We could test on the ground. With that we had the greatest Carbon Dioxide removal system in the world. We get it on orbit, we find out that all of the dust clouds everything up. On the water system, the tubing is permeable to Carbon Dioxide. Carbon dioxide goes into the water system and creates a nutrient rich environment for bacteria. We tested on the ground and we saw none of those problems. Station can give you that chance to really dry run and test the equipment on orbit. You do not use station as an ancillary piece. You pick pieces that are absolutely necessary. Some things are better for us than on the ground. You make a smart decision about what you want to go do. Would you be looking to make a station or some capability like that . You would be spending considerable resources to get a platform to operate. Do not forget the transportation angle. The station provides a Research Platform that already has propulsion. The focus on the technology and try to leverage what else is out there. Another piece on station is what we will do with our crew members next year in 2015. We do not see anything that looks problematic beyond six months, but even though it is only one data point, it it still is one data point. We looked at it before. The russians have flown many years, several yearlong missions, but it is time we look at it with the tools we have today to see if there is anything in the human system that changes over the sixmonth period. How important is it to simulate a mars mission and how close do you have to make it to a real mission to be of value . You build in a communication delay . You block the windows . Weve talked about that and we do some things now. We are doing a lot of procedures that are autonomous. The crews do the operation without any ground involvement. I was geared towards the mars environment where the time delay does not allow the ground team to interact with the crew. Weve talked about taking away the windows and communication time. I bet the astronauts love that. To go to mars, theyre willing to put up with all of these stressors. Just to do it for fun as a test mission, they are not so keen about that. That is an interesting human dynamic already. How many marathons do you have to run before you are really ready to go do a marathon . Are you good enough running 10 miles or 18 miles . The trick with mars is to not do so much that you reduce all of the risk to zero. To reduce the risk to a low enough level that we are ready to give this a shot we have a reasonable chance of pulling this off. Among your challenges, i did not see the psychological issues. The mars 500 experience and what they have done, they have tried to delve into this. We have some good studies on the behavioral aspect. The dimension is really different. If you look at our crew is on station, they spent time looking at the home planet and taking pictures. That is a different psychological push. That is important, too, in the way we talk about this. We talk about moving humans into deep space. We talk about exploration. I think about coming back. We need to Start Talking about it in terms of pioneering. That really starts changing the dynamic. The investment in mars is so much that we do not want to do this as a onetime mission. We want the infrastructure and think about this as moving into the solar system. That is the part about building capabilities. I always think about history, being a history major. Frankly, somebody going to mars will have more contact with earth or the homeport than some of those do you use those historical parallels as you inform your decisions . We ought to discuss the difference when you do terrestrial voyages, you still have oxygen to breathe. You still have water. You can bring some food. You can grow plants. When we start becoming mars ready or earth independent, that is a different dimension. You really have to carry it with you or you have to have enough assurance that you can use the Carbon Dioxide environment of mars to generate oxygen. Can you get water out of the martian environment . Terrestrial exploration was little different because it was not quite the level of what we are doing here. We are putting a human in the environment that the human cannot live in on its own. How much of that ability by the way, feel free to come to the microphone with questions. How much of that ability to live off the martian land do we have to prove before we put people on the surface . A number of studies that show that if you can institute resources, get your water, oxygen, fuel. It really becomes a mass problem. How much can you rely on when you get there . If we are going to rely on a system, you want it to be there ahead of time. He wanted to be reliable and to be able to store the oxygen. That would be the most prudent step. We are not there yet, but we are taking a first step. Advanced missions, multiple landings, autonomous vehicles. One advantage, we could send some Scout Missions ahead of time. The environment is so harsh and so extreme. When you put those scout vehicles there, they ought to be generating resources. In this constrained environment, we have to make sure everything we do is accessible to the next stop. If were going to build oxygen, i want to build enough that could be used forward. As you paint that picture, and you have done a nice job pulling together a lot of these disparate elements in a way that provides a cohesive narrative, and