attorneys general to put those ideas into perspective with a grounded analysis and two it is in and receive feedback all of that is certainly true. >> is since in light of the power point* presentation that has bang going around for a few months these proactive solutions it is proposing s a result of the agreement. we do have an e-mail between richard davis of the west bank to you and ms. warren from back in march where it appears it is a follow-up from the conversation you're asking about details of a needs test. sometimes you are soliciting opinions from the mortgage

servicer on what would be workable and i give you another opportunity to answer the question and perhaps i did not worded correctly. . . will

cease. we have two special guests at the table. scott pace, george washington

university's space policy institute director, and mark matthews, he writes about the space program and policy out of washington for "the orlando sentinel." reflections -- let me start with you -- this historic final day. what are you thinking about as the space shuttle program comes to an end? guest: when i was a young engineer and i could walk out on the shop floor and watch the machining -- i still had to go back to my desk and push paper but it was still cool to see that. i am actually both clad and sad that it is happening -- glad and sad. sad because it is an end of an era but i think after the columbia accident the right decision was made. that we've needed to complete the space station but then wrap up and move on. host: you have been covering the debate. president george w. bush

announced the program was ending but there was a great deal of discussion in congress. russia will now be the leader in space for the sometime foreseeable future because they are still involved in their lead on the orbiting space station. also for your home town paper area -- loss of jobs. how do you put a ribbon around all of that and tell us about the discussion about the ending of the program guest: there might be argument in nasa that russia would be the world leader, but it is true ratio will be the one launching astronauts to the international space station -- at a hefty price tag and for the foreseeable future. with nasa right now, they are at the most difficult crossroads of their 50-year history right now. the future is uncertain. how exactly to replace the space shuttle is uncertain and whether it will be affected is uncertain. as for central florida right

now, the kennedy space center is set to lose about 7000 jobs when the program ends. which, right now, as folks in florida dairy board about decimating the local economy. scott and i have been talking earlier about this, that you are losing a significant number of high-paying jobs in central florida from this area. and what happens afterwards is a major concern. >> florida, one of the three top state's most hit by the real estate downturn in 2008. guest: something that we were discussing is it has been a double whammy. you had the housing bubble already hitting the lord, and, two, you have this loss of high- paying jobs. the worst job in america right now may be a realtor in merritt island, florida. host: lots of ways to be involved for the audience -- twitter, our phone lines, which we will put on the screen.

we also put up a facebook discussion on our facebook page and will work in some comments. if you are on facebook you can add it to your list. back in 1981, this is some video of the very first shuttle launch in april of 1981. as we look at that, tell us what the initial goals were for the space program as it first was launched. guest: the first thing to remember is when the shuttle was flown in 1981, that was the first return of u.s. astronauts to space and about six years. the last mission had been apollo-soyuz. and a vehicle loan was really the test flight -- they put a two-man crew aboard the vehicle on the very first launch. one of the most audacious test flight in history. host: we will get the video and

maybe we will be able to show that. how many shuttles altogether? guest: 5. .

>> a lot o the goals previously made. the shuttle was able to accomplish things people never thought it would. i think overall, it might be fair to say that this country has had a love/hate relationship with the space shuttle. host: more from you. >> i absolutely agree. one of the things i teach my classes is how they made the decision in a poor way.

they focussed on cost and didn't focus on what you were going to do with that vehicle. this was less attention with the abilities and a large fixation on getting down to low cost which drove you toward very unrealistic flight rates in order to get the program approved. a really clear headed policy decision was not really made back then. the shuttle suffered. it is exceeded what it was to do technically. it failed economically. i would argue those economic objectives were the wrong questions. host: what would have been the right question? guest: that would have been what is the role of space post apollo? to focus exclusively on cost

