Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Captioning performed by vitac weve got commercial crew program, weve got space tourism, were going to the moon and using that as a steppingstone to go onto mars and some people want to retire there one day. There is so much excitement. So i would love for each of you to share what youre looking forward to most about the future of Space Exploration and are there things from apollo that still resonate today . The Critical Technology right now is what we call, you know we just got to figure out how to land the kind of masses were talking about landing on mars. Thats something weve got to figure out again, if i go back to what spacex is doing and has done, we had talked to them about flying a dragon to mars and landing because it would give us data about a landing on mars. Again, working with the private sector and experiment that is theyre doing that keeps nasa from having to do that allows them to go on and develop the exploration part of the program. The other thing is the human body. We know quite a bit more than weve ever known before thanks to a lot of the experiments thats going on on station today, but longterm survival on mars, i think well be okay, but its just its sort of like a commercial you see on television that says i think well be okay. Okay is probably not good enough when were talking about that, so we probably need to figure out exactly how were going to keep the crew safe in the radiation environment of mars. Im a big fan of going underground and using the soil as a safeguard, so humans live underground and thats enough for me. Spacex was built with the background of making the human species multiplanetary, which means earth and mars for now. And obviously the big problem going to mars is money. [ laughter ] there are some technical problems too. [ laughter ] money plays into that too. Space flight is superexpensive and so one obvious knob to turn is reusability. Currently, the design for ten times, were going to start for the fourth time. Dragon has been used three times. And so all these things help because you dont have to build something again. You have to, you know, inspect it, refurbish it, but you want to keep that really, really low. Like an airplane, you inspect it, its fine, and you schedule regular maintenance on boosters and, you know, others. We just recently recovered a coming from a second stage in a big net. And were going to refurbish that. Obviously we work in part. Star ship is going to allow us to use the second stage again and it becomes the cost of fuel and the cost of some maintenance and the operations basically, and thats where we need to do. Thats the technical side. On the other side we need help in terms of payloads, users, people that actually use that service and thats basically very everybody can pitch in here and help us because obviously if you have this capability, somebody needs to use it and thats superimportant too. I think thats primarily it. Reusability, and not to mention of course reliability and safety. When you reuse stuff you can make it safer, you can see leaks, get more data. We use video cameras all over the place. That helps you to. Reliability, safety, reusability. I think the biggest asset we have right now that will enable us to get to mars is about 240 kilometers that way, its the International Space station. Its the place were learning to live and work for long durations. How do we purr fi water . How do we get to recycling 85 to 90 of our water, how do we had oxygen, how do we make this work in a system that must function for the duration of time it takes to get to mars and back. And were perfecting those systems on the International Space station today. We have to look beyond 2028 and ask the question, where are the users . Who will build the replacement for the place to test and develop longterm assurance that these systems will work on the day that we eventually do leave lowearth orbit for the martian surface. The biggest barrier is the cost of getting people and things up there which our partners are working onto try reusability is a key, clearly to try and lower the launch costs. But also frequency of launch. If you go to the cases of the users, if youre a user, you want to be sure that you can get access frequently based on whatever the pace of your Business Model requires. Well see where we get to with the current plans. With respect to going further, to the radiation question, we have a lot of questions there. We need to understand the answers to those questions and manage that problem because radiation is not going to go away. That is sort of a i think what we have to do there. To chriss point, recycling is important, but i would say its beyond just creating a 100 closed life support system. Its everything else. Think about the logistics training that we might have to establish to support people on mars and its ridiculous to imagine how you manage that. So we have to figure out how to recycle everything that we take into space, how we can use the materials on the planetary bodies upon which we place human and is theres a lot of work that has to be done in that area. And that kind of work will come back and benefit earth because we have finite resources on