any one of those things may not be sufficient. but maybe they're the sorts of things that will trigger a question for taking a look. that's what we want to be in preparing the similarly on the cyber center it's important to know that they suffer a deficit and cyber attack that disables 20, 30,000 are far more important is how did that happen? what happened that made it even possible? similarly with dhs and tsa we've gotten them to shift the focus to that sort of analysis. help us understand the tactics that were utilized to make that happen. ..

>> take a next analytical step with that information and look at all of that body of work, hundreds of thousands of indicators, hundreds of assistance visits and draw i from that the sort of information that can very well income risk management decisions -- inform risk management decisions. and we've said, look, from that body of work what are the tactics you most often see, what are the vulnerabilities most often exploited, what are the protective measures most often found lacking, what are the indicators that had been missed that could have could have madea difference. and the real purpose is not to solve cybersecurity. there are always going to be cyber actors who invest a ton of money and build capabilities, but you really want to begin to narrow the risk profile. when the window may have been opened this wide, some of the efforts need the narrow that, perhaps chase away some of the

actors because the task is not as ease acitizen it was -- easy as it was once before. one of the sad realities at this point is the means of intrusion is often powerfully simple. it's sending a phishing e-mail that asks you to click on a link, introduces a virus into your computer, and often these e-mails have indicators that if you spent 15 seconds, you'd see there's something odd about this. i don't want get a communication like this from my boss, i've never gotten an e-mail from my boss saying read this washington post article. this e-mail is close to ours, but it's a little different. and one of the emphasis points we place on our industry, and we've got physical securities that convene monthly and cyber committees that actually convene twice a month and predates even 9/11 in its operations and activities to coordinate industry cybersecurity. bun of the everyone cease we place on that -- emphases we place on that is we had a word

which is pause. pause and look at an e-mail. if there's something odd about it, if it's from a source you're not familiar with, take a look. in 10-15 seconds you can scan it and get a pretty good idea whether this is the type of communication you're used to seeing or whether there's a basis for concern. again, there's a lot that can be covered. what i wanted to bring to your attention is the efforts of our industry in a very good partnership with government to try to address these types of concerns. and i can say with pride that particularly in the transportation sector, there has been a real effort between tsa and the various representatives of the transportation modes to put a public/private partnership -- a term often used very expansively in many settings -- to put that into practical action. and in some of the areas where dhs, tsa and fbi have been helpful, the first reaction years ago was we can't get there, and we've gotten there. i'm certainly happy to take questions on that as we proceed with this discussion, but i'll turn it over to the next

speaker. thank you. >> thanks, tom. fascinating. last night on the drive home from the baseball game, my wife asked me what a walkoff run was, and so i fumbled through the explanation. we're not big baseball fans, but have become recently with the nationals and leading the, leading their division. so part of your story scares me because you certainly want the nationals to win, but, boy, is she going to be impressed with my knowledge of baseball history when i get home tonight. next speaker, andrew. thanks. >> thanks, jeff. good morning to all, and thanks, tom, as a lifelong dodger fan and -- [laughter] family whose love of the team dates back to brooklyn, it's always nice to have the salt in that wound. [laughter] so we'll get started. again, it's a pleasure to be here. when jeff asked me to participate, there were a number of different ways that you can

go with this discussion. my background, my quick background -- not that i love talking about myself, but it's particularly relevant to this discussion -- i'm about a year out of customs and border protection. i did a number of different stints within the organization, but key to this effort is i was the director of targeting programs at their national targeting center for both passenger and cargo programs. and, you know, there's a real, there's a real push in customs to start moving even more to advance data and using private industry data to help make better risk decisions from the border management perspective. companies have been doing it forever. customs often times gets late to the game when they have these different efforts, but the plea i'd like to make to everybody in this room particularly in your profession is to be really creative. these ideas when it comes to the

government use and the security use of data, these ideas are moving very quickly, and they're certainly moving faster than the nprm process, the interim rules. you know, the number of times i was in my office at the targeting center being told that we had to wait for a rulemaking to get the data that we were looking for that would stop the next attack or that would better facilitate cargo through the border, i would hear that daily, i would hear that weekly. and it was, it was frustrating because, you know, for me, you know, i'm an attorney on my resumé but not real like you guys. i, you know, had to believe that as industry evolves and reinvents itself, there had to be a way for the federal government to keep up and to really adapt their processes, their data collection and their efforts that moved, you know, if not at the speed of business, maybe one generation behind instead of several.