benefit on something as complex as space flight i think was a mistake. host: we are looking at pictures of nasa tv. that's historic video there. the launch is set for 11:26 eastern time. it's 70/30 percent chance of moving forward. 70% chance it might not because of storms. yesterday, there were lightening hits in that facility. they are moving ahead, as you'll see from nasa tv with the preparations. let's move to the future. you said that's the right question. i want to show a couple of facebook comments. >> on facebook, wow, 30 years. >> sad it is ending and there's nothing in the works to replace

it. >> let's listen to this exchange. >> now what we need is that next technological breakthrough. we are still using the same models for space travel that we used with the apollo program 30, 40 years ago. what we've said is rather than keep on doing the same thing, let's invest in basic research that can get us places faster, allow human space flight to last longer and what you are seeing now is nasa i think redefining its mission. we've set a goal. lets ultimately get to mars. a good pit spot is an astroid.

we vpt identified one yet if people are wandering. let's strength the boundaries so we are not doing the same thing over and over. >> he unveiled his budget proposal that would cancel the con stillation program, the program set under president bush. he wanted to push nasa oven a new face of r&d research that could enable a mission to mars or some other destination. that decision obama truly wanted to

push nasa away and a lot of folks in congress still wanted to see. from that point, there was a six or seven month debate. and embarking on a new path that would build a shuttle derived-type vehicle and keep the capsule. nasa is working on the finer points of that rocket design. the debate of whether or not that is still feasible is still going. >> the representative from texas representing the 30th district in that state is the ranking deteriorate on the space science and technology committee and is on the line with us right now. could you tell us your thoughts on ending the shuttle mission.

caller: good morning. well, it's a very emotional time to speak of anticipating something we have gotten so much from. however, we do have to look to the dollars and look towards the future. it's amazing what we have achieved with these space exploration programs. it is not really ending. we are entering into a new phase. we have to get ready for it. i can't even imagine us dropping it all together. we have so much invested. we have so much to look forward to in the future. we know that we can't afford to put as many dollars in as what is really needed right now to go immediately to the next phase. we will be preparing for the next phase. >> do you have policy objectives to how to direct those dollars?

>> to do what? host: to how to direct those limited dollars? what are your major goals in what the country should do next? >> the first thing is to make sure we don't lose a lot of our talent, make sure we have a good vision. we can't see exactly what that will be because it is research. we don't know what the next phase will bring us. we do know what we have achieved. we know because of that, we cannot afford to walk away from a space exploration program all together. we are just -- we have planned on what the next phase should be in terms of where we are headed. i hope we will continue that. we have a lot of enthusiasm for

the research and development of moving 23450 the next phase. we still have some relationship with our space station, with other countries. we have so much invested that we cannot afford to just walk away from the space program. >> thank you so much. since you'll be a key part that have debate, pressure perspective on this final launch day. thank you for spending time with us. >> thank you very much. host: the congresswoman is worried about america losing talent. >> she is right. talent is the most precious thing the community has. one of the thing that's causes a risk of talent is instability. if you look back at where we were, say, 30 months ago to where we are today. t plus 30 in the new administration, you find the

industry is more stable. there's been testimony about that. they don't know what's next or what they'll be doing. you find there are international partners feeling unstable. you find that the congress is going through a difficult bipartisan discussion. the congresswoman is quite right. that money is tight but the nasa top line, i don't think is really the problem. the problem is the instability the program has suffered. host: we have a call from chicago on the democrat line. caller: i'm the most heart broken person in the world today. i was born in cape canaveral in 1950. my father was a sargent post

world war ii. we were competing with susha, it wasn't science at first. army and air force were fighting over who had the air thing. we had the van dpaurd. the army won. they started nasa. it kills me to hear that the space station will go over to control russia. it's so disappointing to hear this. you go see cocoa beach. it looks like detroit. foreclosures everywhere. people already let go. why have a kid go to space camp?

they might close that. the dream to save the world, to a lookout of that hubble telescope and to think the universe is so incredible. it is an anti-science movement when we had it all. host: i'll jump in there. you've given us some thoughts of nostalgia as well. guest: we were talking about this before we got on the program. it's amazing how much debate and focus goes into the budget that's only $17 billion or $18 billion, the reason is this symbolism of what nasa means to this country. for a very long time, nasa represents the spear point of the american society.