our planet and we have to figure out how to recycle a little bit more here. Theres some dualuse technologies that we can work on that will benefit our planet. Well, i do firmly believe that humans will visit mars some day. But before we do that, not only learning to live off the planet on the iss, but we need to learn to live on another planetary body and were lucky enough to have the moon thats just a few days away as opposed to months, going to mars, and its a great test ground for learning how to live off this earth that were all looking out to do. And there are many questions to be answered, radiation being a significant one, and we ought to take advantage of that, the trips that we did make to the moon were all little camping trips, short duration kinds of things and to live there is a total different problem and we need to solve that. Well, bob really brought up some points that we outlined in this years study i shared for president bush senior and Vice President quail, about how to go back to the moon and onto mars. He hit it right there. But one thing, you are going to need a big booster. Theres no doubt about it. People have things to sell. They always want to sell you the small boosters and put them together, the math just doesnt work. Weve been through it many times. Radiation, absolutely, we have to have a way to protect for radiation. Thats one of the big risks. And assuming that your Systems Engineering is good and your systems have enough reliability to get you out there, perhaps a Nuclear Thermal Rocket for mars, you dont need it for the moon. As far as upper stage propulsion. And oh, again, the two things you have to recycle is water and oxygen. And, you know, for example, on apollo 10, i lifted off about 6. 4 Million Pounds of mass. I had 300,000 pounds to leo how did you do that . How did you do that . All i had was 4. 8 there earth orbit and then on tli, it was 1. 6 . The human being uses about 2. 2 pounds. It depends on your weight. 2. 2 pounds of oxygen per day. So that means youre going to have to have 50 to 75 pounds of mass for every day you breathe, unless you recycle. Youre going to have 6 1 2 pounds of water a day and thats going to take that much more. So youve got to recycle that. And so theres a lot to be done. One other thing, this kind of sticks in my craw, we hear the word commercial, well, i was on the backup on the first gemini flight pilot, i was the backup commander of the first apollo flight so i was there from the start to finish and everything nasa bought and purchased was from commercial entities. It was all commercial. Except we had insight and requirements, but the contract is a good team. But the word commercial means nasa steps out of the way. I kind of disagree because nasa did everything on gemini, apollo and even the shuttle was all done by commercial people. None by nasa, zero. So i wanted to bring that up. [ laughter ] [ applause ] prior to this, i did a bunch of research and something that wasnt that i didnt include in your bio was at some point, the Guidance System that you did hand calculations in space because the Guidance System failed, correct . Now you understand how he can do that. Hes a human calculator, i love it. We have a short period of time, but were going to do one more question before we go to the audience. This space industry is highly competitive as we know. It has a history of being competitive. But its also highly collaborative. The scope of what were trying to achieve requires us to really collaborate. Now, in the commercial era, still highly competitive and highly collaborative. How does that balance i guess give me some insight on that delicate balance and why we need both and i would love to start with sandy because i know you did a lot of work with International Agencies during your time at nasa. It is a delicate balance and i think its its a good dynamic because theres a push pull amongst the different entities. The competition is good because it makes everybody keep innovating and the collaboration is good because we learn from each other because it still is quite risky, dynamic, its a harsh environment to operate in. Keeping that balance where the learning happens across the community but theres enough competition and poking at each other to spur people to do better is really awesome. And i think it all works at the end of the day because in my experience working with people around the world in the Space Program, what i have found is that everybody is really, really passionate about the mission of flying in space, whether its that machines or people or both. And because everybody buys into that and feels that and is passionate about that, we can conquer all kinds of issues that might otherwise create fractionization and just complete dysfunctionalty. We still have some, but in general the whole Community Pulls together because they believe in that passionate thing. And its one thing i talk about with respect in the International Space station program, is it shows you, going back to collaboration and cooperation, it shows you that program, what we can do as human beings if we really want to accomplish something difficult. Its the most complex highly Technological Program ever conceived and executed by people and