>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin with the aftermath of the shootings in dallas. mourning after police officers forgotten down at the hands of micah johnson. it was the deadliest day for law enforcement since 9/11, on the heels of two caught on video shootings of black men in louisiana and minnesota. president obama will speak in dallas.

he is expected to meet with victims families as well as law enforcement officials. joining me now is manny fernandez. thank you for coming in. i know how busy you are. manny: thank you for having me on. charlie: give me a sense of dallas today and the president, bush 43 as well coming together with vice president biden. charles: dallas is at a very interesting point right now. because on one point, walking around is very relaxed. a typical city. there was a bunch of school kids coming into my hotel as i was leaving, getting ready for some kind of event. on the other hand, there is a hint of tension and a lot of grief. i talked to one police officer and it said it took them 30 minutes to go from his car into a store to buy a coke and walk

out because so many people stopped him to shake his hand, to hug cam, to come up to them. -- talk to i came them, people were coming up to shake his hand out of the blue, ask him how he was doing. that really captures for me what the city is going through right now. charlie: part of it for me is the chief of police seems to have done and communicates both with a sense of calmness, integrity, and an understanding. manny: his role and his performance today at this press conference really sets the tone. you are right. he has been extraordinarily personal, extraordinarily frank and honest, he has not shied away from talking about race,

talking about how hard it is to be a police chief. this morning he used a little bit of humor talking about how he said my brain is fried. you know, you just do not hear a police chief on a national stage talk about that and uses kinds of phrases. yes, he has projected calm and we talked to a lot african-american residents who are proud of him. they are definitely watching for what he is saying. charlie: do you feel there is a sense that dallas police in itself can recover from this? manny: without a doubt. you hear that not only in the public statements and the press releases, and the official side of things but you see it in the unofficial side, in talking to people, walking around.

everyone is talking about this sort ofdallas stronger idea. and, by the way, can i just say that dallas has been sort of battered in the last couple of years. not only did you have the ebola crisis, you had last year a gunman, armored vehicle attacked the police headquarters downtown. some of those officers that were fired on last year were fired on this year. i think that there is that sense a paleo government. happening?" is charlie: coming after the idea for a long time after the kennedy assassination that it was a city of hate. they had to overcome that. manny: and that phrase, that

motto stung the city. and, in it has. it continues to sting the city. one of the things that happened was on the anniversary of the jfk ss a nation, the 50th anniversary, dallas used that as a way to look at itself in a were we a city of hate? what are we now? that process was there for some of those events. that helped dallas deal with itself and its future. charlie: and the mayor? how is he doing? manny: the same way. i think he has done great. you know, a lot of people have praised what he is doing. you know these are officials , that are going through something extraordinary. they are dealing with the investigation, they are dealing

with the grief, they are dealing with a little bit of the chaos. and, they are able to not forget that they are human in and talk in human ways. and i think in a way that helps calm people, helps calm the city. charlie: everybody is asking all kinds of questions about the unraveling of this relationship between a segment of the population and police. you hear the eloquent voices within police, like the chief suggesting we are talking about awful acts by the police, this is a small minority and we feel we have a lot of men and women risking their lives and this is a terrible reflection on them to see these kinds of things. and we hate them as much as everyone else does. yet they continue to happen. yet we seem to be as a society not knowing how to find a way to get on the journey to healing.

manny: that is true. the only thing that comes to mind, i go back to this morning with the chief. near the top of the press conference he gave one of the best summaries of what it is like to be a policeman in america today, and i have heard from other officers he was saying we put too much on her officers. we expect officers to solve too much of society's problems. schools fail, give it to the cops. a dog problem, give it to the cops. he says it is too much. we cannot do it all.

i have heard that worded differently from a lot of people in law enforcement. i think that is part of it. it is part of thinking about what is it we want our officers to be doing? what is the role? and acknowledging what we ask of them when we put them on the front lines. charlie: from the washington post, " a presidential campaign suddenly seem small in the face of the shock in dallas. and the racial divisions they exposed again p or co- exposed again." he has a point. manny: he does. for the reporters covering this you just start wondering is everyone ok? it does really put things into perspective. there was a false alarm the other day at dallas police headquarters. there was word of a suspicious person in a parking garage at the back of the dallas pd headquarters.