the best of the best explorers and engineers. the best of the best visionaries planning the mission. when we are talking about nasa, we are talking about more than that. nasa has the burden of the american expectations on it. we start to wonder what is next for nasa, we don't know what's next. i wonder if we are asking what's next for this country? guest: i think that's right. there's the practical aspects of space. military, economics, scientific and there's also the other aspects. this administration has a different view about what it wants to transition to. that hasn't been communicated or been reassuring. you have this feeling that we are a bit adrift.

there are things happening and coming next. there are the execution that has been lacking. >> with your practical application, spying, weather gathering, communication, that's why we have to have access. >> let's look at this titer comment. we've been talking about the strong government program. nasa is looking toward increased privatization. what's happening there? >> the overall plan that the administration has is that it would have commercial companies deliver cargo and crude to the space station so nasa itself could focus on longer range

missions. going to the nearby astroid and the monday. space x in california become the first private company ever to launch a capsule into space and return it safely. that being said, no commercial company has yet been able to deliver cargo to the international space station. a resent report came out and said commercial companies were about two years behind schedule and $300 million overbudget to be able to accomplish these objectives. these doe lays are small peanuts when you look at the overall cost of nasa. nasa is trying to figure out how best to spend the money when

folks are trying to cut anything not nailed down. >> maryland an independent there. caller: good morning. the future of nasa should concern itself with the propulson of technology. they were all discussed but they never evaluated to anything at all there should be a commitment to the man space program. further down the line, i would say that all the privatization going on should focus on getting to the moon with the intend of going to mars eventually. that's all i have to say. guest: the caller makes a good point.

p proplusion technology is the consideration. we have to figure something out. part of the concern -- this is more of a practical earth bound concern. often times r&d money is viewed as a piggy bank. trying to put a lot of money into r&d is opening up to being rated by capitol hill lawmakers. it's very risky sometimes. host: do you agree? guest: that's part of it. we need to run a technology program directed towards missions. it's dangerous to have open

ended technology not dedicated to future missions. you also have to have a transition plan to get you away from what you are doing now to what you are doing next. the administration is taken a very high risk and high payoff approach on this reliance of new technology. but to me, it's a very, very high risk approach. i would have preferred an approach that would have continued to use known technology and existing components and bringing in new technology and commercial systems on a more evolutionary way. administration has taken a more radical break with that past. >> the caller. his point of view. facebook writes unmanned craft

do more work anyway. guest: the old humans versus robots debate is kind of gone. within the scientific community there is a few that both humans and robots have their place. they felt that if they had a geologist on site, they could have gotten things done faster. if your goal is only science, robots can do that. if you are exploring, humans are absolutely a part of that. it depends on when your goal is. if it is just science, then robots. more than science, humans have to be a part of it. host: on from north carolina. caller: good morning.

i have a question -- host: you have your tv on in the background. caller: ok. the gentleman mr. pace, i think, said once the shuttles -- this is the last mission, we can settle on other things going to places like astroids and mars. with when is my question? why are we -- this is like giving up and taking a ride with your worst enemy. we used to be very proud. the united states was the first to do this. this was a great thing. i don't care which administration decided to shut it. i'm a republican. if we started it, somebody has

to start it back up again. we have the money we need. we don't need to spend money drilling for oil in brazil. give it to nasa and let them kin. host: thank you. one statement from wall street journal. guest: i confess to being very sim pathetic with that caller. if you know me, you know i'm not a supporter of the current approach. i thought that would be the replacement for the shuttle with the consolation program, we would have the opportunity to bring in more providers. in concert with the government lead and government owned

system. with that cancellation, the caller is correct, it is not clear what it is we are going to be replacing it with. that leaves us dependent on commercial riders who are very capable. that leads us to being reliept on the russians which makes not only us nervous but all our other international partners nervous. this is not a criticism of the russians. we would not have been able to maintain, our partners were nervous when they are reliant solely on us. in space, it is always wise to have a back up plan. with the kwan sellation and uncertainty in the system and crew service replacements, we potentially don't have clear back up plans. that makes me nervous as well.

