Need to get this. Again, if we talk about it with the breakthroughs. What we know now today, just expand it. We have life support on the station. We need to push it to where its reliable and doesnt require so much maintenance. We need to look at the parks to do repair. We are doing that on board. I dont consider those big breakthroughs. I have to get comfortable. Its the maturity level that we use for the nation they positively have to work. Thats the way i look at the challenges. The operation and the proving ground that charlie and bill had mentioned. We have to take systems and days and months and weeks. We need the time and the capability to do that. We will talk about this. I was going to add that i think we can make sure that every piece of technology we work on, its extensible to mars. Thats the judge of the technology that we are working on. Can we use it in that vision. I dont want to do demonstrations just for demonstrationss sake, but be putting systems that we can use for mars. The example is the Redirect Mission and the spacecraft. I have given that as a design condition. That is the most basic architecture you can use to transport cargo to mars. We are looking at missions built on using that as a key piece. How do they fit into the mars mission. They look at everything they are doing. We do the next life support system for stations. It will be the next we planned to put into the lodge with the ghost of mars. We bring it out and we will go. Its not a demonstration and lets test this to see how it works. Lets take those to space and see how they work. What do you see as you work on problems. This can change, but right now as you look at it, whats the hardest problems sn radiation or Something Else sn. Again, i think radiation exposure needs understanding. Not much we can do with the background of radiation. We are approaching it several different ways and went to the institute of medicine and asked them to take the standards and the limits on astronauts. They said could we push those limits a little bit. Is it acceptable to change the limits that we carry for mortality caused by space radiation to the crews. Can we change and alter those and they gave us considerations to talk about. Not only the technology, but the requirements and is todays. The restrictions themselves might be too restrictive. Astronauts might accept that risk. Yes. We have now basic guidelines from the institute of medicine of what considerations go into the discussion. That solves a lot of problems. We have got the framework, but again the point is we are not looking at a single solution or breakthrough. The question is we are looking at all aspects of the problem to try to figure out a solution that gets us to where we want to go. Lets talk about this for a moment. Iss is a ground and on the one hand that sounds good. A lot of people say its a drain on the budget and its a problem. Does iss give you more than it takes sn. I believe it does. It forces you to make decisions like the life support system. If we make that the support system, i got a test system i could never test. We could test and what we learned is we thought we had the greatest removal system in the world. We get it on orbit and find out all this moves out of the bed and it goes into the valves and clogs everything up. We found out on the water system that the tubing is permeable to Carbon Dioxide that goes into the system and creates a nutrientrich environment and had biofilm all over. We tested extensively underground and saw none of those problems. By going to the environment of pace and being in the closed loop environment with the c02 levels, that pushed the problems. I think station can give you that chance to really dry run and test the equipment on orbit. You dont use station as an ancillary or piece. You pick those that are necessary and you use the advantage of the station to do that. Some are better tested underground. You make a smart decision about what you want to do. The most costeffective way to keep moving towards mars. If you didnt have the station, would you be looking to make a station or a capability like that sn. You would be spending resources to get a platform to operate in to get to the station also. Dont forget the transportation and a means to get to space to demonstrate technologies. The station provides a Research Platform that is supplies that has crews and propulsion. What we found on the demonstrations is the focus on the money and the technology that tries to leverage what else is out there as opposed to spending money time and time again for operation into space. Another piece on station is the one we will do with the crew members next year in 2015. We are very experienced looking out to six months. We dont see anything that looks problemat problematic, but even though it is only one data point that said hey, is there anything that starts occurring beyond the sixmonth period. They are flowing many years and several year long missions. I think its time we now look at it with the tools we got today to see if there is anything that changes over the sixmonth period to see if something continues to degrade in terms of human degradation. How important is it to simulate the mission and orbit that way. How close do you have to make it to a mars mission to be a value sn do you build in the communication delay and block the windows and dont get the look at earth. How do you design Something Like that sn. Its interesting. We have talked about that and we do things now and we do a lot of procedures now in the station that are autonomous where the crews do the operation without ground involvement. That was geared towards the environment with the time delay that doesnt allow the team to interact with the crew. We talked about taking away the windows and communication time. Its interesting to say go to mars. Thats an interesting dynamic already. How many marathons do you have to run before you are really ready to goa to a marathon or are you good enough running 10 or 18 miles and do the marathon when it comes time sn the trick is to not do so much. I dont know whose office it is, i didnt see the psychological issues as one of the issues. That is more of that. The mars 500 experience. They tried to definitely into this. There big challenges. We have good studies again on the behavioral aspect. If you look at the crew, between the human and where you are, you have pictures from the rovers looking back at the earth and this is one star among many. Thats a different psychological push. Thats important too in the way we talk about this. We talk about moving humans into deep space. We talk about it and think about it, going and investigating and coming back. That really starts changing the dimaamic. The investment in mars is so much, you dont top the do this as a onetime mission. You want to have the infrastructure and think about this as moving human presence off the earth into the solar system. I think they said it very well. Building the capabilities that are extensive as we go to mars. I always think about history and being a history major. You think about magellan and captain cooke or whatever. Somebody going to mars is going to have more contact with earth and the home port, if you will. Do you use the parallels as you inform your decisions about how to handle this sn. I think again historically we ought to discuss the differences when you do terrestrial voyages, you still have oxygen to breathe and you still have water you can breathe. You can bring food with you. You can grow plants. They started breaking the tight back to the planet. Thats a different dimension. You have to carry with you or have assurances and the environment of mars to generate oxygen. Can you get water out of the environment. You have to prove that some of those things and terrestrial exploration will be different. It wasnt quite the level of what we are doing here. We put a human in an environment that they cannot live on its own. We have to carry with it enough to keep the human alive and functioning. How much of that ability and by the way, if you have questions, feel free to come to the microphones. How much of the ability to live off the martian land do we have to prove before we put people on the surface sn. There has been a number of studies that show if you can institute resource utilization to get your water and get your oxygen you can get water and fuel and air to breathe. That shows a lot of mass problems. How much do you have to take with you and how much can you rely on when you get there. If we are going rely on the system, you want it to be there ahead of time. You want it to be reliable and be able to store the oxygen that you know is there. That would be the most proven step to go do. We are taking the first step here. That are would be advanced missions and multiple landings. The Autonomous Vehicles that you create or prove it if not create a story. Maybe we compared ahead of time that the other earlier explorers didnt have the capability. The environment is so harsh and so extreme. Again, the ideas that when you put the vehicles there, they ought to be generating resources to use when the mission follows. This constrained environment, we have to make sure everything we do is on to the next step. Lets do a demonstration with oxygen out of the martian atmosphere. You might want to build enough to use to play forward. As you paint that picture and i think you have done a nice job pulling together in a way that provides a cohesive narrative and i hope that plays well as you try to sell the program. Whats interesting about it, we all think of success with the deadline and if you dont set a date that is a failure. Building the interstate system, there is infrastructure and it doesnt have the same headline capability if you will, that the space had, but what it offers is sustainability. I guess its a long way to say the story. How can we convey the story. People who are less dialled into what nasa is doing right now. Or is that my job sn. Thats your job. Its really all of our jobs. We need to look at this and describe it in a way that makes sense. Look at this thing called veggie. It will grow plants in space. We brought a bunch of plants before. This is the first time we grew plants to eat. This is not for a science experiment to see how the plants will grow. Food to augment the diet. This is the beginning of starting to push us off of the earth into space to do things. Its a small thing, but it could be a big thing. If you can 3d print a pizza. Its roughage. I think you really did hit the nail on the head in terms of that. I get the excitement too. I want to get one mission and you can go. I dont know if we have the luxury to do that right now with budgets and forecast and where we are. We still can get there. We have to take successes in the steps along the way. Whether its growing plants, solar electric propulsion and better suits and a ride and better entry, descent and landing systems. You will have to paint it in the right context with the few power point charts we can. Thats the key. Huh three tries. One of the tries that is five charts in one. You get the sense that if you talk