it involved numerous Different Countries with different agendas, languages, the english system and the metric system and thats a mess too. But political situations. But this project, this multidecade project worked because everybody who was engaged in it at the end of the day really believed in it and had their passion towards it. Theres no reason why we cant solve any problem thats facing us as a global population if we take the same attitude. Thats why the competition and collaboration work so powerfully in the Space Program because of this passion and this total commitment to achieving the end goal. We dont have a ton of time, but who wants to take this one . Charlie . I say ditto. Ditto . [ laughter ] spacex . Boeing . I dont know. I feel like when you actually theres also a level of cooperation when youre on the launch pad that everybody works for the mission. It doesnt really matter which company they work for in many cases. And the same thing applies to when things go around. Everybody feels terrible when things go wrong. And i found at the end of the day people that work in space are passionate about space. They want their company to succeed, of course, but theres an overarching level that people want things to go well and to be space and reliable. So that in many cases is more important. I found that pretty refreshing in many cases. Ill talk dollars quickly. If you look at what it costs to develop the shutting, it was between 30 and 40 billion, in 2,010, give or take. And the subtle federal was about 3 billion per year and that got you about four to five flights per year depending upon the year. If you just look at the way the commercial crew program is evolving for the cost of operating the Space Shuttle program for two years, a little bit over that, youre getting two different providers that are contracted to do a full development, two test flights and six Service Flights back and forth to the International Space station. Just looking at it, at the dollar value, it will turn out to be a very good value for the american taxpayer when we execute. So where does that reinvestment dollar get paid and i think the intent is to reinvest that in explorati Exploration Technology to get us to the moon and to mars. Lets invest in lowearth orbit, commercial availability to get cargo and humans back and forth from there and allow nasa to go beyond lowearth orbit with that taxpayer investment. Were going to transition out to the audience for questions and while we do have mics set up, we have someone thats going to walk around. If you have a question, just raise your hand and someone will meet you with a microphone. Materials engineering, space, a new Military Branch was created last year so we are going to have Additional Branch for the armed services. With your realworld experience in space, your perspectives are very valuable to make sure the new branch would operate to its maximum and deliver the best value. So i would like to see the panel to share some of your views and maybe specific suggestions. So the space force will be operated accordingly. Your views of space force . Yes. Okay. Or suggestions, as well. Would you like to take that, tom . Yeah, ill take that. Okay. The way that force has been evolved over the year, starting with armies and somebody invented a boat and navy and that went on for years. But in the air, i think the first shot ever fired was a tiein, a twoplace fier, across the English Channel in 1910 and some fight in the balkans. I dont know if they hit anybody. Air became a domain of force projection. And so all youre doing in this case, youre going higher and youre going faster. And to think that its not going to be, is to be a little naive. We know already what the chinese are doing with hyper sonic glide vehicles and thats out in space. Anyone else want to take that . No . [ laughter ] we have internal views on space force up here. My name is dan baker. Im a practitioner of space weather and many of you on the panel have mentioned space radiation as a concern. I guess my question is, how important is it to you in your mind for the future to have forecasts of what the space environment is going to be and to have adequate warning to help, lets say, prepare for the more transit space radiation affects. I think its important for astronauts but nearly as important as it is for us on the planet. Space weather today, im speaking to the choir here, it is how we have we anticipate problems to communications, you know, weve been very fortune in that we have not had a major space weather occurrence thats knocked out Satellite Communications and the like, but that is a possibility. So i think long before we need to worry about whats the risk to a crew member flying in space, weve got to continually have an ongoing, improving, technologically developing space weather capability just to protect us here on the planet. I think some of the ideas that have been floated on protecting astronauts from space radiation, and i understand there are some advancements being made in polymers, but ive seen building something around a Space Shuttle. This is something were going to have to solve. I dont know how good were going to get to say, hey, youre good for three years, for your threeyear