>> >> good morning. i enjoy the show and the discussion. i'm a little annoyed by some of what i've heard there have been eight presidents since nixon. and now it falls into obama's lap to fix this problem with the space shuttle program being completely unsustainable. the same thing is true of this debt that is accrued over the last eight presidents. it is up to mr. obama to solve this problem as well. we have people talking about we need smaller government, we need to cut spending. this is what it looks like. this is not just poor people out on the street, it's valuable programs that gives birth to a lot of technologies that benefits our lives being cut.

thank you grover and voters of 2010. this is what happens. >> connie writes, what did it accomplish anyway. no, we are not the jetsons. >> i'm less certain about the medical accomplishments. i want to go back to something the caller asked about about what is next. we vpt explained what is coming up? what is going to happen in the next several years. last fall, congress launched a bill to set nasa on a course to build a new rocket that would be

shuttle derived. the design will look very much like the shuttle on the pad today with one exception that you are going to have the or bitter. instead, you'll have a cap sul on top of the tank. that's the general configuration. the nasa vehicle and commercial folks will be in charge of the international space station. the worry is whether or not this new rocket will have the money to be able to accomplish what this money is set out to do. in january this year, nasa wrote congress and said we cannot build the rocket you want -- congress wanted something by 2017. this has amounted to a big, nasty battle over whether nasa can actually do this.

in some sense, they are correct in saying not being able to do this. if you are looking at the funding profile over the next five years, this program would get $14 billion. that's less money than what consolation would have gotten. as the 2009 commission pointed out, one of the reasons con stillation failed is it didn't get the funding promised. congress is looking to a repeat of history that's already failed once. secondly, budget problems are not all congress's fault. nasa itself has had budget problems over years, costover runs and technical problems. there's a reason nasa has been on high risk list of public

contemplators. those two factors, the less funding than anticipated coupled with nasa's propensity to break its own budget has a lot of folks very skeptical over whether the u.s. can put astronauts in a space craft any time in the next decade. >> i would like to tell you more about scott pace. i'll listen to the current nasa administrator and talk to you about your comments. >> deputy chief of staff, served as chief technology in nasa's office of space administration and the administrator and evaluation from 2005-2008. phd from the rahm graduate school. on july 1, the current administrator talking at the national press club in washington.

>> as a former astronaut and current nasa administrator, i'm here to tell you, we'll continue for at least the next half century. we've laid the foundation for success. for us at nasa, failure is not an option. we have the opportunity to raise the bar and demonstrate what humans can do if we are challenged and inspired to reach out for something just out of our grasp but not out of our sight. host: to you. guest: i think he's been given a difk that is very, very difficult they gave the agency

the moon, while very, very difficult is within reach. when we talk about go to mars or astroids, i don't believe, there will be a major productivity. >> the cost is too high, this is too difficult. the reasons for doing it are interer national. bringing the russians into the space station program is the way they symbolized the relationship with russia. we know john kennedy went to the moon in part.

how do we integrate and engage. not on the space station but on the next journey. this viewer who tweets to us, mission to march will reveal -- indicate future leadership. guest: the problem is trying to go directly to mars is going from the first fly to the apollo program. you need a training ground in between. the competition is old think. the real challenge is how do we bring other emerging space spou powers into the game. the real space thinking is going on in asia. host: is that china?