that caused a scared downtown. police closed the streets. there were swat officers with weapons. there were members of the public caught up in this because they were at the memorial outside of the headquarters. and, to be there and to talk to regular people and to see how scared they are, it brought that home. it brought some of this -- there was this idea everyone was like what is happening now? what is this? you know, it struck home. charlie: thank you for coming. it was a pleasure to have you on the program. i hope we can do this again. manny: thank you for having me on. charlie: we'll be right back. stay with us. ♪ charlie: we continue our conversation about police use of force, force applied and violence applied against the police and the idea of the black lives matter movement. we talk to charles blow, he is a

new york times op-ed columnists and a contributor to cnn. i am pleased to have him. you say this tears at the fabric of our nation. give us a sense of how you -- i mean whenever we see these one more story. one more story of a minority person being shot by the police, we say why? what is wrong? what do we need? i mean, we see something like the rebellion against the police we say, how could they do that when these are people who try to support us? charles: there are two things happening simultaneously. there is a focus necessarily on interpersonal racism. what you and i might share back and forth, whatever biases i may have, whether i'm aware of them or not aware of them read that

-- and that is a very real conflict and heightens situations of stress. there is another conversation being had about the systemic forces of racism that does not require participation by any person. and those are the sort of structures that push these two populations into contact in the first place. i think having both those conversations simultaneously is incredibly important. charlie: some would draw the line back to straight to slavery saying we did not deal with it. even though there has been racial progress. and laws have been changed.

charles: absolutely laws have been changed. dealing with slavery, you can argue that has not taken place. we have to think about the things that happened after slavery. all of the structural inequities that we and the society into ways from federal, state and local municipalities that created a concentrated poverty we have, created the american ghetto, housing policies of loan banking policies, infrastructure decisions about where we put our highways and streets, and our waste in and out of these cities. all of those are systemic structural beings that we did as a society that created powder kegs and then we say this is a personal choice people have made to live in the most violent, poorest parts of our cities. they simply made the choice to live there. we have designed a system that created those places.

then we say there is violence bubbling up and that is why the police are there. but, it no. we have to take responsibility that we created those places. these are our chickens coming home to roost and we have to deal with untangling all of that at the same time we are dealing with this tip of the spear that last interactions that we are dealing with. and i think all of that has to be done with simultaneously. charlie: to deal with it means what? charles: part of dealing with it, legislative. there are ways to deal with how -- over policing. we make decisions about whether or not there is a stop and frisk are in new york city or

colossal war on drugs. we make cultural decisions that this was how we are going to deal with problems. dealing with those problems had incredible racial imbalances. imbalances and embedded in them. we can take legislative steps to change our policies. that is really important. martin luther king said the law may not make you love me but it can stop you from lynching me. the idea we can do things that will kind of limit the adverse impacts on populations is a real thing. separate from that there is the moral argument that must be one that says there are not populations that are constitutionally, genetically prone to violence. there are conditions under which

human beings behave in certain ways. we have contributed to making those conditions ripe for certain populations in this country and we have to figure out ways to back off from that. charlie: is that leadership or grassroots leadership? presidential leadership? is all sortsink it of leadership. the president, whoever the next one may be, setting the proper tone. but it is also people voicing , their opinions in protests. charlie: we talked about it, it clearly is the president who has the bully pulpit and who has the executive resources to say we need the full weight of the community behind this. this is urgent. this is demanding.

this is necessary. charles: he can do that but as you and i both know policing is a local thing. he can talk but there is little the federal government can do with local policing. we have to change hearts and minds. so people who believe they are not part of this discussion, who say this is a conflict between the people who wear blue and the people born into brown and black skin. and that rob is happening separately from me and you. that is actually not the case. you are complicit in whatever please do in this country because police are simply an articulation of our desires and our mores and hour laws. -- our laws.

that is happening separate from me and you. that is not the case. you are complicit in whatever police do in this country. they are an articulation of our desires and our laws. charlie: are you saying everyone is complicit? when there is an act of violence against an unwanted act of violence, -- and everybody is complicit in that? charles: what i am saying is we are complicit in the architecture that pushes more and more people together increases the interactions and when you increase the interactions invariably some one person will do one thing wrong and that will be the end result of what we have done to push them together in the first place. charlie: is this a decade kind of endeavor we have to make? charles: these sorts of changes are generational. if you look at the civil rights movement of our times, they have all been generational. they look like it happens within a couple of years but there is a lot of groundwork that happened. the gay movement, women's

liberation. all of them. charlie: we always say this about gun control, and these kinds of moments. that this one has been so deep, so troubling, and the combination of baton rouge to dallas, at long last we will wake up. or do you believe something else will come along and two weeks from now we will talk about something else? charles: strangely enough i am illogically optimistic. i actually believe there is an awakening of young people being able to connect the dots. historical, cultural, present about what the system has done and how they make choices. i believe that enlightenment is a positive advance.