about it long enough and you can be a reality and the fundamental issue of dollars and cents here. If you take that vision, that narrative and you jive it with what the money is right now, when do we get to mars . Size somebody said last night, it will be 20 to 30 years and we have been saying it will be 20 to 30 years. If you do the math, im sure we will never get there. How do you reconcile that vision with what congress and the American People have put on the table for nasa sn. Again the way i lay it out and talked to them about it last week, we cannot do it at the same budget level we are at today. This is not going to work. And the current budgele the neat more than that. There is a modest increase and they need to show folks if we get the funding. Heres the advances and the pieces and show how they are not just doing a demonstration. If we make that, maybe we can continue to break that paradigm and get that funding to move forward. They are interested in doing this activity. There is tremendous capability and prove on the station, but can we start extending or expanding into the domain and do the kinds of things with the industry. Perhaps you see the Mission Director and work going to mars that is feeding forward. Along with the broader community, feeding into the missions. On our side, on the technology pieces that feed into it, that feed into it, thats the key. The cost of that is a larger number. I dont get the Current Mission and the science director doesnt get the science mission. We are advancing the humans into the solar system. We have to figure out a way we dont get it. We look at a way that holestically we do this. The challenge is big enough and wont be solved by a Mission Director. It has to be the whole of the agency and the whole of the international community. Getting to mars will be bigger than getting the nasa aas to work together. Is that accurate sn. Go ahead. Say who you are, please. Thanks. Steve brodie from isu International Space university. They help you along and one thing was the infusion of the significant private resources from individuals with deep pockets. Hopefully that will continue with the commercial prove. Do you see any other through conversations you have already had or sense whats out there. A major contribution from either individuals and companies and whatever that will really get that principal and give you more than what you got now. They just signed a space act agreement with the imagine and work down. They have been looking at engine work. So that has been the domain of the government and work on the new engine capabilities and some has been working on the private sector money. We did entering things that takes Carbon Dioxide from the removal system and combines it and comes off of the exelect roll sis of water and makes more as a waste gas. Instead of buying that, we didnt care for the and generated by the device. We will pay for the water generated on station. You dont get any pay. You will get paid for this period of time. Are there other models and find things they want that might benefit us. Dont assume it has to be the government. Sisimilar story and we see interest in high power solo electric propulsion not only for a targo tug and future expiration or moving the asteroid, but we see an interest in the spacecraft. Interest is good, but we think we can. Laser conference and usa orbit. For other Government Agencies and we wont speak about here. It has interest in the walk later. They can get the content up to the satellites. We think we can. Whats the right mix on that sn can we get to mars leveraging private sector ingenuity sn it will never be a Business Case for it. To what extent do you have to say hey, we have a need sn to what extent are they coming to need sn. Yes on some things. The replacement that we are dealing with. Other areas, maybe not. Perhaps its to the agency of landing on mars. I dont envision another space station. I see the private sector picking up the next picking up the next generation of space station and lower orbit. They will do that to generate the commercial products they learn and got to experiment with. Our space station today is a chance for them to experiment with what might be helpful in the pharmaceutical world and the drug world and biological world and materials world. They can see hey, there is something here that the microgravity environment gives me a different insight. We have been able to get transportation and its not cost prohibitive. They are talking about building laboratories in space and maybe a single Purpose Laboratory is a research environment. That is creating now a private sector infrastructure we can use and dont have to replicate any of that. Im hoping that you use the station to be the next piece. The station gives us a fighting chance to expose a broughture community beyond aerospace to the advantages of doing research. Having another years of station. Is it enough time for you sn you are talking about the time frame for what you want to accomplish. Years from now, you dont have the station and you will be wishing you had it there. You use what you can. I will use what i can, but it changed the environment for the commercial sector. 2020. We couldnt think at all. The focus was too short. The stability was not there. Just that change, four more years in 20 to 24, that changed the perception of what space is and how they can use space and the fact that we are doing the cargo flights. They can go and get private services to take cargo up and we will have the crew. They are saying this is not a foreign environment. We are willing to invest. When that going back to the question that was asked, when that Tipping Point changes, the private sector doesnt see this as something that was risky that only governments can do, they turn profit and lower the orbit and use resources in space, we start seeing a much broader base to build the kind of things we need. It was hard to regain confidence and the academic world too after all that happened at the end of the program. And they were slowly i think getting that back again. Again, they are skeptical and its the stability thing. As you talked about being sustainable and building plants and processes that can take the storms that come when we have the sequester and the program falls apart. We dont get a revector and start all over again. We have a plan that is making measurable progress and thats how we ultimately get to mars. We have a question over here. Thank you. My question has to do with the slide that has been shown twice with the proving Ground Missions. Those are beyond the orbit and ascend 1 to 12 months. I am interested in the side of things. Is there a plan in place for a proving Ground Mission of 6 to 12 months and if so, what does that plan entail sn. We are thinking about again in the lunar space around the vicinity around the moon, a crew capability and habitation. I dont see that as a module per se that they attended, but that would be the module we would use on a mars class mission. The idea is to take this system that we work on the space station and put it into a space station. There is a lot of interest in the community about doing lunar surface activities and it is a base to do the activities. You can get view times of the south and north pole and do a lot of fellows and we have driven rovers in space station in california that look at how we deploy on the far side of the skmoon you can do that with the facility in deep space. The other thing if you think about it is prepositioning hardware around mars. You will launch the component with support system and it spends a year to get out there in a harsh environment and doesnt get activated for another year. It has to come up and operate immediately. Sometimes the systems are not so good. This proving ground lets us go ahead and put a laboratory around the moon and where we visit every couple of months, it looks at how we shut that system down and how to reactivate it. Its being judged by how it helps to get ready for mars. If you had to get others in a Perfect World with unlimited money, would it help to land on the moon or would it be a detour that would suck resources and time sn. It doesnt have much of an atmosphere so it doesnt play out. The Lunar Landing would be chemical. Im not sure. After as pekt anyway. Been there, done that sn. Not quite so much, but when charlie talks, somebody asked him about partial gravity. Thats the advantage you get of the moon. By being on the surface of the moon, you get to see the human body. We live here with 1 g or 0 g. You can get to mars and they would like to get data there. We canceled the space station and we have small centrifuges on station where we can look at the cellular or the small plant level. That will give us an indication of is there a problem in this intermediate gravity level. I dont think its worth the expense of going to the moon to get that partial gravity condition. We can get that unless this research on the stagds points to us seeing a huge problem. Learning to live on the surface and there is private partnerships that are also interested. There ways to partner to do that. If the International Partners want to go to the surface of the moon, great. Using lunar materials for this activity. We should be aware of the environment we are in. That helps us get in. Should we figure out a way to partner with the chinese sn. I think the chinese will be a key player. I cant imagine at some point we dont. How about you. If i offer any real answers. Glen, question. My name is greg and im a former space schultz worker and now a Little School Science Teacher in florida. My question is that constellation was set up by the Bush Administration to take us to the moon and mars and beyond. When the new administration came in, that was canceled. My greatest fear is now that you have an idea of what you want to do and have a road map set up, if we have a new Administration Come in in 2016 or 2017, we have everything scratched again. You get to say a test flight at the end of this year and that will look at the heat shield performance. Thats a big plus. The actual first dome for the expiration mission one. That manufactured down in new orleans. You can touch and see and its not mission destination specific. What we are doing by going into space is deciding they top the do lunar activity. Its focused towards mars. They try to make that point to the group. They create enough flexibility and we can change the vision a little bit and we dont lose the goal of where we are going. Am critical. How much metal do you have to bend, how much congressionally linked jobs do you have to have before you you have enough inertia for a program that it sustains itself . What does it take . If i could answer that, i would have a ph. D. Theres your thesis right there. Theres my thesis. I have one. I cant answer that either. Why cant we do space. We also do ourselves a big disservice, right . Because we kind of argue with ourselves about the perfect plan. Right . At some point thats not helping us. The enemy of the good. The problem is that the outside world sees these supposed smart people all arguing so there must