trip to mars, youre going to be just fine. Were going to have to beat the problem back. He asked about space weather forecasts. From my perspective, i watch the space weather every time when we launch, as much as i look at the other weather. Its the same it has different affect in that sense that you care about, you know, life on board and the electronics rather than wind in the upper atmosphere. Its just a factor that goes into the whole picture and whole environment. Well take the next question. Right here. From a commercial perspective, what is the end goal . Where do you see this program in 25 years or 50 years . Whats your vision . And this could be anyone in the panel. Its a good question, actually. We work on contracts and the discussion of commercial, i found one of the biggest discriminators, whether you tell somebody, build that to me and this is the amount of money you get and then youre on your own. Mostly, its not quite like that. We get some support, obviously, and we work as a team, always, but at the end of the day the money is finite that you get from something and thats a model that i can see helping the cost and control because were very cost conscious. Its not billable hours like you have in other professions. So, because thats what its a billable hour and it just goes up. And the insevencentive is not t to keep it low costs. And it becomes more of a service and i think it was you, it could be like a service that you book it like you book a ticket, basically, you have a certain amount of money to bring stuff from the ground to the moon, and whatever it is basically, and some amount of money that goes to mars. But fundamentally, costs must come down dramatically in the next 25 years in order to make this work, to make the whole economics of it close, otherwise it might be too expensive. If i may, in a perfect world, 25 or 50 years from now, probably closer to 50 than 25, but the cost of launch will have come down. People like you guys who are very creative and have a krr good expertise in certain areas have an opportunity to have these perception shifts that i mentioned earlier and the creative juices flow and you think of things that you can do in lowearth orbit. Things you can take advantage of, what were missing now is that piece. We have a lot of capabilities that are going to be coming on line but we havent figured out yet how to develop the markets or use cases for the broader private enterprise, if you will, but the broader private enterprise. Getting the access for people to have good ideas, figuring out what are the platforms beyond the space station and what other kinds of ventures we can create in space. Im hoping that weve started to solve those problems and you see that wedge of activity becoming sort of normal. Im the eternal optimistic. However, comma, this is one thing that bothers me. We dont have that long. The International Space station is a machine and all of you in this room are engineers and most of you, im neither. But ive been around you long enough to know that machines break. We have probably four to eight years, i think, of life left on the International Space station. Money is not going to help that. You know, we just dont have a way to get enough pieces and parts there to refurbish it and make it new. Something has to step into its place or were going to be where we were as aaron burr, were going to shoot the station with nowhere to go. Somebody has to come up with a Business Case that helps people understand that, you know, there is value in going into lowearth orbit and having a pharmaceutical laboratory. There is value in going to lowearth orbit and have a materials processing laboratory, because weve demonstrated all of that on the International Space station for 19 years. Thats what the space stations purpose was, to demonstrate to people in business that this is an incredible incredible money making venture. Nobody has bought that case yet. Until somebody makes the investment and says im going to put a platform up there, i thought bob big low was going to do it. He has had the beam on the International Space station now for four, five years and it has not stepped off yet. Am i being critical . You bet i am. Because nasa spent a lot of money allowing private the private sector to go and use this Test Facility so that they could step off and go make money. You dont make money if youre not willing to take a risk and hanging around typical International Space station is risky in one respect, but its not a Business Risk because youre having room and board and transportation frequently provided by the government. The government doesnt have enough money for all of you conservatives here who believe in the free market, you got an opportunity, jump off the International Space station and build the lowearth orbit infrastructure that we have got to have if were going to successfully send humans back to the moon and onto mars. Enough from me. [ laughter ] [ applause ] can i put a just to bring the point home. Boeing and spacex, at no small cost to the taxpayers, are developing two new capabilities. We have one customer right now and thats the International Space station. We we need other markets to evolve. This is the first time weve done this as