whether or not it immediately leads to some sort of peace and no clue.i have i believe however strongly in the long-term effect knowledge and it is in fact a transformative thing in that coming into knowledge of self, knowledge of systems, is a transformative thing and that in intoong run this will -- we will see all of the ups and downs -- that it was part of a positive. charlie: i can hear people saying god i hope he is right. i want to talk about black lives matter. rudy giuliani. i firmly believes he believes what he says. what do you say about it?

charles: that it is inherently racist? charlie: and black on black crime, black neighborhoods, and white on white in white neighborhoods. charles: it is fascinating deflection to say people who point out that there are people who have been racially oppressed and want to lift out of that oppression by centering them in the conversation and elevating them to a position where you pay attention to the oppression they have suffered become people who you call racist.

it is incredible. an incredible thing. and it is an amazing rhetorical sleight of hand that you see all the time. in terms of this idea that black communities are inherently violence and white people are saving black people from killing themselves, that argument is inherently racist because it says at its base that there is something deficient and defective about you, that we must save you from yourselves. rather the end turning the lens to -- charlie: black lives matter. where did it start? charles: i'm not part of black lives matter it gained steam after the mike brown killing in ferguson.

it has grown incredibly as an idea. there is both the formal structure of that, there are chapters. but there are people who sympathize. that makes it tricky. we in media will say these are black lives matter protesters. we actually don't know. sometimes people just show up. you don't have to get a ticket to march. you can just show up and say, i am supporting this idea. charlie: are they having a in impact? charles: an incredible impact. they have grabbed the conversation. they are directing the conversation.

you have to think about 3-4 years ago, he who was advocating for these ideas of police restraint, improvement of black communities on a national scale that could mobilize people into the streets? there were people who did work but they have been able to in a short time move tremendous numbers of people into action. that should not go without notice. charlie: thank you for coming. charles: thank you for having me. charlie: charles blow from the times.k back in a moment, stay with us. music note

♪ >> charlie: we continue with british politics. the home secretary emerged victorious after speculation about the future of tory leadership. david cameron will hand in his resignation wednesday. he announced he would step down after voters opted to leave the european union last month read -- leaving the leading voices in the campaign to leave, she dropped out of the race as well. to talk about the change is john micklethwait from bloomberg. he is the editor-in-chief. i am pleased to have him on all things british at this table. welcome.

john: a very diminishing role. charlie: so, david cameron is leaving. where is he going? john micklethwait: he will probably stay in parliament. i think he honestly doesn't know. i think he is in a state of shell shock. i think he always knew there was a danger of losing its. he is generally a lucky politician. charlie: does he consider himself a chosen child? john micklethwait i think he considers himself very unlucky. if johnson and gove had not gone to believe side he probably would have one. he may be right on that. that is what you have seen in the tory leadership. a follow on from that. theresa may inherited george osborne's machine. in white he imagined it would be his attempt to be the next tory leader. on the other side.

charlie: what happens to george osborne? john: that is the most interesting moment today and in the next couple of days. the big question is, does may keep osborne? does she go to the foreign current secretary to replace him? a lot of europeans argue they weren't enthusiastic about george osborne but they see him as extremely competent. there will be that forced to keep them in that place. osborne is less toxic with those people who wanted to leave.

charlie: what happens to boris johnson? john micklethwait all his life he has been loved. he has been loved, appreciated and make people laugh. he has been the court jester. he was funny and clever and amusing. it seemed to be going quite well. always fiercely ambitious. successful as the mayor of london. he saw his chance and a lot friends would say he accepted the referendum to be won by romaine and then he would be the person who led the league campaign. he counted on remain winning. he would deny that to the end of his days. charlie: he created havoc. john micklethwait it's a new world for him. david cameron is living on something he always knew was possible. it is very new to him. i think he doesn't have an idea yet. theresa may was a solid, quite

conservative, not necessarily flamboyant figure, the daughter of a pastor, identical to angela merkel. the large reasons they persuaded boris was au think -- e cannon she was not somebody, she was outside of the mainstream. charlie: how do she differ from david cameron. john: she is slightly left posh background. she is less flamboyant from him. it is difficult to imagine him -- her going off to the arctic to follow huskies with a lot of sleds. going off to the arctic. she is tougher. charlie: i bit of margaret thatcher. john: less radical. a tiny bit. she is a very conservative person.