i hope that plays well on capitol hill. What is interesting, we all think of success in space as apollo. The deadline and a commitment, cold war. We perceive that the way to go to space. This is a little bit more building interstate system. There is a sense of, lets build some infrastructure and does not have the same headline capability that the space race had. It offers sustainability. This is a nuanced story. How can we convey that story to people who are less dialed into what nasa is doing right now . Or is that my job . That is your job. [laughter] it is all of our jobs. We need to look at what we are doing today and describe it in a way that makes sense. We just flew up on spacex. We have grown old bunch of lance before. This is the first time we have grown plants for the crew to eat. This is not for a science experiment. This is food for the crew to augment their diet. This is the beginning of starting to push us off of the earth into space. It is a small thing, but we ought to be talking about it. If you could plant a pizza, they would be really happy. [inaudible] [laughter] you really did hit the nail on the head. I get the excitement, too. I want to create a mission, but i do not know if we have the luxury to do that right now with budgets and forecasts. We have to take successes and the steps along the way, whether it is growing plants, solar engine propulsion, orion, sos, we will be moving the needle forward. We will have to paint it in the right context with as few powerpoint charts as we can. You did have three charts, but one of those charts was five charts in one. You get the sense that if you talk about it long enough, maybe it could become a reality. We do have the fundamental issue of dollars and cents. If you jive it with what the money is right now, when do we get to mars . As somebody said last night, it will be 2030 years, but we have been saying that for 2030 years. How do we reconcile that vision with the congress and the American People have put on the table for nasa . The way i lay it out, we cannot do it at the same budget level were at today. It will not work. The current level has a one percent increase and it will need more than that. We need to show the congress and folks, if we get the additional funding, here are the advances we can make. We are not just doing a demonstration. This is into the mars capability puzzle this way and if we make that, we can continue to break the paradigm. We also need to look very hard at what we can do internationally. Our International Partners are very interested. Likewise, the private sector. Tremendous capability, but can we start extending or expanding that into the exploration domain . The other thing that is a little different is used to the Mission Directors working together. The technology we are doing, along with the Broader Community, working together to get technology feeding into those missions. This is the down and dirty of it, we are trying to work with other partners and other Government Agencies on the Tech Knowledge he pieces that will feed into it. We can work on the technology pieces and leverage other investments. It is going to be hard. It all looks good when we are working together, but to do that, you are giving up control. I will be doing more than the director would want to do on mars. I would like to have more capability than a Science Mission needs, but if we do two separate missions, the cost of that is some larger number. If we could integrate those together, we are advancing human space flight into the solar system, that is how we win. We looked at a way holistically we can work together. The challenge is big enough, it will not be solved by any Mission Director by itself. It has to be the whole of the agency and the International Community pulling together. I would think getting to mars would be easier than getting the nasa directors to work together. [laughter] i am not going there. Steve brodie, International Space university. Throughout my time in nasa, occasional wildcards that help you along, but sometimes present additional challenges. One thing im thinking about is the confusion and offer of significant private resources from some individuals with very deep pockets. We have had the very real winwin with commercial cargo and hopefully that will continue with a commercial crew. How do you see any other major contributions from individuals, companies, whatever, that will get that synergistic principle . Again, we see a lot of folks working on engine technology. Spacex has just signed an agreement to look at methane engine work. Jeff bezos has been looking at some engine work. That has been the domain of the government to work on some of these new engine capabilities, some of that is being picked up by the private sector with private sector money. The system that takes Carbon Dioxide the Carbon Dioxide removal system and combined with hydrogen to generate oxygen and it makes more water and creates methane. Instead of buying that as a system, we did not pay for any the development, we agreed to pay for the water generated by the device. We will pay you 10,000 per pound. If you do not generate any water, you do not get any pay. They were able to do all of the development for that system and it has been working very well. Are there other models like that we can leverage off to the private sector . We have to continue to look at that. Do not always assume that it has