be something that isnt right and then they go, well, we dont want to go do that. We have to make sure we dont get so caught up in trying to find the absolute perfect plan that meets everything that is that doesnt sustain itself. So can we all as a Community Get together and recognize that, hey, sustainability is important. Right. Question over here. Hi. Harry finger, 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 develop the Nuclear Thermal Rocket propulsion and in 1970 we were ready to really move forward talking about human mars 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 killed that program and several ores in the Space Program. We were really ready to move forward with a mars mission at that time. Were talking now over 40 years later. What consideration has been given to Nuclear Thermal Rocket propulsion that we already had developed then and could move on at high thrust. You mentioned nuclear electric but its a lowthrust system that takes longer for mission. Yeah. Well, i think were still living on the shoulders of giants and youre one of those giants because many of the technologies and capabilities we have were either proven out including some of the work every time we come up with a new system entry set landing, i ask, it was done in the 60s. Yeah, here is the test data in the 60s. Its all been done. Its all been done. So nuclear thermal i agree with, it was really push forward in a significant way in the 70s. I think all most of the trade studies that we see to go to mars, including the ones that we have in space tech say that nuclear thermal is probably the best means we have to get there as quick as we can. And as quick as we can, you know, helps with the crew, helps with radiation. So it is a question of investment, priority and when do you invest and how much do you invest and when do you do it . We have modest investments right now in nuclear thermal. Theyre in bills 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 the right time, many would argue thats the way to go. I think it was unfortunate calling it a puck she ma engine, though, wasnt that a bad idea . Frankly, i just dont more in i would appreciate it. Go ahead, sir. You are coming a long way and some of the answers ive seen with bill and you ive been very good theyre music to my ears as far as working with the private sector, but theres still this learning that needs to occur, maybe even not so much at nasa but over on the hill and the staffers and the people there as to the fact that the private sector not just commercial but the private sector is going to be maybe starting slow but theyll be going faster and faster and faster. There will be times where you get ahead of you. You can see some of these billionaires pool together and do a mars mission, it might go faster. Wouldnt it be a good idea to have sort of an annual at least reswru in nasa and the leaders in the private sectors sit down and talk about and maybe coordinate these things because its going to happen. Its going to get faster and faster and faster. You might land there second. I mean, that sounds like a reasonable thing we should think about hard to think of something wrong with that. Again, back to the other discussions, weve got to make sure were not just talking to ourselves all the time, right . To your point, we need to go look and maybe we need to talk about these things to a broader community, expose them to what we can do and also have them tell us what they can do. Private sector can clearly take more risk. They have significant investment funds. Where would they like to go, what are they interested in . It might be nice to expand that human to mars workshop to include a broader community. If you get there second, you still need to make it look like a victory. Right . All right. Do this quickly. Quick question, please. Yes. Excellent point from the gentlemen who brought up the alternative of Nuclear Thermal Propulsion. I have a related question. Why is there so much of a focus on solar electric propulsion . The focus on solar electric couple fold, right . One, the retrieval mission, the next mission to the proving ground where we can go operate in deep space, it has the capability and most efficient form of transportation out there in space. We think about transportation on earth, we have tugs, we have barges, we have fast vehicles and slow. Sep is extremely efficient. We think its ready for the next step. We can leverage the interest in industry. Its good for multiple purposes. Its the next one we can push over the needle. Its not only us. Look at the National Research council, high priority go to high power sep. Look at most of the trade studies, it enables exploration. A big piece is what mike was pulling on it. It has more applications to just to nasa and our mission. To get high power solar rays is important to the satellite industry. They would very much like to have those. They will be pushing this technology so its us and them pushing. Its not just nasa pushing this for our own needs. The Higher Powered thrusters to replace motors on communication satellites, commercial industry is interested in that piece. This is a way we can leverage off of what commercial is already doing and moving forward and then Nuclear Thermal Propulsion area its pretty much us along pushing. There isnt quite yet another private sector for that class of rocket. We need to keep investing in the technology and take the work that was done back in the 60s and take it to that next step. We know a lot more about control systems. Computers are much more sophisticated. We can take some of that and move it forward at the right pace and then expose that. But i think our focus really is on along the lines of sustainability. This is something that isnt uniquely needed for us. It can be shared with a broader group. Thats the key aspect of where we are today. This is again not trying to do it all ourselves and trying to be smart about it. And, you know, one of the challenges for nuclear thermal is the ability to store liquid hydro general. Thats one of the k keys to it. Were working that now. Were trying to take the common pieces and threads and do it today. 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 hl20. It was part of a program and it was put on the shelf and jim benson bought it and now mark is doing it again. Im just wondering if inflatables is a transhab is a program. Now its back in another program developed by las vegas bigelow. Just several days ago, we had a giant thinker leave us, john hubolt and he was a great role 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 sps was working we were always in a relatively close lunar earth orbit. And apollo 13 indicated that we could probably come back. I dont believe we have that capability in the transmars injection with a 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 staging orbit five mile formation difference or ten mile and 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 jetson the one that fails and continue to do the job if you have two crew modules. On the subject of crew modules, can o ryan aerobreak into mars orbit. Does it have the capability 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 to bringing back people. I dont know who is here from lockheed, but i have to ask the question, why do we need o ryan in mars orbit . I really dont believe that thats the case. I 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 into the large vehicle in a landing vehicle just as well as an oryan . Let me leave it at that. I suppose yes or no is not an option. First of all, on expandable, well look at that on space station with beam in 2015. Well go look at Expandable Technology to see what advantages that gives to us. So well get a chance to see its reported to have better thermal conditions. Also the larger volume allows you to put water in for shielding for radiation which would be a good thing. Well get some real world experience with expandables on board station. So buzzs point, were looking at we call it now evolvable and a modular architecture for mars. So its along the lines of what buzz is talking about, maybe multiple habitation modules we may preposition the habitation module around mars someplace ahead of time than we do the rendezvous with that module and thats your return vehicle. You may preposition your return vehicle at mars and then come back. So instead of looking at a Single Mission, were looking at we call it evolvable where it can we build positions, we position pieces up front and call it modular. Were starting to look at those things. Can we take advantage of these natural satellites around mars and use those as in the mars architecture and use a piece of those for what were trying to go do . Were looking a lot at high lipt kal earthorbbit. Were starting to take a different approach towards mars than we did before. Our classic missions were more apollo style in a way. We launched everything in a campaign within a year and sent the spacecraft that you saw in the view graphs towards mars. I think were going to do that maybe over a period of time over a period of years and build more of an evolvable piece. So we need all of us to start thinking maybe in a different way. So its not a Single Mission but it really is this pioneering aspect or how do we move human presence in. Once that mental change starts making and youre looking at it for the long term then you invest in some things that might take actually longer to go do but they may be more sustainable. Were looking at many of these things that buzz talked about. Last word, mike . I think well said. If you look at were getting to mars, well get there in a sustainable, affordable way and we know the technology is important and thats why we have the investments we have under way and again youll see us continue to make thosemissions and what theyve revealed about the planet. This is 35 minutes. [ applause ]. Thanks. Thank you very much. Can everyone hear me . Thank you very much. I want to take you on a tour really kind of like the ice lan dick sagas of what the science discoveries from mars especially in the last 14 years of our program of exploration known as the Mars Exploration program which is implemented at our jet Propulsion Lab has given us. I would like to leave you a thought that the science discoveries that i hope to convince you are real, they come from a Large Community of scientists across universities, nasa centers and private industry are really the impetus for human exploration of this planet. And many of us have been working these missions all the way back to viking, believe this. I hope i can give you that sense. I want to remind you of where we are. We are a long way today from mars, even though were in a very close approach geometry right now. Very good for telecommunication. Its really, really striking that mars is not our mother earth. Its a profoundly different world. It does not read our textbooks. In fact, the mode were in today for mars scientifically is one of rapid massive discovery. Our ideas are changing with a Large Community of scientists working with missions like curiosity, mars reconnaissance orb tor, the landscape