she has been a little bit at ahead on some things. on one thing she is quite liberal, she has been ahead on things. she was an early supporter of same-sex marriage. she was very tough on immigration. more tough than other people. she is a little bit of angela merkel. she has this continual reputation of thing pragmatic. she gets things done. the single thing that stood out, was that she was home secretary. if you don't like another politician in british politics, you make them home secretary. they usually do not last two years. charlie: there's a vast difference between the constituency. john: you have a party with all bernie sanders activists and all the people to the right of mrs. thatcher, mrs. clinton in the senate. they do not know what to do. all of the mps do not want jeremy corbyn as their leader.

he is sitting there in a position which looks increasingly odd. he has withdrawn from the conservative side of the race. because he said it is just impossible to do this if you do not have the any support. all the mps were rushing to support theresa may. on the other side of the fence you have jeremy corbyn who is even less popular with the labor mp pots. labor mps. he is saying i'm going to stay. if there a vote i'm going to go to this left-wing activist and bring into the party. you do have the tory party, usually in some ways, they have found somebody to rally around. there was talk. when she walked into a room at the house of commons, everyone made a huge noise. everyone is happy. they think they have survived.

there is still talk of splits. we had the fcp and things like that. charlie: so her primary challenge is to negotiate the departure from the eu. john: she has said she will do that. the one thing she has said she will not start that until next year. that has been quite canny. the reason that is canny is for the british to file their divorce proceedings they need to launch article 50. the thing about article 50 is effectively you hand the process to the rest of the europeans. the rest of the europeans are saying get on with it. including mrs. merkel. that gives the british little leverage. but the later they file, the easier it is to get a pre-deal. once they file on a two-year are out., you on net, she has been relatively clever. charlie: there's a possibility she will select george osborne.

john: there is a possibility. there is also a possibility that she will go for somebody else. they had rows. not appalling ones but there was some friction. charlie: did you believe austerity, his strategy -- contributed to the victory? john: you can argue it both ways. i think if britain had not been relatively tight in the way it was, this person would not have had that reputation. britain would not have had that opportunity. what is true is the british version of globalization was the rewards going to the top. so even though osborne manufactured that -- i think on the whole there will be people who will jump up and say he should not have been so austere. but actually i think he established a reputation as britain being a prudent and

efficient place. charlie: will there be any advantage for britain not to be in the european union that you can see? other than a sense we have regained our sovereignty? john: there is a potential way in which britain could do well. i am clutching at straws. as you know, i was somebody who argued for remains. so there are two ways he could do well. number one, if it negotiates a good deal with the eu which gives it access to the single market. especially for finance and industries like that. whilst moderating immigration. deal i can sort of see. the scandinavians, all those questions, they are in the eu but not in the euro. and traditionally they have , hidden behind the british. the onessh have been

of been bothered to take the fights to the french and the germans. there are people like the dutch or being quite rude about the british but generally are not. the scandinavians will feel slightly lowly with that. there's all the finances would rather be in london than other places. if britain gets a decent deal with europe and ends up as a member or something close. the second one is as long as the main article remains a inward looking economy, britain could be this version of singapore, or hong kong, this liberal free trading structure that deals with america. then they look good. the problem is that would take a long time to achieve. in the second problem is that actually it might be an even less equal economy than it is now. that causes another set of problems. charlie: thank you for coming. great to see you. back in a moment. ♪

♪ >> on tuesday morning nasa's jetcraft made the 1.8 billion mile journey to jupiter's atmosphere. the mission, which took five cost $1.1 million will give us the first glimpse below

the clouds of the planet. joining me to discuss the future of space exploration is derrick pitts, lauren grush. and murray m kramer of mashable. i am pleased to have everyone here. derek is in philadelphia. let me start with you. it is so good to talk about this. it fascinates so many of us. let me start with this. why was this insertion into jupiter's atmosphere so complicated? >> well, what complicates is it is that first it is going to be a polar orbit. they are trying to set up an orbital path that will allow the spacecraft to avoid the most damaging portions of the magnetic field and radiation field. jupiter being the gigantic planet that it is, has the strongest magnetic field, the worst radiation field you can imagine. we are talking about sensitive