to be the government. We see an interest in the commercial spacecraft industry. Can we leverage that interest . We think we can. It has incredible benefits for Government Agencies that we will not speak about here. What is the right mix on that . Hard to sell that to another automaker, right . I dont envision another space station beyond the space station we have today. I see it picking up the next Generation Space station in lower orbit. I see our space station today as a chance for them to experiment with what might be helpful in the drug world, the biological world or materials world. There is something here that gives me an insight into the physical process, i would like to be able to do that. We have been able to have access to cargo and crew so its not costprohibitive. Maybe a single Purpose Laboratory now is the answer in the environment. We dont have to replicate . I of that in any of our future plans. So im hoping that we use station to be that next piece and this extension of station after 2024 gives us the fighting chance to expose a Broader Community beyond aerospace an opportunity to do aerospace. Having another 10 years to do that was a significant thing, a huge thing i think. Is it enough time for you . Were talking a pretty long time prime. 20 years from now will you be wishing you had it there . I say use what you can. The big thing is it really changed the environment for the commercial sector. When it was going to end in 2020, i couldnt get any commercial company to think about doing anything with space research. The focus was too short. Just that four more years to 2024 has really changed the commercial sectors perception of what space is and how to use it and they can go directly and get private services now to take private cargo up. Eventually theyll have crew. So theyre starting to say lei, this isnt such a foreign environment to us, were willing to invest. When that Tipping Point kind of changes, where now the private sector doesnt see that as something so risky that only governments can do, and they see that turning profit or lowering use of resources in space, then i think you start seeing a much broader base building to go forward. It was hard to regain the confidence of the commercial sector and the academic world, too, after all that happened when the science budgets were cut dramatically. And were slowly getting that back again, but youre right, theyre skeptical. If you talked before about being sustainable and building plants and processes that can take the storms that come when we have a sequester and doesnt fall apart, if weve got a plan that is making measured, sustainable progress, i think thats how we ultimately get to mars. We have a question over here . My question has to do with the slide thats been shown twice now recording the proving Ground Missions. Those are beyond low earth orbit and said one to 12 months. Im interested primarily prosecute the biomedical challenge side be things. Is there currently a plan in place for the proving Ground Mission of 6 to 12 months . If so, what does that plan entail . Around the moon were looking at potentially a crewtended capability, a habitation module. Again, i dont see it as a moon attended module. The idea is to take this lifesupport system that we worked on space stations, in a mars class station and put it into a true space station and stick it around the moon. That enables a lot of lunar activity. Its a base santo operate and do those activities. You can guess nice view times of the south pole, north pole, and the moon. Telerobotic things. Weve drisken rovers in california to see how you could deploy those on the far side of the moon the the other thing if you think about it is we talked about maybe prepositioning hardware around the cars so you will launch a component with a lifesupport system. It spends a year journey to get out there now, its in the martian environment and then doesnt get activated for another year. Sometimes our systems are not so good just sitting around. There proving ground lets us put a laboratory around the moon and where we visit it every couple months it actually looks at how we shut that system down and activate it again. It helps us get ready for mores. If in a Perfect World with unlimited money, would it help you to land on the moon . Or would it be a detour that would just kind of suck resources, time, whatever . The challenge of course is it doesnt have much of an atmosphere. The lunar lander would be chemical. Im not sure as the president said, been there, done that . Is that the way you look at it in i would say not quite so much but in charlies talk somebody asked him about partial gravity, and thats the advantage you get on the moon. By being on the surface of the million up get to see the environment. But can you interpolate to mars . I think you can. We would like to get some data there. We have some small centrifuges on station where we can look at things at the Cellular Level and small plant level and i think that will give us some indication is there a problem in this level the i dont think its worth the expense right now of going to the moon. Unless this research on station points to us seeing a huge problem or consideration we have to deal with. And there are certain, you could imagine, capabilities, telerobotics, but also again private partnerships and organizations, there are some ways that perhaps we can partner in a very smart way to