is changing. We dont totally know what we have. Thats important as we look forward to the era of human exploration. In fact, mars is an everchanging frontier. Were just realizing the questions we have to ask to allow us as that situational awareness. This is just a view we see of where were going with curiosity over the next 100s of souls literally as we drive everyday, we see elements of the new mars. So le me paint that picture for you by reminding you that science organizes itself in different ways. For the last almost 20 years, weve looked at mars science thematically, through four primary themes. Obviously we would like to know whether were alone in this universe, this is a profound question that goes back farther than we can record in history. But getting at the question of life, active biological systems, were there ever there, could they be there . It took humanity a long time on earth to understand the past history on our planet. That was a joke. So to get at the question of life, we need to look through the record books, recording elements of Climate Change, change of environment, the rock record, you know, the pages in stone that dont lie but are not always available to us. And through the preparation for having us be there to make these discoveries. Weve organized our program through these themes following different threads, understanding the role of water, mars is a water planet, we know that now. Understanding whether theres places that if they were here on earth could be inhabited by organisms. Could they be preserved if they were there and theyre not preserved because they cant be, what good does that do us . We need to parse those through our program. So what weve done for the last 14 years with the restructured program that some of us were so fortunate to work on was develop a robotic science exploration program. Every step is driven by questions weve had, high high pott these were testing. New approaches, new measurements. The mars weve seen during the course of this program as you see all the way back to around 2,000 all the way to present and moving forward is about questions, measurements, the same way we people would attack programs in science. This is all about stem. It puts together the engineering, the science questions, the math and the technology to solve problems. Weve been doing that remarkably effective. Our batting average is literally 1,000. Many teams would love to have it. Weve done it very well since this program came about. Its a partnership with engineering. I want you to understand, we cant do all of this without engineers helping us do that. The fact that many of these missions survive today, way beyond design life, opportunity being a good example is really testament to that. So let me explain the discoveries weve been making. This will be the movie version. Many of my colleagues would like to tell it and would tell it much better than i with more time. Let me try to do that. First, let me remind you the mars we see is rather foreboding. Its not really waiting for us. Its extremely cold. Oxidizing, cant breathe the air, lost its Magnetic Field, dont understand why the surface deposits of dust that are very inconvenient, sub micron scale, not good for space suits or rovers or actuators or camera lenses, this is not the place you would go for your summer vacation. Scientifically, though, it is. And weve learned that since the first voyages of the 60s and into the viking era that it really is impressive. Are really, if you will, a misnomer for what really mars has done. We have to look at the mars today and project back in time to a planet that really we think records in its record books some things that really actually help us understand our planet earth. So lets look at it. Mars has an extremely rarefied atmosphere today. In fact, weve often talked about the temperature at our toes for a short guy like me in my head would go through a gradient of tens of degrees. The difficult to do here on mars. The kinds of surface liquid water we like here on earth necessary for the kind of microbial life thats rampant, cant exist today. Water on the short term human life scale, days, weeks is unstable. But that could change. Mars, in fact, does Climate Change really well. The record of water on mars in the minerals and the landscapes pretty much wherever we look is there. Weve learned that. So if someone says we discouverd water on mars, well rk, we kind knew that. Thank you. What does that mean . How much was there . Where did it go . How would that have affected the geological history the eternal evolution the climate and the looking for signs of life . Many of us believe that the mars we see today at one point reflected a history where water was a prominent surface feature, lakes and sees if not oceans covered the lowlands. I should point out, the reason we can do this kind of study is because way back in the 90s we had the forethought to make measures of the very fine scale topography and character of the landscape so we can literally flood mars and play the tape back in time and ask what would it have been like . Does that make sense . Physics and chemistry. And thats what weve done. This also allows us of course to figure out where to land in an engineering sense. We flood mars and the lowlands and the Northern Plains often covered with dust, large basins, the biggest impact site weve discovered in the solar system. These systems would be under water. Some of the signs gee morphically that tell us this may have been the case. Were still looking for the shorelines and how that would be reflected in the shape of the planet, but nonetheless, we see that. And then theres the question of the record of life. And on earth, we sort of know or at least we think we do. And we look back in time to the earliest times of our planet, coming out of late heavy bombardment. The planet became inhabitable by the single cell world into the world we know with primitive dna, a few billion years ago. Thats recorded in the rock records, things got a little better in terms of the atmosphere and the more complicated organisms us came about. Thats where we think we know very sim plisically on earth. The question is we see records of these things recorded in the rock record on our planet, which is extremely dynamic. The question is, well, could this have happened on mars and could it have been preserved . This is a key question. If it happened and its not preserved, we cant tell. How do we find snout how do we ask is the mars of today reflecting a history like this or a flatline history or even a history of extent life . What we did about 14 years ago after some setbacks in Mars Exploration in the late 90s, we restructured an entire program. The best women and men in the country together working with our team at jpl. First, well do the reconnaissance. Where do you go . Its a big planet. 150 mile square kilometers, you cant go everywhere. Lets understand where the action is from orbit. Lets land where the actions is and move around as if we were there. Sort of apollo without the astronauts with reasonably smart robots and then eventually get to a point where we can do analysis and return stuff from mars to earth. By the way, while we were doing this we realized that there are meteorites delivered to us from mars rather favorably by mother nature. We can also study and put that together to understand the planet and we have been remarkably successful. Since the orbitors known as odyssey and through two rovers like spirit and opportunities landers like phoenix and currently curiosity and of course moving on to maven which is on the way, we have rewritten the textbooks. The kids of 2,000, the young mill len yal stemmers would see a new mars in their textbooks 2014. Things we didnt know about the Magnetic Field back then. But these are just some of the balls reflecting the data sets we produced. Some of them have huge science value. The Magnetic Field. The topography which is good enough to land things on as well as to follow the water. Understanding of the minerals and context of dust. We have seen a diverse planet with complexity over time. Let me just fill in the tape. Over those years what weve been able to do through our missions is increase the resolution and the detail across the wavelengths of electro magnetic radiation to see the planet. We actually have a mini mars observing system in place now on the surface in orbit to study this world, this fourth planet. And some of them tell us about the character of what the surface is like compositionally. Others tell us the character on the scale we would walk on. By the way, when we first put together the road map to have cameras that could see things the size of beach balls on the planet, many colleagues said, we dont need that. Why would one want to see those things . Engineers kind of did want it, i must add. But lot of scientists said lets do other things. But i can say now with some confidence that the team that were able to build these amazing instruments for orbit, the success of those have allowed us to watch ourselves drive on the planet and make choices strategically that help us with where we are. What did we learn from this . We started to see exposures at the scale we can imagine ourselves exploring. Relationships between rock layers that tell us of the history of water and wind evolved on the surface and even the detail to pick places to go. And so we went from an era of first landing viking this is viking ii in september of 76. Theres the flag, of course, color balanced though mars atmosphere is not quite so blue. Amazing site, the probability of landing safely in this bolder field was about 40 to 50 . We didnt know it was a bolder field and so we landed any way. Pretty heroic. We landed then with new Delivery Systems with the air bag assisted pathfinder, moving on to the era of the rovers which basically gave our program the vision at the surface to ask the tough questions that begot curiosity where we are today 606 days into our exploration. But the Surface Missions starting with the first lander on another planet from viking have painted a continuously changing picture. Viking, cold, sterile desert, nothing would survive that would be related to modern biology. Transitions into the rock world mars that we saw with pathfinder. Into the history of water world. We saw and still see with the Mars Exploration rover such as opportunity, 36plus kilometers and driving into this world that were now probing with new instruments with curiosity. So, what have we learned . A lot. And we still have not assembled the jigsaw puzzle. Mars has lots of interesting variations and composition. Dust storms, active surface change on hourly scales, dust avalanch avalanches. Explosive faces. Impact craters that expose the surface like natural drill rigs. All this together with areas where weve actually seen the water. Theres a little trench from our phoenix Scout Mission in 2078. We have seen sub surface layering with radars that have been partnered with italy to show us the way that climate record on mars is put together. All this paints a picture for a blan et that is really profoundly