and often times the greatest catalyst for change in the security environment, you know, i'd hike to say it's create -- i'd like to say it's creativity and forward thinking, but a lot of times it's a threat or an economic driver. and, you know, there's examples of both of those that i'll talk a little bit about. you know, the threat piece, the example i can give you is you all probably remember back in 2010 in october where there were explosives found in the printer cartridges over in the u.k. and dubai. the response to that was a great example of what i'm talking about now and should serve as the model for programs to come. it was what had come to become the advanced air cargo screening. and what happened was in the immediate aftermath, i mean, the absolute immediate aftermath of that threat customs and border protection, tsa, dhs and the

express consignment operators all got together and said the regulations right now for advanced information coming into customs and border protection, into tsa for international shipments come way too late, and there's not enough. what do you have available, what can you have right now, what can you provide voluntarily that will help make better risk determinations and help to the move the action that can be taken in the supply chain further out, you know, before an event becomes, you know, a catastrophe or a tragic event. and it was within six months, six weeks, excuse me, it was within six weeks that, you know, a voluntary program of data submission from the biggest express consignment carriers was being tested out at the national targeting center. everybody got together, and it was in response to a threat. and it started to work. and then you work the beings out, nothing's perfect. -- the bugs out, nothing's perfect. my boss used to tell me these programs don't have to be pretty, but they have to fight.

and this one did. it started to work. and then based on the lessons learned of that voluntary partnership and that voluntary program, the rule was able to be develop toed, it was able to be pushed through. it's still going through the development, but if we would have waited, you know, from october 2010 to right now to implement any different types of change, you know, who knows what would have happened. and, you know, it's examples like that where, you know, i ask you as lawyers and your clients to get creative in some of the things that you can do working with government. it's not easy. and it's a little scary going to the theme of the panel with cyber threat. you know, customs and border protection is second to the irs and private data that they collect. and the more that we move towards this environment of data sharing and in a voluntary data sharing perspective, there is a concern that, you know,

something is not going to be well regulated, is not going to be safe and secure. but that takes both the private entity and the public entity to work together. it doesn't necessarily require a hard and fast rule, an administrative procedure. that's where you can come in, and that's where, you know, the ideas of groups like this can really make a difference. the other side of the coin from the threat perspective is the economic reality. the down turn in the budgets for customs and border protection specifically was a real wake-up call for the way the government had to behave and particularly within the supply chain security realm. you know, customs and border protection saw its budget from creation to five years past double. it went from about a $5 billion a year agency to an $11 billion agency. a lot of that focused on physical and border security. but when you have that level of

investment and when you have that level of continued increase, you get a lot of senior managers, and you get a lot of operators that really, you know, don't -- aren't forced to get efficient, they're not forced to be creative, and they take a lot for granted. so you can kind of keep putting money to a rob, and you can keep, you know, augmenting it that way which was totally necessary post-9/11. there was a lot that needed to be worked, that needed to be built from scratch. but the further you got away from that and then you add the downturn in the budgets and the absolute cessation of increases for a couple years, you forced an agency to do more with less. because the threats kept evolving. we kept seeing individual instances, you know, in our intel meetings every day that required additional action. and the only way to do more with less in the supply chain of security environment and in a lot of environments is to get advance data, to start to do better risk analysis, to be able

to not only identify what a bad guy looks like, but identify what a good guy looks like, you know? our job at the border was to find a needle in a haystack, and you can do that in two ways. you get good at finding the needle or blowing the hay away, and we had to do both. the way we tried to do it was with different data-sharing plans. with that comes the need for further data protection for, you know, an ability to kind of trust in the government partner and to put the emphasis on the private sector to take action as well. going back to the that, you know, first example i gave of the air cargo screening, acs, the physical presence and the statutory authority that customs has exists at the border. so as you push this information and you start to push the borders out as was our plan post-9/11, you have to depend on other entities to take action