go do that. And in this proving ground, if our International Partners really want to go to the surface of the moon, great, let them go do that or if our commercial partners see an advantage to using lunar surfaces for activities, thats fine. Well support them. But we should be aware of the environment were in and leverage off the other activities that help us. So we figure out a way to partner with the chinese . I think the chinese will be a key player somewhere . This somewhere in this situation. So i cant imagine we dont work with them. We partner with the chinese . I cant answer that and still continue to sit on this stage. Ill be teleported to mars momentarily if i o any real answers glen . My name is greg cecil and im a former Space Shuttle worker and now a middle School Science teacher down in florida. My question is constellation was set up by the Bush Administration to take us to the million and mars and beyond. Unfortunately whether the new administration came in, that was cancelled. My greatest fear is now that you have an idea of what you want to do, you have a road map set up with s. L. S. , if we have a new Administration Come in to power in 2016, 2017, will we have everything scratched again and starting from base zero . Has nasa considered that and worried about that . I would say yes. Were really working with that on sls. A test in december is going to look at the heat shield performance. Thats essentially 80 of the software well fly on space x explorations around the moon. The actual dome for 2017, space one, is actually manufactured in new orleans. Were putting in a large machine and will actually Start Building the tanks down there. Were working on the exploration upper stage for the mars class mission. So by the time we get to 2016 were going to have significant hardware, in fact we do today, that you can go out and touch and see. What were doing, if somebody decides they want to revector and do lunar activities, they can, but were staying focused toward mars, destination independent but capability driven and try to make that point to the next group that comes in with an idea, ok, we understand what you would like to do, weve created enough flexibility in the division to let us change it a little bit but dont lose where were going. How much metal do you have to bend . How many congressionally linked jobs do you have to have before you have inertia for a program so it sustains itself . What does it take . If i could answer that, id had a ph. D. Have i one and i cant answer that either. Why cant we do space one other thing, we also do ourselves a big disservice, right, because we argue with ourselves about the perfect plan. Right . And at some point thats not helpful. The problem is that the outside world sees these supposed smart people all arguing, so there must be something that isnt right. Then they kind of go, wow, we dont really want to go do that. We need to make sure we dont get caught up in trying to make, find the absolute perfect plan that doesnt sustain itself. Can we all get together as a community and recognize that sustainability is important . Question over here the hi. Harry singer the going back to the origin of nasa and its predecessor, in fact, and also as head of the joint office of nasa and the Atomic Energy commission where we developed the Nuclear Thermal Rocket propulsion and in 1970 we were ready to really move forward talking about humanmars missions. I heard no word of the thermal propulsion at all here and i havent heard of it in anything. We really had it. President nixon at that time killed that program and several others in the space program. We havent given rebirth to that. But we really were ready to move forward with a mars mission at that time. Were talking about now over 40 years later. What consideration has been given to thermonuclear which we had developed then . You mentioned electric but its a low thrust system that takes longer for mission. Yeah, i think were still living on the shoulders of giants, and you are one of those giants. Because many of the technologies and capabilities we have were either proven now every time we come up with a new system at lanning, i always ask, was this done in the 1960s . Every single time, its all been done. All been done. So the nuclear thermal, i agree, it was a really push forward in a significant way in the 1970s. Most of the trade studies we see to go to mars including the ones in space tank say that nuclear thermal is probably the best means we have to get there as quick as we can. Helps with the crew, helps with radiation. So it is a question of investment, priority, and when do you invest and how much and when do you do it . We have modest investments right now in it. We kind of tried to make sure were not overlapping, right . Theres modest investments there to keep the system alive and when we can get the right budget and right time, many would argue thats the way to go. I think it was unfortunate calling it the fukushima engine though. Wasnt that a bad idea . Frankly, i just dont see were going to get there in 30 years the way its going. You say 30 years, gee, we were doing it in 1970. There are some that would argue that in cryogenic propulsion, in a very narrow case you can do it but to get there repeatedly, we got to get back to that. So were a little short of time. Kind of getting down to the fiveminute realm. If i could is you ask you to get right to your