a country in 40 years since we developed the Space Shuttle. Without a destination in 2028, will we really be ready to retire the capability to get back and forth with humans. I sure hope not. Yesterday i mentioned how fast the Apollo Program was turned on. It was done in about three weeks. And also, in the same way, the Space Exploration investigate that president bush senior started was turned off in about as fast by William Jefferson clinton when he became president. He turned it off. And the same thing happened in the obama administration. It wasnt within three weeks, it was turned off. The Constellation Program was turned off. I dont know whos going to win the election next november, a year from now, but that can be turned off real fast, what we have there. So i cant forecast whos going to be the chief executive on the next, say, two or three cycles. But that could go on, it could go off. Thats the big risk. Next question. Ill try to limit it to hans. Im glad you can see well now. What about the competition, jeff bezoss Company Versus spacex. Is that serious competition to spacex . He can pay for it also. Theyre competition, theyre building great vehicles and however, we are ahead of the game right now. Theres one big step that a rocket needs to do and thats go to orbit. And that is in some cases its proven to be harder than people thought. And i learned that myself. Its hard to get to orbit. But at the end of the day, it is competition and we welcome competition. We feel like it gives us an edge because we push to work harder, to work on lowering the costs and becoming the best competitor among other competitors. Next question. Hello, my name is tom johns. First of all, i want to thank the academy for an exciting session. Since we have a lot of engineers in the room, i would like to ask a question about the future commercialization of space and striking the right balance between speed and safety. Weve seen during the session and the incredible advances that are being made, driven by competition in terms of the technology, arguably, not fast enough. But other tweve had insight on can happen when speed can lead to screw ups with regard to basic laws of Aerospace Engineering in terms of redundancy. Finding the right balance between those two is a is always a challenge. Im curious about what the panelists might comment about whats going on, what the future holds, the role of nasa on advoca advocacy, but involved in regulation or providing that safeguard against a kind of disaster that would be incredible blow for the whole industry, if it happens at a critical moment. Thank you. I think the heart of the question is how do you balance speed and safety . Ill start. You need to have both and safety speed does not speed does not mean you dont operate safely. Safety has safety has a mind set as much as it is anything. And we were talking about this in breakfast this morning, the safety mind set says we may be two seconds from launch and i dont feel well and i say stop. Thats the critical part is having people who have the ethical background to say this is not right. The shortcuts were taking are not right. And you go back and look at the program that enough place and adjust it as necessary. The government doing it, nasa doing it, doesnt mean because we take longer, that doesnt mean were any more safe than the private sector. Going slow doesnt guarantee youre going to be safe either. It gives you more time to do stupid stuff. [ laughter ] i think its a delicate balance, its a mind set. I visited with an Engineering School recently and one of the pleas from undergraduates was we need to be taught an ethics course for engineers so that we dont because one of these days im going to have to make a life and death decision and that needs to be ethically grounded and so there are a lot of things that dont have to do with math and science and engineering that we have to make sure that young people of today understand. There is right and wrong. There is what is ethical and whats not ethical. And theres a good book for people to read and it talked about how the challenger occurred, you know, the underlying title is i forget. [ laughter ] thats what happens at my age. But when we allow things to go on that we know are not right, we infuse that attitude or that culture in our young people. So we as engineers and scientists have got to teach them how to think ethically and how to make the right decision even if it means the program is slowed for a while because nothing will end a program like rushing to the end and having it blow up on you. Thats done. Thats it. People get over being years late and dollars over. People dont frequently get over having we have never recovered from losing two shuttles. I think all of us who have been on spacecraft will say that. You dont recover from that. Its always a scar that you carry with you. Get it right and chris go ahead. The other thing to think about as opposed to speed is complacency, right . You get you get into this mode where it becomes normal operation and is you forget to question things because things are normalized. Its not really i think a speed thing, its a matter of staying always alert and thinking about what youre doing and questioning and listening to