based on the information that you get. and you have to have an ability to coordinate that action, an ability to coordinate that information. that makes sense with the business processes of the entities that you regulate. it does not work to implement new be security measures and ask for additional information when it does not naturally come with the business process of moving cargo across borders. one of the things that i had the pleasure of doing and working with tom's organization and some of the members of the railroads, we tried to set up and were successful in setting up a rail targeting unit that similarly mirrored that air cargo effort, although there was not a threat that was directly forcing that action. but the best thing that we did was we walked into the room and said, hey, we have to set up this rail targeting unit. and i said i have no idea how the rail industry works. none. you know, we've been regulating you for 200 years in terms of

crossing the border, and i'll tell you right now customs and border protection had absolutely no idea what's important to the rail industry. from a targeting perspective, we were getting information like union pacific ships to union pacific. and that was basically what the requirements gave us, and it didn't do us any good. by just having that first meeting and that first discussion, we started to learn things like the status of the rail car is important. where that rail car has been, how long it has sat somewhere, where -- what had been done to it is probably more important than the shippers that are moving the rail cargo across the border. but it didn't, you know, that information didn't just come out in a regulation. it was us going in there and totally admitting our ignorance which is something i'm fond of doing often. and it was, it really was the catalyst for a lot of the change and a lot of the effort. so what has to happen now, and i know we're starting to run a little short on time, but i'll leave you with this: what has to happen now as we get better at

this is there has to be a push and a pull both from the government and the private sector to implement these new changes. you know, when we from a customs and border protection perspective started this idea of automation and more information and advanced information, you had examples like in the maritime environment where you have the 24-hour rule. so 24 hours before cargo's laden on a vessel bound for the united states, there's certain information that needs to be submitted to customs. that was met with resis taps. resistance. it will totally destroy the shipping industry. it didn't. probably could have been implemented a little better. and the next time there was an importer security filing, ten plus two as it's called, again, customs came at it with, hey, we're the regulators, we're going to do this, and it was met with resistance. the next time that happens, the next iteration of all these events, it cannot be a declaration from customs and border protection or any

government entity that says this is the way we're going to do it, this is what we're going to do. it has to start with either a pull from the government or a push from the private sector that says there's a problem here, there's a threat here, and here's a good way to solve it. i don't know, i don't know how this is going to look, i don't know what the end result is, but i got some ideas that i'd like to start sharing. and the more we can start offering those kinds of dialogues and really putting those kinds of things into practice, the better off we're going to be because, you know, that economic reality is staying pretty consistent. the new money dedicated to this type of work is not like it used to be. and both from the private side and the public side, that advance information is the best way to work together, and i encourage all of you with your clients and in your discussion cans and as you look -- discussions and as you look to the work with the central government to be able to have those conversations and come at it from a very collaborative way. so thank you very much for the time, and i look forward to your

questions. >> thanks, andrew. just quick housekeeping, emily, how much time do we have? i know we got started late. she's giving me the sign. okay. ten minutes? so let's do five with faye and five with tom, and then maybe we'll have an opportunity for one or two questions from the audience, okay? thanks. faye? >> thanks, everyone, and good morning. i'm with the boeing company representing original equipment manufacturer, ones that make the airplanes. but i'm also here to represent the aviation sector. aviation is really crucial to the global economy, as all of you know. we carry 2.5 billion passengers a year and over 50 million tons of cargo and freight that was just mentioned earlier about why do we care? that's why we care. the impact to our gdp is probably about $2.2 trillion, about 3.5% of the domestic gross, the gross domestic

product. so this is really important, and we recognized this when 9/11 happened. so we all remember where we were when 9/11 happened, i think. but just to add a little bit of thought, imagine a 9/11 cyber physical attack. what would that look like? that cost the aviation industry, at least the airline industry, over 44 billion. boeing laid off 10,000 employees. the airlines had incredible losses. the aviation supply chain was demolished and almost went out of business. there were certain suppliers that all of us, all of us original manufacturers use that actually could not actually stay alive, and we had to help them. so this is a really major issue, and as the aviation industry starts to look at the cyber threat, we recognize that we can't do this alone. it is not something that we're