electronics in the spacecraft. so what they want to do is to not only get there on time, but to make sure the proper orbit can do all of the scientific examination it has to do and avoids the worst part of the magnetic field as it makes the 37 orbits around the planet. charlie: so you essentially have do construct this armor. >> there are two parts of this. setting up the orbits a you can miss these nasty bouts of radiation. you can physically do something with the electronics on the spacecraft. the word that is used is hardening. when you heard in the circuit, what you do is you set it up in such a way you can protected as best you can from excess radiation and magnetic fields. what they have done in this case is they have gone a giant step further. ofy have created a 400-#made

half-inch thick titanium into which they have put the main computers and most electronics for the experiments that are going to use to examine the planet of jupiter. the hope is they can reduce the amount of radiation this gets in every pass. this is called the flop and -- and they want to see what they can do to drive down the total dose, the total amount of radiation the spacecraft will receive. they know the amount of radiation is going to be degrading the electronics but over time they hope they will be able to get enough work done before the electronics are really damaged beyond repair if you will in these 37 orbits that the vault they are in, that the ball the electronics are in, will do quite a bit to protect them from damage. >> in you were at the

laboratory. can you talk a little bit about that? >> it was very exciting. even for the hardened reporters. it was this electric feeling. we had a press conference then there was a time where we were sitting around able to talk to the scientists. of them were so nervous about making sure that juno got into orbit. it is a very dangerous maneuver for the spacecraft, even as hardened as it is. putting something around jupiter is difficult. >> this is a small group of dedicated scientists and journalists in this issue. i know it has really been fascinating to talk to a lot of you about this and to see the energy. can you put this in perspective? in terms of the difficult jobs now set has had in the past, where does this rank? >> this is the hardest thing

nasa has done. people will take issue with that statement. they yeah, just talking about the orbit. there are a lot of unknowns. knew a little bit about the radiation environment, but they didn't know how it was going to affect the spacecraft and they had a press conference before it happened. there is this debris field that is similar to the asteroid belt that we have. and, there are meteoroids debris around jupiter, so one of those it juno, which is going very fast, by the way, it is one of the fastest if not the fastest's grace -- then the fastest spacecraft ever launched, then the whole thing would have been blown. everyone was on pins and needles. that made it more sweet when it turned out to be a success. >> a have heard someone say jupiter could hold the key to

everything. is that hyperbole? >> when you look at the history of the solar system, jupiter is the first planet to come into form after the sun was formed. in so, and away jupiter , represents a museum of the early history of the solar them. so the more we can understand , about jupiter itself the more we can understand how the planets formed. there are several models are in existence now of how solar systems form. and we looking to gather more information so we can identify these models best fits for we seem to have right now. informationthe about jupiter and the other gas giant planets, we are left wanting to pick which one of these fits our model best. by examining jupiter and the atmosphere of the very deepest interior, to identify what kind

of core there is, these factors will help us understand how our solar system came into existence. this becomes important. now we are identifying solar systems in other parts of the galaxy. the biggest news in astronomy, over the last five years or so that there are so many other stars with planets. it is now beginning to look like almost every star in our galaxy has a planet. and so the question comes up how , are the solar systems forming? it's important because when we look around the galaxy we see snapshots of the development of solar systems. we cannot see the entire process, that takes too long. we have not developed the equipment yet that allows us to see this very well. we need models. we need confirmation of models. that is how jupiter is going to help us. not only was our solar system, but identifying other solar systems. >> this is a limited field of

scientific journalism. some of these topics, that has not been replete with women. you both represent that. it is fascinating to talk to. it has been in unusual situation. is that changing? what is it about this field that interested you so much. >> yes, that is true. it was mostly women. >> your parents are nasa engineers. >> that is correct. that is one ofnd the reasons i have been very so enthusiastic about it. my mother is a great example, she is a dm good engineer.

it has been in my blood for a while. >> we know where you guide from. >> i have always been interested in science. i have been a science journalist for a a while. might beat has always been space and i love it. there is always so much fascinating. field.s a really great granted, with the other things going on in the world, most often it is a very upbeat and optimistic field to cover. there's always something new. something innovative going on. and it just shows how capable we are as a species. it is fun to report on. >> i like to say it is aspirational. no matter what, we are going for things we've never gone four. we have never done something like that. orbit insertion. to actually be able to be there and cover it, it feels like the best humanity has to offer.

>> even failure is a great thing. it shows we have tried. even if juno had not gone into orbit we sent a spacecraft to another planet in our solar system. that is amazing and incredible. so yeah, i feel like there is so much brightness to have firm reporting on space. i have known you for some time but i never knew how you came to this field. derek: when i was a kid i was the one kid who was always interested in science, always interested in space exploration. and so, when i was probably, you know, 10, 11, 12 years old, this was about the time the missions to the moon were starting into earnest and it was my thing to learn everything about the technology, of the saturn five launch vehicles. the apollo spacecraft. everything i could get my hands on. i ate that stuff for breakfast.