questions so we can get a few more in. Go ahead, sir. Yeah. You guys are coming a long way and have from some of the answers, very good, working with the private sector but there is still this learning that needs to occur, maybe not so much at nasa but on the hill and the staffers and people up there as to the fact that the private sector, not just commercial but the private sector is going to be maybe starting slow but going faster and faster and faster and there may be times where they get ahead of you the you can see some of these billionaires pull together and actually do a mars mission that could go faster. Wouldnt is it be i good idea to have sort of an annual review where the nasa and leaders in the private sector sit down and maybe coordinate these things . Because its going to happen, theyre going to get faster and faster and faster. You might get there second. That sounds like a reasonable thing. Because i think again, kind of back to the other discussion, weve got to make sure were not just talking to ourselves all the time. We need to go back look and say make we need to talk about these things to a Broader Community, expose them to what we can do and have them tell us what they can do. The private sector can clearly take more risks. They have significant investment funds. It might be helpful to have a broader forum or expand this humantomars workshop to include a Broader Community. Yeah. If you get there second you still need to make it look like a victory. Quick question, please . Yes. Excellent point from the gentleman who brought up the alternative of Nuclear Thermal Propulsion kind of a related question. Why is there so much of a focus on solarelectric propulsion . The focus on solar is a couplefold, right. One, for the astral retrieval mission, into the proving ground in deep space, it has the capability and its the most efficient form of transportation really out there in space. We think about transportation on earth. We have tugs, barges, facilitate eagles. S. E. P. Is very efficient. We think its ready for the next step. We can leverage it with different industries. Its the next one we can push over the needle. The space tech came out with high priority. It enables exploration. I think a big piece is really what mike was pulling on. It has more application than just to nasa and to just our mission. To get highpower solar rays is important to the solar satellite communication industry. Its not just nasa pushing this for our own needs. Another piece, the Higher Powered thruster to replace liquid apogee morts, this is a part of that piece. Is this is a way to leverage off what commercial is already doing and moving forward. In the Nuclear Propulsion area its pretty much us alone pursuing it. There isnt yet a private sector playaction for that class of rocket but we need to keep investing in the technology and take the work that was done back in the 1960s and take it that next step. Because we know a lot more about control systems now. Computers are much more sophisticated. We can take some of that and move it forward at the right pace. But this isnt something uniquely needed for us. It can be shared. This is key, again, not trying to did it all ourselves and trying to be smart about it. One of the challenges is the ability to store liquid hydrogen. Its not only good for cryogenic storage, but for thermal too. Were trying to take the common pieces today. Yes . I have several questions, but we have a break coming up and people can be thinking about them. In relation to doing things in the past and then kind of putting them on the shelf, it reminds me of the h. L. 20 derived from the boar 4 photograph and a lot of wind tunnel tested and it was part of a program and it was put on the celestial. Jim benson bought it and now mark is doing it again. Im just wondering if inflatables was a program at one time and now its back in another program developed by las vegas, bigelow. Just several days ago we had a giant thinker leave us, john heubolt, and he was a great rogue model for me and i hope that some of the thoughts that i come up with can in some way mimic what hes been able to do. At the moon we had a free return trajectory, and we modified that once the s. B. F. Was working. We were always in a relatively close lunarearth orbit. And apollo 13 indicated that we could probably come back. I dont believe we have that capability in the transmars injection with the flyby free return that is an acceptable solution, nor do we have a rescue ability. Why dont we do like many other industries do instead of one big large thing that could fail . Why dont we have two small things like fighter airplanes, they fly in formation. If one cant do the job, the other one can. Sure, you could do them but leave a staging orbit at five pliles formation difference or 10 miles. Now, wait a minute, dont be so stupid, why dont you put them together in the staging orbit and have them fly out. Now you can jettison the one that fails and continue to do the job if you have two crew modules . On the subject of crew modules, can orion aero break into mars orbit . Does it have the ability of doing that . When i look at what i need at mars, i need landers, and landers are capable of aerobraking and transporting people from one position to another and bringing back people. I dont know who is here from lockheed but i got to ask the question, why do we need orion in mars orbit . I really dont