going to compete on, and we are going to come together and work on looking at how do we protect our sector. so boeing reached out to airbus, bombardier and embrey air and said what can we do in this space, how do we move forward to protect the industry, to protect what we do in our business. and what we decided to do is to begin a public/private partnership with the u.s. government. we started a working group, an information-sharing working group. we signed a crater with the department of homeland of security under the cybersecurity information sharing and collaboration program. that offers us as aviation a seat at their top secret level facility that's nearby that allows us actionable, realtime intelligence that we get. we get it out to the greater community. part of doing this is standing up an aviation information sharing and analysis center, and what we've done with that is

stood up a board. we're ready to establish a third party entity, and this third party entity would be responsible for working together with the government in developing the threat picture, sharing amongst ourselves as well as two-way multidirectional threat information sharing. that's really important, and we've seep some really interesting things -- we've seen some really interesting things in aviation which is a fairly immature organization as far as what we, where we are in cyber. after 9/11 we got pretty smart on physical, but on the cyber element we're not very mature. so as we started to look at this and look at how we can combine our resources, we recognized that we did need the really move forward in a very constructive way that included building a framework. one of the first steps we took was taking a look at how can aviation start to build a framework similar to what nist has done. and, in fact, one of the first

steps boeing did was input into the nist organization what we call our prevent, detect, respond network -- framework. and as we looked at that framework, we recognized that there were some additional elements that were missing. and so we began the journey of understanding what we needed to put in there as well as our partners. that resulted in a wonderful framework. we actually worked together with nist in developing what they have today. we worked together with the other organizations to help to design some of the standards and specifications for international, global air transportation. and this is really a challenge. and tom didn't mention, he's done an incredible job in the rail association in being able to share threat data across borders, right? that's a huge issue. and they've been able to break the paradigm working together with dhs to share intelligence that's very, very timely and very important because aviation is, in most of these sectors, do not understand those physical borders.

so an airplane goes around the world in less than 24 hours, and there's lots of things that go in that network much faster than that. so recognizing that, we're working together with the industry. we've got all of the major u.s. carriers are onboard supporting this, the airports and the suppliers. so just talking a minute about supply chains, because i know that's why we were here, originally we had that on our subject. supply chain is something that has kept me up at night. boeing has something like 10,000 suppliers to build one airplane, just for instance. and guess where they are? all over the map and all over the globe. and what these cyber terrorists do is they really look for those soft underbellies, and there's several of them in aviation with our interconnectedness. so as we look at supply chain, we recognize we have a really major operation to deal with that particular problem. one of the things we've done is work together in developing a supply chain use case, taking a look at that and understanding

how boeing can help to shore up and educate, make aware some of these hazards from the supply chain as well as our quality group and understanding when we receive a hardware, software piece into the company, to look at that before we actually implement it into the rest of the, integrate it into the rest of the airplane design. these are really critical elements to understand how we can shore this up, and everybody has to be at the table. i think general alexander coined the phrase cybersecurity is truly a seam sport, and it is. -- a team sport, and it is. one of the other elements we've done in looking at this threat is to work together with some of our partners in designing the safety act application which we just got through thanks to david olive who i see in the audience here, and that safety act application is against the enabled, that was ground breaking for the boeing company, and we are going to look at that for the aviation isac as well as for the services that we'll be providing. so i know we wanted to keep it

short, so i'll just move off. thanks. >> thank you. sounds like a lot's going on. and then tom, dhs will talk about cybersecurity insurance incentives. >> where good morning, everybody. i know it's almost not morning, so i will keep it brief. i work at dhs, and i lead the department's inquiry into the cybersecurity insurance market. before i forget, we do have a web page on this. if you use the search engine of your choice and look up dhs and cybersecurity insurance, you can see the readout reports from the four public meetings that we've had on this topic. if i could just touch on a couple of main points, our critical infrastructure partners approached us about two and a half years ago. they were very interested in cybersecurity insurance as part of a comprehensive enterprise risk management program. and they were telling us that they really wanted to buy it, but that they weren't able to find it at an affordable price or necessarily covering the

