening of solid liquid mixtures. And in this experiment in the glove box we've processed 72 of the 81 planned samples. In the large isothermal furnace, the Japanese facility, we processed I think it's six or seven of our plan 25 runs that we're doing. Phase, which is the physics of hard spheres, part of our express rack, we processed one sample successfully. And throughout the lab, most of the experiments have been able to get at least one or two runs in, so we're bringing some science back to almost all fields up here. Astro-PGBA, we're growing our plants, we've been growing the protein crystals up here, so we're hitting the full gamut of it, but for sure we're not bringing back 16 days worth of science, but we're really proud of what we do, what we are bringing back. This is Marsha Dunn of the Associated Press for Dr. Lynn Turris, please. We've just heard your blue team was shocked when they heard the news, and it's a non-career astronaut who may be making their one and only flight. Were you shocked when you heard the news, and are you still in shock perhaps? I think shock is not the right word. Certainly surprise and disappointment might be accurate. I certainly expected to go the full 16 days. I'd say the thing that I'm most troubled by is that after a few days of getting used to this new environment, I'll have to come home, and that's sort of saddening. But maybe there will be a second chance for me to fly, we'll see. Commander, this is Jay Barbary with NBC. I was wondering if you and Pilot still there, if you would have felt a little better if you could have come home today having a fly-by-wire spacecraft, you're down to two fuel cells, if you lose another one, you're really in trouble. Would you have liked to come home this afternoon instead of waiting until tomorrow? The people on the ground that made this decision followed through strongly, and what they were trying to do was give us enough time to make an orderly close-up of the lab and plan our deorbit and our landing accordingly. Had we tried to rush to come home today, things wouldn't have been as orderly, and so I think that they made the right decision in bringing us home on Tuesday so that we could have everything prepared for the re-entry and the landing. This is Bill Hubsher with WAAY-TV News in Huntsville. The question I have is pretty much for anyone who would like to answer it. You must be obviously pretty pleased with how the microgravity mission went thus far only after four days, but do you think this hurts the future of such missions, or do you think that all the rest of them that weren't quite completed will just be put towards Space Station? I think this mission is not over yet. These experiments will be re-flown sometime in the future. We have a facility on board called the Express Rack, and it's the expedited processing of experiments for Space Station, and the actual rack that we have on board today is scheduled to be on one of the first utilization flights for Space Station. So many of the facilities that you see here are going to continue flying up, both on the shuttle and space path, maybe orbit or mid-deck experiments, and for sure in the future on the International Space Station. This is Seth Bornstein from the Orlando Sentinel again. Also, can you tell us what instruments are going to be powered down that you wouldn't normally have powered down on landing? Tommy yesterday said there might be one or two things that might be reduced on entry. How's it going to make the entry different? Let me let you talk to my expert on the electrical system, Susan, stand by. Basically, most of our equipment will be running that we require for landing. What we'll be doing is turning them on later in the flight, perhaps turning them on sometime after the derogate run and just prior to coming down for the final part of the landing. Some of the environmental systems may be turned off, which might make it a little bit warmer once we land, but the crew should be comfortable throughout the re-entry and the landing phase. Bill Horowitz, CBS again for Dr. Lynn Terrace. Rent of the flight gets re-manifested or not is an unknown at this point, of course, and your NASA colleagues will look forward to other flights down the road before you and Dr. Crouch. This might be it for you. I was just wondering, I mean, in terms of the science aside, the experience of space flight and all of that, how disappointing is it to do all this work, get up there, and then have to turn right around and come home? From a science perspective, no doubt, but from a personal perspective, the experience of learning about the NASA training, the experience of going to space and experiencing this completely new environment with all it has to offer in terms of teaching us about our life down on Earth has been phenomenal and is something which I will treasure regardless of whether I fly again, regardless of whether it was five days instead of 16. Greg, that was the CM1-3 data cue card.