the system and making sure that you can have an environment where people can bring up questions because thats really where youre going to create the right safety environment, whether youre moving fast or slow. Its about avoiding the complacency. I talked about how adaptable we are as human beings and how we normalize situations. If you look at the accidents, it was all about complacency, and we werent questioning as carefully as we should have been doing. Theres another way of saying it, going fast and slow, the worse thing you can have is an ontime failure. [ laughter ] chris, youre going to be on board, you know, one of the first test flights. Whats your thoughts on speed versus safety . Maybe i didnt hear your last line. So, i dont think that speed and safety are synonymous. Ive had the unique opportunity to watch every phase of your vehicles designed from the engineering to, the piece parts that come together, does that make me an expert . No, but it makes me have very interested watcher. We work on a set of requirements that come from nasa that are bathed in the mistakes and experiences of nasa. And we have a lot of help from nasa. Sometimes too much help. But ill tell you, any amount of help in the right area is a good thing. So i think that this is a very appropriate transition between a government run and managed program over to a commercially run and managed program with just enough of the past steeped in and boeing Legacy Companies have always been involved and we work with an enormous amount of people who work the shuttle. Ultimately i think having folks on the floor and watching the hardware come together, and ive had the unique opportunity to do that, really does build a lot of confidence. I just want to add. My motto is you got to have the right amount of paranoia and if that means stopping the launch and explaining to your customer why you stopped that for like three days, so be it, but its more important to get things right than to get them done in time. Ive heard so much about the cost and complexity of getting things from the earth to lowearth orbit as being one of the barriers of the concept both in Science Fiction and in some of the serious journals has been the space elevator. Is anybody still thinking about the concept of the space elevator. I can tell you that we have a very Passionate Community inside the Aerospace Industry that is very enthusiastic about the space elevator. Its still out there as a concept. I think theres some roadblocks. A lot has to do with the strength of the cables and can you weave together some cables of these kinds of materials that are superstrong and can handle all the tension, but i dont know the deals. Theres a very Passionate Community out there. Materials science is its a very serious Materials Science problem, but we solve things like that. Next question. Over here. Andy jackson. I dont want to be a downer on this because were talking about human space flight, but humans are very fragile. And when i hear how many pounds of this, we need water, food, oxygen, is there a step that could be less expensive . The convergence of Artificial Intelligence and robotic design, would it be better to construct a community on mars which is based on robots, not on people, but the people themselves can control those robots so you have that experience . It seems like a huge amount of the cost in getting us to mars is protecting these fragile beings, and when we talk about radiation on just getting there. Any thoughts on an alternative way to create a community on mars without sending people there first. You have curiosity, soon youll have mars 2020 with an experiment, its not people, but they are Automated Systems that are going to be doing the things that people will do later, like extract oxygen from the Carbon Dioxide atmosphere so we can make breathing oxygen a part of a fuel. Were doing that. Weve been doing that for 50 years. You know, im not a geologist, but i have geology friends who tell me if we put one geologist on the surface of mars, we probably would have explored the planet by now. And i dont say that as a trivial, its not a joke, but theres this innate curiosity that humans have that we are not able yet to teach a robot. Artificial intelligence, all these other things, they will be here one of these days, we think. The example ill give you, when we found out that hubbell had a spherical apparition and we decided we were not going to send a subtle up to get the satellite, we put together a team of people to go off and determine how we could save hubbell. That was the title of the study group, saving hubbell. And we went into it, all of us did, we have got to find a robotic capability to do this. The technology wasnt there at the time. If we had that happen to hubbell today, im confident that we could probably put together a Robotic Mission that could do a lot of the repairs on hubbell that have been done to date, but thats because we have the experience of humans going up there and messing around with it and finding out things that we can do that we can auto mate. You have robots roaming around, spheres, were trying to figure out how do you off load the human from doing mundane things and its time to send humans to mars to pull together