things that they would like it to cover. specifically, cyber-related critical infrastructure loss, things like cyber attacks on industrial control systems which a number of the speakers had mentioned this morning. what nevertheless piqued our interest at dhs was the ability to incentivize better cyber risk management and generally. our point of reference was really the fire insurance market, and we knew that the insurance industry had a great deal to say about the kinds of fire suppression systems that should be in place in order to get coverage. and our hope was that through the series of conversations that we had with a variety of stakeholders that we'd be able to tease out the cyber risk controls that seemed to be having the greatest impact, and maybe we could then hold them up for people to adopt or at least consider as part of their risk management programs. what we discovered very early on is that there are actually two cybersecurity insurance markets. the first is the third party

cybersecurity insurance market which covers things like data breach. you hear a lot about that in the press, obviously. that insurance market is doing relatively well. carrier ors have a very good understanding of what kind of costs a data breach is going to incur and, therefore, what they need to cover. but the real challenge was with the first party market and the direct damages that a company itself is experiencing. and that covers things like loss of reputation, loss of intellectual property and the extraordinary costs that are associated with reconstituting damaged data and systems. and in theory, it would cover things like cyber attacks on industrial control systems. and we had a lot of conversation about, you know, why that market is not taking off. really briefly, there's just not enough actuarial data. it's no surprise really that companies are not publicly proclaiming the kinds of events that they're experiencing. there's a lack of agreement or common b acceptance of risk

management practices, best practices and standards that could be used to do risk comparisons across companies. and, frankly, there is a lot of confusion. do current insurance policies, be they property or cbl, cover cyber? that was an open question certainly more so today, but cyber insurance is increasingly emerging as a stand-alone market. so wrapping up, we have continued this conversation over four workshops. we had our most recent in april at the white house. we've sort of surfaced three areas where there's progress they feel that this market, this first-party market could emerge. we're focusing very specifically on how do you go about creating a cyber incident data repository where companies could, on anonymous basis, contribute their information in a way that would benefit not only the insurance industry's ability to provide coverage, i but also help other professionals do peer-to-peer comparisons across companies.

we talked about cyber incident competence analytics, basically to help the insurance industry understand what might happen so they could then go back and figure out where a risk management investment might make sense. and finally, enterprise risk management, how do you bring cyber risk into what is now a very well accepted approach to management risk. it, unfortunately, remains outside of erm for many companies. and how do you e januaryize to mid size and small businesses that are often the weak links in the supply chain. so we're currently in the process of engaging on how to carry that conversation forward, and i look forward to any questions you may might have. thank you. >> excellent, tom. i would have to say that, you know, all kudos to the government, to the white house for its leadership and to nist for keeping an open dialogue with the public on this and with the experts and now dha has taken -- dhs has taken the ball

and running with it, and it sounds like you all are keeping an open door, a lot of discussions with the private sector and something that dhs has been criticized for in the past. i know when i worked there and, certainly, it's, you know -- great job. i know that lunch will be served in a few minutes, and your stomachs are growling, or maybe that's a reaction to my delivery and humor, but if we can, we'll take maybe one quick question. are there any questions in the audience? if not, let me just do, let me just do one thing because we did talk about, tom, you brought up a very, very interesting concept in the philosophy of focusing on consequence. maybe too much, but yet consequence tends to be a motivator for us to do something. and then you were looking at maybe specifics in breaking down and analyzing the, what leads up

to an event. what are the, and maybe even of you -- each of you could just comment briefly. how does the federal government help you in the private sector to do that? i mean, is it, where's the partnership? is it just information sharing, or are there other aspects of it? and are those being accomplished through the executive order process or additional legislation, regulations need to be implemented? whoever wants to start. go ahead. >> okay. i think for our sector and for transportation across the board there is very good progress, and here's where the responsibility of private industry comes into play. some very good points were made by speakers about lack of understanding at times in government about how industries operate. and that carries over into what are the priorities of industry in trying to establish their security programs and