guest: china. india, japan. that's where we should be looking. host: next caller is bernie from new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning. your two guests are excellent. gives me a good perspective on everything. what scares me is there are no plans and no goals. the no goal part scares me as someone that has grown up with this space program at age 59. i think it is bad planning by this administration. i understand the professor saying we have to set our goals to what we are doing next. if we look at the government like your heart. we have arteries going out and veins coming in. if you are out sourcing, you are

getting new technology in all the time. there's a lot that has made our life better through the space program. not just the goal of going to mars or whatever. thank you. very interesting discussion you are having. host: thank you. here is a question on facebook from paul. since the columbia accident, nasa has always had a second shuttle on the pad to perform a second rescue if needed, is it not in place for this launch? guest: it is not in place. this launch was intended to be a rescue mission for the second to last shuttle mission. this was some debate about what would happen if something were to happen to atlantis when it launches today the discussion was this the four there on

atlantis would find their way home host: crowds are gathering. you can see rain or shine, hubbeds or thousands, estimates put the crowds close to 1 million. dozens are already in town including the first shuttle pilot who opened the aaron columbia in 1981.

>> he was absolutely a pioneer, later what came be important aboard the international space station space has benefited to gain technology and medical research. if you crawl under the or bitters today you find a lot of empty spaces near the nose

host: thank you for your time today. we've been awaiting the new jobs numbers. it is key to the discussion a slower space than may unemployment rate is rising to 9.2%. >> there's a lot of discussion about the states where the shuttle program has been frequent. caller: would you repeat the question. we had it on speaker phone. host: the question is about the affect of the end of the program on your state. guest: the shuttle has been the

work horse. it has done more things for technology probably than any other programs than united states has embarked on with the possible exceptions of the manhattan project and sat urn 5 project that got us to the moon. >> what's your direction, sir? guest: i'm going to promote nasa as much as i probably can. we have a selling job. i'm not sure that the public understands the spin off that occurred because of the program. it could be life saving defib lators. it could be lasers or computers >> all of those could advance the human condition around the world giving the advantage that has allowed us to compete with

better products and proi duce more jobs and strengthen the economy. host: you feel this is an investment worth making for the country. guest: we have to spend money or these programs or do we want to spend our scares traction dolla dollars. national science foundation, advancements in basic science, things like nasa that produce excellence for our country but also with the spin offs associated with that. i'm one looking towards the future. i want us to invest as much as we can in the kinds of things over the long haul can advance the nation. >> do you have a policy in mind.

do you prefer man or unmanned flights or space stations of the future. which direction are you headed from a policy area. >> that's an important point. the white house has effectively kill kill killed constilation. we'll now have to thumb a ride with the russians. going into the future, congress has insisted that certain money be spent on the heavy lift vehicle, which would enable us to go beyond low earth or bit. that's what we wanted. that's our intent. unfortunately, the white house has a different view. i hope that we can continue to have manned space flight.

there's no profit in the commercialization of manned space flights. any of the materials i've participated in or that i need to read. it is like nasa to take the lead and be the work horse. it's done a great job for america for five or six decades. >> congressman, we have mark matthews here who has a question for you guest: certainly guest: i was hoping you could go back to the point you made earlier about the economic implications of nasa having a new program. talking about technological spin offs. with the current plan and constilation relying on 30-year technology from the space shuttle, what kind of spin offs do you see from that.

constant criticism from nasa is that it is white collar welfare. what will come from what we have been doing since the 1970s. those who think that nasa's white color welfare have not been paying attention or done their homework. >> as you can imagine from my response, i am a strong supporter of the nasa program. i grew up with sat urn 5 being tested. that's the rocket that got us to the moon a few miles from our house. i remember the earth shaking and us having to make sure our dishes and cabinets didn't fall out. also remember the pride i had in america with neil armstrong stepping down on the moon in 1968, 1969. i think it was 1969. in any event, what we have to do

is establish emission. low-earth or bit, fine. we can do that. we have a space station. that ought to be a minimal goal. to me, moon and mars exploration. perhaps going to astroids. advancing the human condition and human knowledge. then technology is developed to accomplish that. it's like going to the moon in the 1960's or developing the space shuttle in the 1970s and launching in the 1980s. it wasn't until you had the decision -- host: congressman? are you still there. i apologize. he was talking about starting the mission first. take us back to the comments you made earlier. guest: it is really difficult to design your programs and think about what technologies you need and where you are going and why