some of these things that the robots have been doing now for 50 years, i think. Look at it as a toolbox. Humans have certain skills and machines have certain skills and they come with pros and cons. Just like your toolbox in the garage, you need a mix. How you design a mix of robots and humans on a mission depends on what is the mission and what youre trying to accomplish. They both come with expensive infrastructure, whether its in space or on the ground. They come with fragility and limitations. You design the mission pick the tools for the Mission Based on what your goals are. Its always going to be an and at some level. One quick thing, im a big fan of mars. I think Everybody Knows that. Im a big fan of using robots in the right place. Before we put a single human foot on mars, we should have an army of robot that is are put there to burrow into the surface, build out the infrastructure just the same way we do for any american soldier, marine, or anybody who goes to these strange places in the world, when they get there, they walk into their building, they dont build it. Somebody else with a bunch of robots has taken stuff over there, and they go into an air conditioned space where they can go do stuff. You got to build dig a fox hole when you get into the remote parts, but we can use robots to build habitats and thats a business that we could be working on right now. Tom has some thoughts too. It might be slightly apples and oranges, but curiosity on mars, 3 1 2 years to cover the same distance that jean and jack did on apollo did in three days, and they brought back 245 pounds of rocks and material. Its you need both. But it costs more, too. Next question. Short question, but likely a bit controversial. You talk about competition and collaboration and it seems to me that one of the big elephants in space might be china and so im interested in your response in addressing the relationship in terms of space and china. Why does everybody look at me . [ laughter ] im the guy that shot him, again. Say what you will about president obama and the obama administration. In 2010, we thought we were on the verge of having another apollo, but it was going to be a sh sh shinzo shuttle, and it got hit down by the congress. A lot of you recognize because of your partners are chinese. Everybodys we got problems with everybody. [ laughter ] what makes us able to work with others on the International Space station so incredibly well, its mission focus. Its deciding what were going to do to make the world a better place. I was at nasa headquarters and george said i want you to go back to houston and fly another shuttle mission. I said what is it . I was hoping it would be to repair hubbell. He said, no, not on your life. He said i want you to go back and command the First Mission thats going to carry a russian kosmonaut. And i said i dont want to fly with any damn russian. And he said calm down, two guys are in town, go have dinner with them and let me know what you think in the morning. And i met two who are dear friends to this day some 20 years later because what we talked about that night didnt have anything to do with technology, we talked about your kids, what we wanted to do for the future and we became mission focused on figuring out how we could get our two teams together and successfully work on that mission and it became the International Space station. And i think tom will tell you the same thing about lexi. I had the exact same thing. I graduated from the naval academy, went into the air force. I was a cold warrior. I wanted to go to korea and kill kommies and i ended up on apollo and i realized that all the russians werent communist. In fact, his granddaughter is named after my daughter and my two grandsons are named after different sons named after alexei. But the whole thing, were really worked good together and i was the one who said we have to work with the russians because we needed an escape vehicle. Also i didnt know that 28 years later i would be adopting two russian orphan boys. Next question. Megan smith. Proud member of section 10. Two quick things, caroliharlie loved what you said about ethics and i wondered if we might think about a hippocratic oath. But my question is actually with this Incredible Group, maybe to lift some hidden figure stories. Theres so many people of course apollo and the Space Mission was born at the same time as massive civil rights work was civil rig work was going on for race equality, so many people. At the time there was a lot of discrimination in choosing who got to go and did Different Things and still people snuck in and found their way to participate in these teams. I thought the panel could lift one of two ideas. The one i would say was the first woman who the murkieer seven referred to as seven and a half. She met with the russians, did all the things. Theres beautiful pictures from the 1961 article, should a woman by first in space or sorry a girl be first in space. The pace suits didnt fit her either. Still dont. Just sharing those stories, as women of all races, men of color, folks you might reflect on either during the space race or recently that maybe less people know you would share and the things we as an academic can do to make sure