interesting, alluring and compelling to get ourselves there. But, wait, theres still theres still problems. First, on our nice convenient earth we have mother natures Natural Force field with our great Magnetic Field protecting fr us from all that nasty stuff. Mars does not obviously have bumps on it, it has relic magnetic signatures. Magnetic electron experiment. And we think then that mars inside versus earth is very different. Were a dynamic planet exchanging energy from the inside out with dynamically rotating core. Producing all this cool stuff, encompasses work, all this. Mars, that story changed. Maybe it wasnt quite big enough to retain the con vektive energy to do that. Were still working on that. Insight will contribute to understanding. This picture, as it launches in 2016. But again, a different world. We also know that theres a diversity of kind of places on mars. The things you see here in terms of all these strange names of mineral phases and stuff i wont go through them ad nauseam with you, but every one of them has a baring on how you record the history of water and sediments that could preserve potentially the history of life. If it is preserved as organic chemicals, weve seen all these things since we began reagan our program in 2000. All this gives us, if you will, the impetus to want to be there, to want to touch the rocks that contain carbon phase molecules. To be able to go to the place with chlorides that might reserve records of life. Why not on mars . These become questions for biologists not geologists like myself. Weve been able to organize the landscapes of mars in time. All the way to the present through the different landscapes weve measured from orbit with these powerf fuful reconnaissan steps. We put it in there in 2,000 against many colleagues saying do you really want that to be able to give us a vision to do this. Hutten and smith put together in the 19th century for earth and weve done that. We have we have fosle river deltas on mars. Places that reflect the layering history of the role of water and wind working together and weve seen that mars is pummelled by the stuff of space, our atmosphere shields us but mars isnt and every one of these blemishes now on the order of 250, 300 of them tell us basically about the shallow interior of the planet as it is affected by the exogenic world of space. You all remember february 2013 and other events like that. This is common. All the meteor showers, well on mars, theyre not showers. They produce impact events. Other events craters the size of football stadiums and small cities and they expose the shallow sub surface. What you see on the surface is not always what ewe want to see when you measure things on mars about some of these very tough questions were asking. Little far there. Were also weve also discovered that mars has gone through major changes in the way its geology is reflected in the rocks from a time when it was wetter. This is a paper by banfield and others. When it was wetter and the kinds of volcanos erupted that were explosives, st. Helens. To the dhiend are today oozing lava. This is a very important step. We have also seen with our Mars Exploration rovers an amazing history of water in the rocks at two different sites, thousands of kilometers apart. We renamed things, blueberries and newberries. And then we transitions. When we reagan this program in 2001, we looked at the idea of putting the best instrumentation with the most powerful Vantage Point we could get on the surface, we did that through a mission known as the Mars Science Laboratory today with the rover called curiosity and this behee mouth the size of a mini cooper or vw bus carries with it 14 different experiments including ones that deal with weather and radiation, for decent images, for chemistry in different ways and shes been a beauty. Ill give you a brief synopsis now. Weve mae made more measurements that this slide shows. Nearly almost 500 gigabytes of data has been released. Everything ranging from our own little self portrait which is an interesting piece of engineering to use an arm and photograph a w job by curiosity to the measurementeds weve made by not actually touching rocks. A partnership with france. To the instrument known as sam that can actually measure things on mars as good as the labs that measured the rocks that buzz brought back from the moon, we can now do that on mars without bringing them home. Talk about engineering, vision, science can now measure parts per billion at the level of detection where we can actually see that we contaminated aspect of our experiment with florida air we can do that on mars. And so, let me just remind you again, were a long way from home. You know, at closest approach, 35, 36 million miles once every 15 years, but earth and moon are small dots relative to this view from curiosity. So, this mobile laboratory, even though she sometimes moves at the pace of a giant tortuous is an amazing feat. She is seeing things to me as a geologist are spectacular. These conglomerated rocks with bits of rocks made of other rocks are what we expect to see when streams and rivers leave deposit its that are baked into stone. This is gio one. Thats good. Water flowed. Shallow water. We now know what it was made of. Weve drilled mars. These drill holes are the size of a dime, but we have drilled the surface. Measured down centimeters, collected it and made measurements inside our belly with this integrated mass speck trom ter gas system allot of words for a really cool set of hardware developed at goddard and france that allows us to measure exactly what made the stuff you see here. You can see the surface materials we exkoe vated are not the classic brown red or red color of mars that is almost brown. What we discovered on mars in 06 days of work, there are environments that would be habitable in they were on earth. The buildup of the kind of chemistry we know and love, this is the classic el mental stuff we need for life to do its thing. There was probably water there. The minerals and oxidation suggest there was energy. Some use under the ocean today. So we have found habitability works on mars. The question is what does it preserve about what might have been there . Thats the challenge we face with curiosity and beyond. One of the other things we did, not even imagined when we launched the mission. We took that rover with its mass speck trom ter and we were able to use it not only to measure what stuff is made of and how it got there but by using clever chemistry, our team at cal tech and at goddard were measure the age of the rocks. This was a huge goal for mars as early as 2,000 we now did it on mars as a side bar to what we were trying to do. We also measured the surface exposure age. This is really important. While the rocks are really old, older than any rock on earth, like the lunar rocks, theyve only been exposed for a few tens of millions of years. What we see in those rocks exposed is very important because we now know from new lab work thats been done around our community on this mission that the space radiation, that nasty stuff that we were talking about earlier today destroyed organic molecul molecules. You wont know you found the stuff youre looking for. So we have to be more creative and clever. We think we understand that the materials that are buried deeper relative to these little hills are protected from space radiation relative to those that are constantly being skaf anged by the wind. So if youre trying to find organic molecules, you cant look out on the nice smooth parking lot. Theyll be baked by radiation for tens of millions of years. You have to go into places where theyre exposed or more protected. This will be important for human explorers to understand that when we start exploring ourselves. So the mars we see today is kind of like the bad lands of the american southwest or mongolia, kazakhstan, really rather telling layered rocks, we love them. This is mt. Sharp, this is an artist rendering of the what the ancient mars could have been like. The measurements we made of these isotopes of key elements suggest that we can possibly understand the earlier atmosphere of mars to be a window into whether it could have inhabitable. Is there a record of past life . Weve done that. The mars we see, this is it, you know, doesnt look like beach front terrain today is really a challenging terrain. Weve seen wheel wear on our rovers. Weve driven across it for more than 6 kilometers. We know it was habitable. Thats the record in the rocks. What we dont know is how long that stage of habitability existed. Our stage team the trying to understand that. Was it a long period . Was it a short blip . Did it cycle . Carl sagan talked in much better language than i about the cycling nature of climate on mars. Was an attempted humor at lunchtime. Forgive me, not funny. But in any event, we dont know. We have more measurements to make. Thats why the Robotic Program, the science push for human exploration to open our window, our eyes to the windows are so important. Now, i have to show one bit of humor. We found some interesting rocks on mars that one of our scientists founds looks a lot like mummified seals you see in the an arctic. Youre imagination can take you wherever you want. I found my initials many times so i know ive been there. Some people think theyve seen walmart. Ill leave that to others. But more importantly, we have been pursuing this line of reasoning, we have found the water. Wateraltered rocks, ice, we have discovered that there are habitable zones on mars. Certainly on gale crater from curiosity. Obviously with opportunity and evidence in gusef crater. Were still looking for this one. Connecting these things up to there and maybe it will take this, maybe well get so far and then it will take the humans, but this record of potential biology, particularly the record of past life which we think will be a better hypothesis to test scientifically is really important. So, weve made great progress. The real question then is how can we use this bow wave of science, this era of almost renaissancelike discoveries with a large Science Community, literally more than 1,000 scientists across universities and other institutions are working mars now. Weve built up that community internationally. How can we use that to ensure the sustainment of this questioning regime to question into human exploration . So i leave you in the next five minutes with my final thoughts. First, unfortunately its not easy. Weve all heard mars is hard spoken in different languages. And whatever. But, you know, we really want to see whether theres any record of the kinds of carbon that would record the signature of past life in the chemistry and understand where that stuff goes and how that links to modern life. The diagram, by one of our best and brightest young scientists kind of shows all the action. We dont know how things are escaping from mars. We havent understood how the surface water percolates in gullies. We dont yet know if there are brian fwllows. The questions raised here by how all this stuff cycles, whether its min earlized, we have to get at that if were