you you are going. again, we have been really more in favor of the lunar mission return over the international basis challenging of what we can be done. i'd like to add to some of the response of what was coming out of the previous efforts. it was not to rebuild what we had started before. progress had been made in reducing the amount of man power necessary. there's a whole bunch of very nerdy discussions on friction stair welding and robot tick assemblies and so forth. the main thing was building actual hardware was really crucial. that hands on experience will be developing, testing, flying and not just doing it on paper.

that's a new of insights and how you improve upon what these productions are like, the solid rocket motors was like. some of the things i worry about in the complete reliance of the commercial sources is nasa and the industry partners may be losing some of these hands on skills they need in development and test line. again, we learn by actually doing. not just talking about it. >> we end at 9:00 eastern. the house is in session early today. the space shuttle launch is set for 11:26 eastern time. they continue preparations toward count down. jfk is turning over in his grave buts this is ending. >> looking at twitter comments.

>> the question for you it will serve as a discussion point. american hero writes, why don't we sell the space shuttles on e bay. i'm sure they are worth something. what will become of the shuttles? guest: they'll go to different museums throughout the country. there was a bidding war in congress to see which state would get each one of the shuttles. you would have some members to show up to hearings who frankly never really came them often, would drop in five minutes and say my state needs the space shuttle and then leave again. there was a lot of debate about it. the shuttles are going to -- there's going to be one in

florida. there will be one going to the air and space museum in washington, d.c. the third is california. they are spread across the country. that lead to some degree of howling from texas being the home of the space program and being the home of johnson space center, they should have one. host: next call from arkansas. brian is a democrat. good morning. are you there? caller: i want to agree that texas should have a space shuttle. i would have to drive to florida to visit with my kids. my question is with so many r&d cuts being made, what is it we are skipping out on now? maybe this will give american

taxpayers the fight. what type of things are we scrapping in order to save money? are we still interested to learn more about deep space or is it all basically bars and we'll worry about deep space later on because we don't have money for it. >> one of the stories i don't think has been well appreciated is since 1988, the u.s. has been buying and relying on plutoniun 88 coming from russia. we've been using that in some of our space probes in part because we thought it would be bet for buy that and getting out of russia. that source is now largely gone. there's enough for one more deep space flagship mission. after that's over, it's gone. there's been an effort with nasa

and the department of energy for several years now to restart the production of plutoneun to reach the solar powers of the sun. that's failed. we now don't have a domestic source. we are out. one of the una appreciated points is that we are not sending a mission to mars unless we have a u.s. source of this. host: the final shuttle flight is shuttle atlantis. we have video of a flight it took in 2009. it has travelled 120 million miles.

293 days in space. it's made 4600 or bits over 32 different flights. >> what modifications were made to the later shuttles after the two accidents? guest: after the loss of challenger, the solid rocket motors were completely redesigned. that was what lead to the failure in challenger. in the case of the columbia sdenlt. the major change with procedural. when the space shuttle gets to or bit, it is intensely inspected and surveyed and looking for damage and pitting. if there are any problems, they have the option of repairing them or staying at the space station. i think what is also more important, the result of both

missions result in important policy changes. in the aftermath of challenger, we decided to take off shuttles. after columbia, a more fundamental question is asked, for what purpose is risking human life worth while. the discussion was low or bit was not what we needed to doing there needing to be a human exploration to justify the risks of sending humans. >> houston chronicle front page today,

host: to corpus christi, texas on the republican line. good morning. caller: is this c-span? host: it is. go ahead. caller: i enjoy c-span. in our history, americans were here to be free. we should be free to be in space without any country involved. but i think the world should get together to put their money together to go together to mars. join in their funds and technology and talents and he had indicated people and get them together in one group instead of being just nasa and america because we want to be number one in the world. we have to join the other kwoirpts to be able to survive. host: let's get i current