those stories are more known. Thank you. I cant share a Hidden Figures kind of story. I would like to share a story that perhaps addresses the root of what youre asking about. I was in middle school when i first dreamed of being an astronaut. I had no idea how i was going to do it. I had no idea whether it was possible. It was something i decided it was just who i was. In 1978 when i entered high school, there was an article on the front page of my hometown newspaper in southern illinois, and across the front page was splashed women accepted into the nasa astronaut corp. And it had a picture of all the women in that class. When i saw that newspaper article and that picture, i mean, i started crying quite frankly because at that moment i realized the dream i had was possible. There was a path. There were people like me that i could totally identify with doing the thing i always dreamed of doing. And over the years i have synthesized that moment into the power of role models. And how important it is everyone in this room is a role model for some constituency. Im not talking about gender and race. Your hometown, the high school you went to. Niece and nephews because kids never listen to their parents. Theres somebody somewhere youre a role model for. This group of people is san Incredible Group of people who are very talented and successful. Id encourage you to get out there and be role models and encourage people and excite people about your passion in s. T. E. M. Thats what its going to take to get more and more people engaging in our fields. Do not underestimate the power of role models. The Hidden Figures story . Ill bring up one point. I have three daughters. And i became convinced early in my career that women could do whatever they wanted to. And if i had the pleasure of having sally ride in my crew and she lived up to everything i expected of her and went on to help inspire other young girls to get involved in s. T. E. M. Kind of projects. 35 years ago today, Cathy Sullivan and sally ride were on my crew on 41 g. We were going to prove that cathy was quite capable of doing a space walk. A lot of men doubted a woman could. She went out and did the job superbly and proved that. Subsequently, weve had all kinds of women do space walk and somebody brought up yesterday we may have two women go out together on the International Space station very soon. Im sure tom and charlie could not imagine in the 60s and 70s flying tactical airplanes with a woman on their ring with the aircraft. Women in combat aviation and Tactical Aviation came about when i was a fleet aviator. It was been a rocky start, but before too long, we didnt think twice about it. Now on my crew, we have nicole mann, who is a colonel in the marine corp. A boeing f18 hornet pilot. And shes just absolutely awesome. It just is amazing how quickly things have come about and opportunities in aviation and engineering. You know, we had lead flight directors, two who were women. Lead space walkers who were women. Its just like i said, the h metamorphosis has been incredible. I know no one is speaking directly about artemis. Were going to have a woman step foot on the moon. I mean, its phenomenal. So it is time for us to begin wrapping up unless someone gives me permission to go further. Okay. It is time for us to begin wrapping up. Id actually were going to be quick, but im going to get each of you one sentence, just too to just give a close. There you go, tom. Work hard. All right, bob. Dont screw up. Be a good role model for those around you. The next 12 months is going to be pivotal for human space flight. I can repeat you, dont screw up. Thats a nice version. Do what you can with what you have in the time you have in the place you are. Really great. Ill close by saying you dont have the opportunity, many years ago to have dinner with the last person to walk on the moon. When he told me about his moon experience, he ended it all with its thanked to american ingenuity. Its not just the people in space, its the scientist, the engineers, everyone, the entire community. The Space Program has inspired our nation, its inspired our world. Its competitive. Its collaborative. Its inspired adults. Its inspired kids. And i cannot wait to see what the next generation and the current generation, the scientists and engineers and astronauts do next in space over the next 50 years. Thank you so much for all of you being here and all your wonderful questions. Thank you so much to our panelists. [ applause ] live now here on cspan 3. We take you capitol hill where oel officials with boeing will be testifying. One year ago a lyon air air crashed killing all on board. Well hear from the chair of the National Transportation safety board. The hearing is being held by the Senate TransportationCommittee Live on cspan 3. Youre watching live coverage on cspan 3 as the hearing comes together. Officials from boeing will by testifying on the safety of the 737 max airport. A year ago a plane crashed in indonesia that killed 189 passengers and crew. And then a second crash happened earlier this year with Ethiopian Airlines using the same type of plan that killed 157 people. Well be hearing this morning from the chair of the National Transportation safety board