going to be serious and maybe it will take human exploration to tie that together. We have seen active features, some colleagues believe these c floes, recurring slope linear, sliding down the slopes of crater walls may be floes of brine. These have been found in multiple sites. Could there be reservoirs of these lowmelting point fluids . We dont know. Maven, a lot of people ask, another orbiter, dont we need another rover . We would love a rover. How has mars lost its atmosphere . Its done that. In earth our atmosphere recycled itself, became habitable. Mars maven, Lockheed Martin, instruments from all over the world is going to address that question and, after it does that, and it asks primarily how an atmosphere that is today rather unbreathable co2, nice for plants but not so much us. How it has evolved in time by reading the record of whats happened today in situ through various experiments, mass spe o spectometer. The mission was selected on the basis of its science and engineering. Thats how we do things in science. Kind of like the stem olympics. Send a mission to mars. If youre real good, you get a lot of whatever the judges score now. Its good stuff. Taking a little selfie. M maven will do that. Critical ratio that tells you about escape rates for mars is different. Viking with very good measurements. This is what we would thought we would see from meteorites and this is what we got from one data point from curiosity. We want to fill in how it would go from there to there. These are big changes. We need to get at that. Maven will do that. We can actually use it as a telecommunication orbichlt ter, allowing us to talk to rovers and other things on the surface. Big final thing i want to leave you with is this is what were up against on mars. 10,000 feet of layered rocks. Taken us 600 days to get halfway into this zone here. We want to get up into there by the end of the curiosity mission. Its a long drive through rough terrain, you know. Some of our best astronauts will tell me they could probably walk it in a day. Its taken 600. Different economies of scale and efficiency. So i leave you with a couple of i hate to use these dig diagr diagrams. I do love them. Sciencedriven program asking questions like curiosity, what the directorate does. It is, in fact, humans to mars, this meeting and this would be a kind of goal that would be open to serendipty by having human people obviously human people. Women and men in contact with the science. Not light minutes away. It will be different than apollo. This is what were doing with the space station and the next steps beyond that. We put this together all moving toward this goal. This is the key first step together with that. Youve heard that today. So, how will we explore with people . Final point is theres lots of opportunities. Telescience that weve already used in the ocean. Artist rendering of how robots on the surface with people, obviously, large theyre all good. Choosing one is not so important now. Its more important to get the people there with the questions to ask. This partnership that we start to bring the human exploration into space, people bring skills that robots, however we build them, how long whoa take, will never catch up to. We will always be able to adapt. Sometimes nonlinearly, different than our robotic warriors. Thats good. Its the partnership that matters. Were here and here. Biology, geology, climatology. This is a big step. This step is going to beget that. Two thoughts. Science has given us the ammunition to know what we want to ask when we go. The Robotic Program will continue through our mars 20 rover and missions in the 20s to open the door to what we need when we get ourselves there. That will change everything, folks. This will be like the columbus moment. To ask questions that we cant ask today with our brilliant Robotic Program. I dont think youve seen anything yet. Mars has never disappointed. Its a discovery engine. Lets keep going. Thank you. [ applause ] im told i have limited time for a question. Im one guy representing a Science Community of thousands. Dont pummel me with too much. One question. Go ahead. Good to review. You have mentioned some results on water, you have talked so much about organics, the next step before looking for life. We have a mission that searches for organics, possibly signs of life with a drill. What is the plan in the u. S. And what is the next mission that you think we need before we go with humans . Bernard, thank you. Jim green will be talking about the whole Program Architecture this afternoon. He is the plantry division directorment im just a mars science geek. Good question. That mission is the leap to the subsurface weve all been waiting for ever since i was on viking as an intern. To get below the depth where the ionizing radiation will modify the chemistry or at least we think that depth and by sampling that stuff with a very powerful set of instruments, pastel payload in germany, we will look for organics for the first time directly in the context of the samples. Exo mar sincere a key step beyond everything i showed you. The discovery potential of exo mars in 18, the mission with russia and other partners is critical as will be the mars 20 rover. Its valid. Were not done. Robotic programs have to keep going beyond maven and insight, heat flow background on mars. Theres the Exo Mars Mission on 16. Theres our mars 20 rover and then theres the 20s open to all the young stem people here. Excellent point. Were thrilled to have the partnership we have with this next generation. Subsurface. So we want to go, you know s important to the Space Program. This is also a discussion on Mars Exploration. Its an hour. The key note and first panel this morning was enlightening to me. Were going to leverage and continue with that discussion. The way i wanted to run this panel is im going to give a bio on each one of the panelists and let them go through discussions and charts that they have. Then we really are very willing to answer any questions they have. Please be thinking of questions you have as were starting through this. The first thing i should say is one of the panelists, or actually the moderator, didnt make it for a couple of reasons. One was sick and the other wasnt. Randy sweet was kind enough to jump in for us today. James brown, sitting to my left, is executive director of the Stem Education coalition. This is an alliance of more than 500 business, professional and educational organizations and it works to raise awareness in congress, the administration and other organizations about the Critical Role that Stem Education plays in enabling the u. S. To remain the economicoloi. Im happy to see stem is getting more and more attention as we go on. Prior to joining the coalition, james was an assistant director for advocacy of the american chemical society, nuclear engineer. Previously worked as a legislative aid for doc hastings of washington, director of policy and development at the Consumer Energy council of america and began his career with newport news ship building, working on Aircraft Carrier construction. Thanks. I might have flown off a couple of those carriers you worked on. Probably not. Good chance. I probably threw off the ones that were there before you were. Masters from penn state, both in nuclear engineering, and holds an mba from George Washington university. With that, james thank you. Thank you, kent. So its a pleasure to be here and to speak to an audience like this. Its also relatively tough to speak to an audience about space issues when you have so many distinguished people like buzz aldrin and others in the audience. Its definitely an honor. Im always surprised by the breadth of Stem Education and Different Things that perfect vad our society. I like to think about one stat that summarizes our particular challenge quite well. A poll was done in 2011 by the harris group that polled parents about issues relating to Stem Education and they found that roughly 93 of parents considered stem should be a priority within the school system. But that only about 49 thought it was a challenge i mean was a priority in the school system. That is a challenge, if you really think about it. Everybody recognizes the importance of the stem projects, whether its to space, technology or future of computing or any other technological or scientific endeavor we know from our history will lead to the future of the country. But we have yet to make the kinds of changes in our Education System to really prioritize those subjects. Certainly if were going to get to mars we need to draw from every part of our talent spectrum to get there. Its going to take smart engineers, smart astronauts. Its going to take people who can build the equipment that will get us there. Its going to take welders, people of every background to be able to do that. But the other poll im quite fond of this is a poll from several years ago. 68 of parents think their kids are in the top third of their class. If you think about that, that sort of illustrates the first statistic quite well. How to build a competitive workforce that can support the kinds of grand National Missions like going to another planet, i think about three things. One is we need to get our federal house in order. As we all know, were dealing with the political gridlock of perhaps a century or more. And that is going to have a high water mark. And i hope it will recede. It will get to working on challenges like improving our Education System at a national level. And so the United States invests about 3 billion in Stem Education programs, scattered across some 250 programs. That, in itself, is a challenge. I know people in the nasa family are dealing with issues of efficiency and trying to get the most out of federal investments. We have to make sure those investments are well spent and theyre making the kinds of big bets towards improving education. The other thing the states are dealing with what are called the common core standards in math and science. That is an interesting opportunity for us to improve math and Science Education across the board. Of those standards developed by the states. There are lots of collaborations between states and one another. And it would be nice if, when my daughter, who is 4 1 2, is in the seventh grade and we decided to move from the District Of Columbia to the state of washington or somewhere else that we wouldnt have to repeat algebra. Thats another positive thing thats moving in the right direction. If you think about the workforce that underlies the stem fields its a little known fact that roughly 50 of that workforce is not going to require a fouryear degree to enter that workforce. When you think about Stem Education, at least in the minds of policy makers in this town, most of the time theyre thinking about the rocket scientists. Theyre thinking about people who are going to study in graduate school and who are going to measure their productivity by things like patents and intellectual property and other things. Half the jobs right now that are available in the stem fields dont require a fouryear degree. Technicians, auto mechanics and everybody