sustainable cost effective ways. and the real sector we've adopted what we call the two-page solution. we present our concerns to government in two-page papers. and we've had the experience that many have. we who to meetings, there's a lot of good head nodding, nothing happens, and you come back the next quarter, there's a lot of agreement, and nothing happens. so we said, look, if we want to make this work, we have to explain our concern, the implications it's having for the effectiveness of security in our mode of transportation and give a good idea on how we think it can improve. it does no good to simply criticize. we're not going to do that. give the government an idea and help government understand why what you're to proposing is in its interest. so it's worked for us in intelligence and security information sharing, we've raised issues with how inspections are accomplished and what disruptions and inefficiencies they're causing and what damage might be resulting to the agency's reputation. we've done it in terms of tsa

has the teams they send out to help out in security. through the industry we presented a paper defining protocols to guide those operations. so across the board whether it's compliance, operational efforts, we have found it's been very effective to present to government, in particular tsa and dhs, your ideas where you're looking to improve in these tight, concise papers. faye made a good point in reference to what we've achieved in cross-border information sharing. we have two canadian railroads that operate extensively in the united states. we were getting a lot of pushback that intelligence could to not be shared with them. it took a while, but we now have situations where canadian railroads are going to briefings by nsa analysts, fbi an cysts, and getting direct information on intelligence, the same sort of sharing's happening on the physical side. again, another two-page paper that produced a different outcome because we helped everybody understand the

benefits to both sides. >> so, faye, is the isac the silver bullet then for information sharing across the globe in the aviation sec totor? >> we hope so. you know, we're still getting our feet under us, but i will say one of the key things that have happened just recently in the aviation group is we are really starting to recognize the value of sitting together with the government in a facility where we can actually right the tail line and get it out faster because government processes prohibit them there doing that. i'll give you an example, this was a breach at the airports -- and this has been made public, so this is traffic white protocall light. the airports were targeted recently. it was an a year ago, but the article came out about a month ago. this was a true sharing across multistate sector, private airports -- some of the airports, they're usually state-owned and operated, and the dhs as well as the aviation isac. so when this started to the

happen and there was a targeted advanced, persistent threat that was going after really a lot of the airport designs, we all came together x. that community together was able to get information out a lot quicker so that really only four airports got hit hard. and many others of the top 35 were not. so this is really critical. this getting together and working this as a community is essential. and it is not a natural act. i can tell you in the last three years watching this mature, it's been an incredible journey. we're doing a lot better, but we still have a ways to go. >> great. i can't help myself. just one last question, tom, is cybersecurity insurance incentive enough for these private sector companies to engage in this type of information sharing and to implement a lot of the, a lot of the nist framework? >> i do think so. the incentives at the white house -- that the white house was talking about last summer,

the insurance incentive seems to be the one that's most talked about. it's not that you're going to use the framework and be able to avail yourself of tremendous amounts of insurance at this point, but there is an incentivizing effect. so i can say that the insurance industry is looking very closely at the cybersecurity framework and specifically how to use it in their underwriting conversations. so you're seeing it increasingly woven into their thinking. and i think that's a good sign. i think probably three to five years away we'll know sort of how effective the framework is, and as a result, if we have an effective usage of the framework, i think you'll have a much more robust first-party cybersecurity insurance market. >> great. thank you for your work on that. i'm getting the signal that i clearly understand at this point -- [laughter] but, you know, i apologize to our panelists, because they, obviously, did not get enough time to present. i think each of them could have an hour in and of themselves on this subject matter, at least from my perspective. so so will you join me in

thanking them for being here. [applause] and thank you all for attending. thank you. >> some live programming to tell you about. join us later this afternoon for today's pentagon briefing. spokesman john kirby will answer reporters' questions, and we do expect a lot of discussion on the revelations that the u.s. has conducted airstrikes in somalia this past weekend. see that live starting at 2 p.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span. and here's a look at some of our prime time programming across the c-span networks tonight. on c-span at 8 eastern, it's the second circuit court of appeals oral argument. the case, the acl u-verse us clapper. over on c-span2 at 8 eastern, more booktv. tonight books on modern american presidents. and on c-span3, we'll focus on the war of 1812, the battle of bladensburg and the burning of washington. and finally some congressional news for you, former house