response about the sentiments in washington about cooperation rather than competition. guest: there is some support for that idea. president obama has talked some about that cooperation. nasrallah has been used as a soft power. during the kennedy administration, it was us against the russians. some type of international mission to the moon or beyond could be a type of soft power to symbolize that america wants to be a team player with the rest of the world. there are still concerns about it on capitol hill most particularly with china. there has been adamant stance against any cooperation with

china many come eagers on the hill share that sentiments. we might not see cooperation with china for a long time. host: here's a tweet. host: we are talking with mark matthews and scott pace about the future of the spa program. we'll go to jeff on the line. caller: thank you for your panel being there this morning and giving their expertise. one of the things that is really bother so many, we talk about

out sourcing this stuff. we tend to loose a sense of the expert he's if you don't have hands on. where's the value in out sourcing all of this. that's my question this morning. host: scott? guest: the government alone can't do everything. you want the government to be a smart buyer. the way the science community has been smart, they always try to have at least one space craft being built in-house. at least one will be in-house making sure there's expert he's inside the government. the same could be done with the human space flight program. the bulk of the work could be done outside. you want to have a little bit of the development work. the question is what's that balance. how much should be kept out.

what are the core skills you want the government to be able to do. when administration talks about nasa being primarily a technology organization. i worry you loose some of the hands on skills to be a buyer. host: 11:26 lift off. we'll continue taking your calls then. let me put some statistics back on the screen we started with. six shuttles all together. 134 missions. $450 million permission. cost from 1971 to 2010, $113.7 billion.

total flight time, 13316 days, 20958 or bits of earth. back to phone calls in illinois on the republican line. caller: i would love to be able to travel into space. i believe as long as that access is restricted to government owned and launched vehicles, that will never happen. so why not instead of funding a program which has sometimes referred to as the senate launch system, take those resources and aggressively support the cuts to buildup our private and commercial cape abilities. thank you. host: what about private

individuals flying into space? guest: the caller is right. manufacture us likely won't make it into space. he and i would probably have to hit the lottery not once but twice in order to have the money to pay for private space travel. there have been some space tours over the years but it is only been a handful. there had been a push by some companies to open up space to space tourism. one of the folks leading the charge here is robert bigelo who has this concept of creating inflatable space station that's you would launch into space, blowup like a balloon and bring people up there and have them float around for a while. they are going to say they are trying to offer an opportunity

for other international space powers. there is a push for that. some things but again, buy a couple lottery tickets and you might have a better chance. host: are you a fan of space tourism? guest: i think it would be beneficial for the country. the question is should u.s. taxpayer dollars be used to cry and create this space tourism? it's like do we spend tax dollars to create a cruise tourism industry? the immediate task the systems have in front of them to justify public monies is supporting the

international space station. that's roughly $150 billion facility. the reason this final shuttle mission is going is because there were delayed in commercial cargo systems. one of the things that this mission is critical for is stockpiling and resupplying 9 station with enough spare parts and instruments such that while we are in the gap between the end thf program and whatever comes next that the station will have whatever parts and components. because of the slowness, this mission is absolutely necessary. >> this woman writes on facebook this statement. i'll ask you about women and

space careers during this program guest: nasa has played p rolls o not only women but minorities. they opened up rolls to minority engineers in the deep south in the 1960's, both minorities and women. this is a crucial way that more people had an opportunity to contribute to this country. there are lots of women involved in leadership roles in nasa today and in the scientific community. there's a conference of the number of women involved in the mars program. i'm not sure why that is. it seems to be popular.

host: that's it for our time today. we used a lot of facebook comments. our facebook page is still open. go to facebook.com/c-span. let me say thank you to our two guests dr. scott pace from george washington university here in the district. mark matthews cover washington and space policy for the orland