uses software these days. Even if youre going to work at the most basic level in the stem field, building something in an advanced facility youre going to need a background. Those are three important trends that underlie the challenges of getting to mars, of improving our health care, of dealing with every other major challenge our country faces. Great. Thank you. You know, i already have a question for you, james. It makes a lot of sense, its important to improve our education facilities, quality of education. What about the other side of how do you incentivize these children to want to go into the stem fields . Is that a big piece of it as well . You ask the 93 of parents if its a priority, most of them can we go to the next slide . So, one of the stats that youll see is that most of the parents get that stem is where the jobs are. And i think if you look at the pipeline of students going into those fields, what youll find is the parents see the connection between getting a good Stem Education and jobs, but there are lots of parts of our society that are being left out of this. If you look at, for example, the stem workforce, africanamericans are 11 of the population, but only 3 of the stem workforce. And the same is true for hispanics. Its also true for certain fields for women. Thats one of the challenges in terms of how do we expand that pipeline and how do we really get at that challenge . Its not just good policies and education, so they have good tests and you have good curriculum and welltrained teachers. The kids can see the examples of science and technology in society if they have mentors in their families, if they have good role models. And i think youre starting to see that emerge in the computing fields. Look at the popularity of the cosmo series. That is really getting attention. Its not often that you have a face like his in the big face of technology and enterprise. Thank you. The next panelist is julie van kleek, aero jet rocketdime. Technology development and Product Development programs. Miss van kleek joined aero jet in 1981 and was appointed to her position in 2013. Space and launch Business Unit and the Space Programs organization for aero jet. From 2004 to 2005, she was executive director for atlas programs. From 2001 to 2004, she served as executive director Space Systems Business Development responsible for strategic direction, investments and growth of aero jet space propulsion business. From mid 1999 to october 2001, she managed a multinational project during which she interfaced extensively in affiliated Government Agencies. Miss van kleek earned her bachelor of science degree from the university of california and has extensive handson experience in Rocket Research and development, liquid rocket, system design, development and testing. Gosh, theres a lot of great stuff here. She also is a chairperson of the European Space propulsion board of directors. So, anyway, i guess to summarize this, and in julies own words, she truly is a rocket scientist. So, julie . I used to be. Im going to go over here. Can i have the first slide, please . I think thats the last slide. Isnt it . Oh, well. What im going to talk about is actually the you know, going to mars and how that affects u. S. Competitiveness. And im going to do that from the standpoint of being a rocket company. As i start this out, let me talk about what competitiveness is. Im sure everybody has a different idea of what that means, if you look at definitions. Its the ability to sell things into a market relative to others. And if you think about the u. S. , i would say that, you know, were very competitive. Many people would say were very competitive worldwide. I think a lot of that has been because weve been technical leaders, you know, and pushed the envelope in a number of things, which is a part of, you know, the american spirit. You know, as you get more of an international marketplace, you know, thats still very important. But the other way for competitiveness is how do you maintain, you know, being the best value or Cost Effective . And that, you know, speaking from being a rocket scientist, weve always pushed the envelope, but only in the last, you know, ten years has being more cost competitive really come into, you know, our vernacular. We were always like can you really do it . Now space is becoming everybodys life. Its becoming more of an International Commercial marketplace. So now its how do we become competitive . So you look at this and you say, okay, humans to mars. Does that have an affect on american competitiveness . And i would say it absolutely does. You know, if i look at what makes you competitive, what makes, you know, many of our Aerospace Companies competitive, its do we have the technology . Are we going to, you know, push the envelope and sell those things and provide those things that no one else has . Then do we have products that meet certain needs . And then do we have the workforce that can keep all that going and keep, you know, making ourselves more competitive, and keeping this a Sustainable Business . So i would say with, you know, trying to get to mars, were going to attack every single one of those things. And i think its you know, could bring great value to this country. Next slide, please . Youve seen this slide before. You saw it earlier. I think both mr. Bolden as well as the past panel used it. And if you look at it, its showing charting a course to mars. And some people say were not going to mars until 2030. I would say were going to be going to were building the infrastructure, the workforce, the products to take us to mars and that will be ongoing for the next 15 to 20 years. And its necessary because this is a very difficult thing to do, but along the way, were going to be driving competitiveness into the people and the companies within this country. And, likely, worldwide. You know, if you look at reflect on this slide, were going to see some of the basic Building Blocks for this, the s. I. S. And orion system. The most powerful rocket ever built. Orion will be a very special crew capsule that will be able to do many kinds of missions. In developing this infrastructure weve had to face technological challenges we havent had to do before. In that, we will expand capabilities of our workforce. Once we have these products, you know, weve moved from just pushing the state of the art. Now we have products to sell to other applications. Talking about modularity and using things. If you look at where were at in this country, were not where we were during apollo, just trying to achieve a very specific goal. Here, were looking at sustainability. Here, were dealing with constrained budgets and with those things we drive the need to look at the problem differently. We cant just spend money to go achieve a singular goal. We live in a budgetconstrained environment. Every investment we make, furthering science, furthering technology is very important. We want to be doing that in a way that leaves us with products that can be used elsewhere, making good on that investment. And thats the thing that this Budget Constraint environment is doing, is putting us all in that environment of having to think about how do i how do we create architectures, create products . Not just achieve a very difficult thing but also can be useful in other ways. To me, that underscores the definition of being competitive. Next slide, please. Okay. Mars is hard. Okay. Mars is youve heard, you know, many of the different challenges. Its pretty exciting when you think about him trying to attack all those Different Things, you know, with the amount of resources he has been allocated. It also gives you a perspective of what were facing to do this. As we, you know, attack each of those different technologies in the areas of, you know, transportation and for us that means propulsion. Rocket company. But light support and the landing. Were going to overcome a number of difficult things, create new technologies and see those things result in other products we cant even imagine today. We think of the many things that came out of the Apollo Program and Space Program to date. We see the cameras in our cell phones, clean Water Systems that are being used in mexico. You know, attacking those many different technological hurdles will result in things that will benefit, you know, not just the mars program, but mankind and companies, you know, across the world. Next slide, please. And with that, you know, this will enhance the competitiveness of companies within the u. S. , as i think we were going through, putting together for this panel every dollar invested in human space flight has returned 8 to the u. S. Economy. I would imagine we would see a similar type of return. You know, not just going to mars but on our journey to mars, as we move through, you know, getting beyond Earth Alliance and on to mars in the 2030s. Next slide, please. And then i bring it to home. I work for a rocket company. We heard a little bit about solar electric propulsion. We had some questions about that, you know, with the last panel. And, you know, to me this is a product that, you know, solar electric propulsion, the reason its important, its much, much more efficient, if you can use it for a certain application, much more efficient than commercial. That means you carry much less propellant. If you look at where youre at today, youre using solar electric propulsion in some of our you know, in our satellites, both government satellites as well as commercial. The commercial world has really jumped on board. You see a number of different satellite architectures being upgraded to go partial or all electric. Thats because the economics are good. You know, the place of solar electric propulsion in the pursuit of mars is to develop the higher Power Systems and to develop those infrastructures such as solar electric tugs that were in the last panel we talked about barges. Think about barges in space, to actually move things around. These will be far more Cost Effective than doing this with chemical propulsion. Now you dont have to lift all that propellant off the earth. You lift a much smaller portion of that. You look at the types of systems that are relevant to our, you know, pursuit of mars, well be driving the power up, the capability of solar rays, Propulsion Systems and Power Systems and what well see is those migrate into the commercial satellite world in the next generation or the generation after that in their buses. And so truly enhancing, by developing this, well enhance the competitiveness, you know, the propulsion industry and the commercial satellite industry, in general. So, you know, i just tried to give you a snapshot of some of the key things that i think can come from this. Ive tried to bring it home to what it means to a particular company like ours in propulsion. And i look at all the things that were going to see today. I look and say were finally making Science Fiction real and i really am thankful to be part of it. Thank you. Thank you, julie. So the panelist on the end here is randy sweet. In his defense, until about seven minutes ago, he didnt even know he was on this