>> can i ask you about the moon? there was this comment about this being the most difficult thing nasa has ever done. nasa has done some pretty difficult things in the past. not to be too skeptical, is that saying too much? >> we can look at a range of missions and how difficult they are. for example you mention the , lunar missions. now we have humans involved. that's another level of concern. we want to make sure the astronauts come back alive. every chance we can make that happen. that is what we are driving for. that is one level. then the jupiter orbital insertion is another level of that. if we look at the new horizons, that mission that last summer -- that was a seriously critical issue. making sure that not only are the calculations correct, we

have to realize the engineers are modifying all the way along toward that approach to make sure the window is hit at exactly the right time so that all the science it can be done. it is traveling at incredible speeds. the flyby is going to go by quickly. so there is another instance in which it you can say, that is probably the most difficult thing nasa has ever had to do. so you look at them in other classes and you find these engineers are just incredible at being able to put these different factors together to make these missions work. it is staggering. >> i want to talk about the specifics here of the juno mission. they had 3-d printed parts. right? >> the first 3-d printed parts to fly on a spacecraft.

>> which is an extraordinarily accomplishment. >> for sure. printing is becoming an integral part of what nasa does. they have printers on the international space station. it's good for creating parts you need on the fly. with the iss that has to be launched from the ground. but if something breaks or you need a replacement part, a 3-d printing can be a good stopgap. >> a game changer? >> yes, i think so. even private companies are catching on. i mean, spacex hasn't used that. -- has used that. it's become something very important. >> how is spacex doing? >> their track record is incredible.

people aren't flocking to spacex launches for their launches, actually. they are flocking to them because of their crazy landings. they are getting pretty good at it. the last one did not work so well but they learned of him that. they have been able to land 4 rockets at this point. and that is insane, that is incredible. >> it is amazing to think how critical we are that we are not only judging the takeoffs but the landings. >> that is a whole new field that spacex is pursuing. this idea of the vertical landing, bringing back the booster so they can be reusable. and we do find it is something that all of the other technologies are using. the others in the commercial lineup are beginning to look at making use of this so the booster systems are reusable. spacex has been remarkable. it is those technologies that is

going to help to drive that side of the space business and make it more viable and useful. i think about how spacex is sometimesi think about how spacex is doing what it is doing. thinking about outsourcing some of the easier tasks that nasa would pursue so that nasa can pursue the difficult things like juno at jupiter. as the commercial entities take on this work, they have the ability to do things that perhaps nasa can't do as easily. but what they are doing is they are adding to our capability to access lower orbit and put up different kinds of payloads, to create systems that can work together and get more done than one system by itself. it is great to see what spacex is doing. along with the other companies that are expanding in that direction. >> as we talk about the private

public division, after juno is finished, we are not going to have it a spacecraft looking at one of the planets for a first time in a long time. >> that is true. let's do it this way. actually there will still be , spacecraft looking at planets up close, particularly mars. mars is probably the best example. the mars reconnaissance of orbiter has been orbiting mars for i don't even know how long, it is meant such a long time. but the mission on that has been extended. the issue is we don't have anything in the pipeline for further exploration in the solar system for major planets coming up. another way to look at this, nasa has done a tremendous job of looking at all of the planets of our solar system in flyby or in close-up orbital missions like we have seen jupiter with galileo and juno. it is not to say there isn't more work that needs to be done but when we look at what nasa is given for resources to use, and how that funding has to be

divvied up among the things they want to achieve, somewhere along the line something is going to break down in terms of being able to fund everything. in so as nasa turns more toward developing the infrastructure to look at mars with manned missions there is a lot of money going in that direction. less money available to our space science. >> we will have to leave it there. whether it is juno, jupiter, mars, whatever else a , fascinating discussion. derek thank you. lauren, thank you. and derek cramer. thank you so much. thank you all very much. ♪

mark: i'm mark crumpton. you are watching the "bloomberg west." we begin with a check of your first word news. president obama traveled. to dallas, texas today where he met with the families of the five officers killed in last week's ambush. he discussed the burdens placed on officers in the line of duty. president obama: from the moment you put on that uniform, you have answered a call that at any moment, even the briefest interaction may put your life in harm's way. >> the white house says