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.