believe that thats the case. I have may have had another question. Well, i guess we did have the idea of wanting to have a launch vehicle and then a larger habitat. Once we have the larger habitat we can put the people in the launch vehicle. Why cant we put them in the large vehicle and a landing vehicle just as well as in orion . Let me leave it at that. I suppose yes or no is not an option . [laughter] we can try. I would say first of all on expandable, were going to look at that on space station with beam in 2015. Were going to look at Expandable Technology to see what advantages that gives to us. Its reported to have better thermal conditions, the larger volume allows you to put water in for better radiation. Thats a good thing. To buzzs point, were looking at what we call evolveable and modular architecture for mars. So its along the lines of what buzz is talking about. We may preposition a habitational module around mars ahead of time and do a rendezvous with that. Thats your return vehicle so instead of looking at a single monolithic kind of mission were looking at, we call it evolveable where we position pieces up front and also call it modular because were trying use similar components. Can we take advantage of the natural satellites around mars and use those in the mars architecture and use a piece of those for what we are trying to go do . Were looking a lot at high elliptical orbiters. Were starting to take a different approach toward mars than we have before. Our classic missions were more apollo style in a way where we launched everything in a campaign in a year. Sent the armada of space craft you saw toward mars. I think were going to do that over a period of years. We need to all start thinking in maybe a different way so its not a Single Mission but really is this pioneering aspect. How do we move human presence in . Once you are looking at it for the long term then you invest in some things that might actually take longer to do but are more sustainable. Last word, mike . I think what you know, well said and were going to get there this in a sustainable, affordable way and we know the technology is important and thats why we have the investments we have underway and you will continue to see us make those investments over the next 18 months in a number of key areas. Gentlemen, great talk. Thanks for your attention. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2014] journalists died in 2013 while covering the news. The names of those journalist were added to a memorial at the museum on thursday. Indifference. The drumbeat of death being met with a collective societal shrug. You have seen it. People feel bad for a little bit and they offer a tweet or two of morning heartfelt but they posting back to selfies. What would you rather do at the news em . Newscastd practicing a or visit a memorial to 10 journalists whose names you cant pronounce. The more rails like memorials like this make people feel uncomfortable. Lets take a look at why people died. They took pictures somebody didnt like. They asked questions somebody decided were out of line. They wrote things somebody decided should not be written. They expressed ideas somebody disagreed with. Take a look at that smartphone. Lued to your hand how many times a day do you post something . How many photos do you share . How many snotty remarks and bad jokes and critiques . So what if your critical comments about a local restaurant or a sports team earned you a visit from thugs who knocked you around and threatened your children . What if your unflattering photo of a lawmaker guy your business license revoked . What if on your way to lunch one day you took a quick video of a street protest and suddenly guys in uniforms snatched your phone and called you to jail . You think it couldnt happen. It happens every day, hundreds of times. Might it happen to you . Honoring journalist who died in 2013, tonight at 8 00 p. M. Eastern here on cspan. Author Allan Hoffman shares the tale of two mississippis as we visit Prospect Hill in jackson. Prospect hill was founded by isaac ross, who was a revolutionary war veteran from south carolina. When he realized he was going to die and the slaves would end up being sold or become common slaves, he wrote in his will that at the time of his daughters death, the plantation would be sold and the slaves the money would be used to pave the way for a free colony that had been established. The collar repatriation, and they talk about him going back to africa. You have to understand, these ,eople, most of them americans had been here three or four generations. So was not like they were going home. They were going back to the continent their ancestors had inhabited. They were going back to africa. They took the culture here and they took slavery too, but that was all they had ever known. They built houses like this one because after all, they were the ones who dealt the south. There were a lot of greek models int the slaves built mississippi and africa. Across the river was louisiana, there was liberia. Fromf those people came those states in the u. S. Explore the history and literary life of jackson this weekend on cspan twos look tv. Book tv. Next, a speakers include one of the orida judges involved in the 2000 bush have. Gore case and an iowa judge who lost her job due to a ruling on samesex marriage. This is cohosted by the National Association of women judges. Its an hour