panel. So, he was kind enough to jump in when i heard randy was in the area, i thought, randy will be great. Ive had the benefit of getting to work with him. Randy has been with Lockheed Martin over 30 years, director of their civil space and Business Development. He has a heritage back in the shuttle program. Matter of fact, he was an orbital test conductor. When the shuttle is being processed and getting ready to fly, when the astronauts climb in the vehicle, they are working with otc, orbital test conductor, if you will. Randy, with that, the floor is yours. Thanks, kent. Obviously, i dont have any prepared remarks. But i would like to talk a little about my perspective of first, ill talk about stem here a little bit. We obviously, on the orion program, we do a lot of work in the area of stem, both domestically and internationally. I have to say we had an International Conference ten years ago with James Cameron was one of the keynote speakers and one of the things he told us, and weve kind of built upon this, is you guys should take a look at the Entertainment Industry and look at what they do. And even use the word avatar. This was way back before the movie avatar. Basically what we find in stem were missing this from the shuttle days. Kent, you know this well. We would send crews out to events, flight crews out. And the students would ask lots of questions about what its like to fly and what it feels like and some of those things. Thats certainly a motivator for stem, for students. The other one is, you know, nearterm successes and events. Were starting to make a lot of progress on orion. We have the flight test coming up. We have lots of events where well test a heat shield or transport something and its amazing. Social media just blows up. Theres a lot of interest out there when we talk about mars. Its just incredible. But in a lot of cases, conferences like this, were essentially talking to a fairly Small Community within ourselves. So its really good that we have organizations like explore mars that are broadcasting this. But i think as we get closer to flying, that we have more engagement from pop culture and the Entertainment Industry. We do a lot of work with them. Youll be seeing more of that. Once we get crews assigned and we start getting crews more involved in events, i think those are things that we can do to really kind of engage the stem community. We have a program we call the exploration design challenge coming up on orion where were flying a radiation test sample. Weve had a contest. I cant remember the numbers but over 100,000 students have applied. This is open internationally. Weve gotten 80 countries involved. Well be announcing the finalist at the engineering and science festival coming up here. Its gotten a lot of attention. Theres a lot of interest out there. So, i think we just need to keep doing that. Thank you so much. And so folks that have questions, please start making your way to the mikes. To maybe put this in perspective, when guys like Neil Armstrong and buzz aldrin stepped on the moon, it had a phenomenal impact globally. A result of that is the huge numbers in Aerospace Engineering technical fields today. As a kid, i was very incentivized by that. As a result where we are today, i think, all of our companies, the average age of a worker is in the 50s. So what weve seen is that huge generation that was inspired is moving through. And so in the next ten years there will be a large exxoexodue given a lot of responsibility. None of the old timers will be left. Theres a big gap in experience. And so do we think Something Like going to mars, putting humans on mars can kind of reset that kind of excitement . I dont know. What do you think, james . I, for one, am a huge proponent of doing these kind of big things. Is there anything you can propose that would be bigger in science and technology than to put a person on mars and bring them back . I would ask this question slightly differently. I would say im sure in 1956 there were people sitting around saying, why on earth are we wasting our time about going to the moon . Whats in it for us . Whats the commercial value of that . What are the why will anybody care . But i dont think anybody looks back on that and doesnt think it was, number one, a good investment of federal dollars and of time and people and energy. And i think we would look back on going to mars the same way. Because i think its such a uniting force to try to do something enormous like that. And i also think the interesting dimension to that debate about Space Exploration now is that you have a viable commercial sector as well. So, you know, you can look at it as an inspiration for kids, you can also look at it as a very american thing where youll attract pruentrepreneurs who th of making fame and fortune off of it as well, which isnt necessarily a bad thing. Do we have a question out here . Mike goddard, space flight center. In my outreach to high schools, especially those that arent located near nasa centers or in metropolitan areas, im finding that they really dont have any awareness of what the country is doing in Space Exploration. More significantly, their funding for stem is such a small percentage of that for other activities like athletics, for example. In fact, at this one high school they actually had to have a bake sale or something to have a robotics competition and they didnt get enough money, so they didnt have it. Yet theyve got this huge football field, you know. And so i guess my question is, how do we encourage not only encourage the students to get interested in lieu of an active exploration, how do we bring that apollolike interest in stem that apollo kind of generated on autopilot . It kind of just happened. Young students wanted to get involved in engineering and science and math. We dont have that at this time, at least not that im aware of. So how do we get them involved in or interested in pursuing those things with a visibility that they see with the sports on tv and some of the other aspects of our society that arent you know, that are more visible than the Space Program . So ill start to answer that. I think theres two halves to the equation. One of the keys in getting more kids interested in the stem fields and getting them in those types of careers is very very sobering. And that is we have to have policy changes that will make the kinds of things happen in the classroom and outside the classroom that will really make a difference. And so when i hear stories about schools that have tried to do these things on their own and have struggled its not the first time ive heard that story. And i would say we do a very good job in our best high schools in the most affluent neighborhoods of dealing with the stem subject. When you watch a media report, its a lot of times kids in White Lab Coats going to college before they were involved in the Afterschool Program or the engineering competition or other things, already in that direction and were accelerating them in that direction. Theres another category of stories thatoldn as much about the struggling schools that also see that these subjects are important, see the jobs, the connections to the future but either dont have the resources, the expertise or the Critical Mass to make all that happen. Thats where the policy change that i started talking about at the beginning is going to have the biggest bang for its buck, in those schools that will achieve that. The other half of the equation is the inspirational piece. If a child is properly educated and has all of the right supports in school but they never see the other end of the equation, they never see the grand design that they can fit into, or they never have the mentorship experience that they can fit into, then thats also a weak link. An interesting part of this is were only starting to understand how to hook people from outside this sort of traditional stem, collegebound population into the stem fields. I think you can see this in the resonance of the astronauts of color and women, too, and how young women relate to female astronauts. And i think that is something that we have to take into account when were thinking about these things as well. I would also offer a challenge to the space industry. So if i had a meeting with James Cameron, i would be thinking to myself, i wonder if we could get a number of Space Companies together and get a movie done about going to mars. And not, you know i know weve had movies like this before, but wouldnt it be nice to have one every so often so that people didnt look at val kilmer going to mars and say, i dont even know who that is, right . To follow up on that, you know, as i mentioned earlier, we do the best we can with stem,g given the budgets that we have. I think nasa does a great job of it. My fellow companies do a great job. Were certainly out there, doing everything that we can. As i said, i think we need to leverage a few things. One is Upcoming Events that we have that we all need to take advantage of, try to get that out there and get the top tier media involved so it really is a topic of discussion on the all the talk shows and such. The other is leveraging pop culture. And its amazing when you look at role models of these students, especially the k through 12, they really look at the Entertainment Industry. And its really amazing, the leverage you can get out of that. And i still say astronauts are a big motivator for young kids. And we need to do more of that. Were talking to the folks trying to get crews assigned early and its really tremendous, you know, the impact that you can have when you bring their role models into play. Thanks. Did we answer your question . Yes. How important do you all feel that cross energy and cross disciplinary synergy between green technology, technology is in helping american competitiveness . It seems to me the way to get more involvement, more money is to understand that theres a very deep synergy between all these fields and how do we organize to help maximize that any thoughts on that . Great question. The first thing i would say, its a relatively new concept. Its a term that we need to determine its actual components are. When policy makers think about this, it was competitiveness with india and china. But in some sense i think were also competing against ourselves because when you talk about federal investments, really competitiveness when i hear that term, i think about and doing that very well makes us competitive. Are around the issue of equity. When the biggest potential gains are getting people who are not within the stem pipeline into the stem pipeline, i think about that being a huge advantage that we have as a country because we have a tradition of trying to broaden opportunity for all americans. If you believe that brain power and capability are equally distributed across all different parts of our society thats, by far, the biggest gain because if you have role model that is can inspire people from all different backgrounds thats how youll open up that pipeline. I dont think we understand what being more competitive in
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.