minority leader eric cantor has a new job after a primary loss. mr. cantor has joined a global investment bank as vice chair and managing director. he'll initially earn $1.4 million in cash and stocks on top of his $400,000 annual salary. >> next a discussion about the origin toes of the universe with brian greene. he's the author of "the fabric of the cosmos." he was interviewed recently by aspen institute president walter isaacson for about 20 minutes. [applause] >> and the universe parts. the fabric of the universe unfolds. brian greene has written "the fabric of the universe." the fabric of the cosmos, the elegant universe.

on the edge of time, which i love, and the hidden reality. the trio of books that deal with multiverses, the fabric of the cosmos, relativity. we are supposed to within 20 minutes -- actually, 18 minutes and 17 seconds -- give you the whole story of the cosmos. and the universe. so, brian, let's begin at the beginning. how did it begin? >> how did it begin? oh, good question. we don't know. [laughter] but we have some ideas. and the ideas is that it expanded. yeah. so the most refined idea which is by, in my opinion, no means confirmed is an idea called inflationary cosmology which tries to answer a somewhat more refined version of the question how'd it begin, what was it that caused space to start swelling in the first place? we all believe that the universe is expanding, the observations

support that. what got the expansion started? and the inflationary theory says that gravity itself is the culprit because each though the gravity that we're familiar with in everyday life is attractive, pulls things together, ion stipe's theory -- which you wrote extensively about -- shows that in certain exotic circumstances, gravity can be repulsive. >> so you have a repulsive force that at the very beginning pushes things out. does it create space and time as well as particles and matter? >> it's, again, a hard question, but our best answer at the moment is that space and time needed to exist already for this phenomenon to take place. but what inflation does is it leverages the pre-existing space and time which could be a tiny little nugget and turns it into a large cosmos. so it basically takes space and time as an input, very small, yields big space and time and matter and energy as the output.

>> so if time already existed when this happened, what happened the day before this happened? >> yes, i knew you were going there this is why i play defense here and said i don't know five times already in the first two minutes. [laughter] so we don't know. but we have ideas, right? so one possibility is that the notion of before is a concept that doesn't actually make sense when it comes to the beginning of the universe. a good analogy is think about the concept of heading northward on earth, right? so if you're heading northward, you pass by someone and say point me in the direction of further north. you pass somebody else, same question, they point you in the northward direction. but when you get to the north pole itself if you ask somebody there how do you go further north, they look at you sort offedly, quizzically. the notion of going further north than the north pole doesn't make any sense -- >> so going back in time doesn't make any sense.

>> that's right. so at at the beginning of time, that may where the concept of time only comes into play, and there's no notion of before when it comes to the beginning. >> how do we get from general relativity to figuring out both mathematically and theoretically the notion of a big bang? >> well, that's an exciting and curious story. einstein himself after he fashioned the equations of general relativity which people can read the wonderful history of in your book, he started to apply the theory to a variety of circumstances; the orbit of mercurying being one famous one, the bending of starlight by the sun. but he also noted that if you applied the equations to the whole universe, it gave rise to an unfamiliar, unexpected result which is that the fabric of space itself should be stretching or contracting. the universe couldn't be static. and that cut against the philosophical perspective of the time including einstein, so

einstein changed the equations to insure that that result wouldn't come out, that the universe could be unchanging on the largest of scale ises. then forward to 1929 when edwin hubbel turns powerful telescope to the sky and sees that the distant imlax says are all rushing away. the universe is expanding. einstein kind of euphemistically smacks himself in the forehead and says why did i change the equations when i could have predicted this amazing fact about the universe just from my own mathematics? >> yeah. he calls it his biggest blunder. so then they walk the cat backwards. they say, well, it had to evolve from this single point. >> that's right. you basically, in the hands of really a belgian priest was the first person to articulate this most precisely, he used einstein's math, the face value math, not the math that einstein mangled to meet his own philosophical prejudice, he used

the math to turn the cosmic film in reverse. and the universe gets smaller and smaller, and, therefore, he come toss a primordial nugget. he calls it the primordial atom. and the name big bang, that came later on. i think it was a radio interview, i think it was with fred hoyle, who was a critic of this theory and was talking about it on the radio, and he said, ah, the big bang. it was like this derogatory description, but, of course, it's the name that stuck, and it's our best understanding of how things started. >> and you mentioned that it's gotten to by walking the mathematical equations. it's is sort of what you do. i don't think people actually know that you're also a professor of mathematics, and in some ways math mathematics is nw your guide post to figuring out this is how physical reality is. so is that where math sort of takes over and becomes the guide of physics? >> yeah. i'd say the one lesson we've learned since isaac newton is

that for reasons we can't fully understand, math seems to be the right language for describing phenomena in the universe. math is the shining light that can illuminate the dark corners of reality that we've not been able to access directly. we can't literally see the beginning, but we can use the math to peer back using the equations to get some understanding of what happened at the beginning. >> but don't we need to at some point have some evidence from physical reality? >> no. >> but what about the -- [laughter] >> no, we do. no, no, it's absolutely crucial. and without that we're just sort of, you know, speculating. and the evidence comes from so many places. so is, first, einstein's mathematics makes predictions about things that we can directly access like the bending of starlight by the sun which was tested in 1919 during a solar eclipse, and just as einstein predicted, the stars were slightly shifted this the sky because of the sun's presence. you know the story well, but

perhaps not everybody does. einstein then gets a telegram alerting him that his ideas had been confirmed through the observation, and somebody asked him, professor einstein, what would you have said if the data showed that theory was not confirmed, and he said, i'd be sorry for the dear lord because the theory is correct, you know? [laughter] so this is how certain he was of these ideas. but that's just one example. when it comes to cosmology and the big bang, we can use the equations to make predictions for how much residual heat should be left over from the big bang today, the so-called microwave radiological background prediction. and we can make predictions on how the heat should vary in one space to the another, and we can do measurement, and if the measurements agree to fantastic accuracy. and that is a breathtaking confirmation that this mathematics is not just speculation, that the math is actually aligning with how the world works.

>> give me an example be of that measurement of the cosmic background radiation. i mean, what, they go to the north pole or south pole? >> so there are many ways to access it. you can access it through satellite-borne telescopes such as the w map experiment, the wilkinson background radiation probe which has done a fantastic job at measuring the microwave background radiation. but the more recent one is the one i think you're referring to, the so-called bicep ii experiment down at the south pole where for three years a team of astronomers pointed their telescope at a patch of the solar sky and extracted information about the microbe background radiation that, again, bears out a yet more subtle prediction -- >> and this is radiation that actually emanated from the bang. >> yes. so in the the beginning it was hot, right? really hot. and as the universe expanded,

the heat was spread out. it diluted, and it cooled down. and you can calculate how cold it should be today, and it's about 2.7 degrees above absolutely zero. so that's the temperature of deep space. not when there's sources like stars nearby, but if you're in deep, empty space, that's the temperature. but you can go one step further and not just calculate the average temperature, you can calculate how the temperatures should vary from place to place, and the math shows that it should vary by on the order of one-one hundred thousandth of a degree. tiny variation. and you can do these very precise measurements and, indeed, see the temperature variation in just the pattern that mathematics predicts. >> what do you mean when you call something the fabric of the cosmos? >> it's a hard question. is space really a thing, or is it just a useful concept in order to organize our perceptions of reality? you're over there, you're

further away in space. the table is yet further. is space merely the vocabulary that allows me to articulate locations, or is space really a thing? and nobody fully knows the answer to that. but in einstein's general relativity -- and different people interpret it differently -- i see space as a thing in einstein's theory. >> space, meaning the fabric of space and time together. >> that's right. space and time are stitched together -- >> yeah. they would exist even if nothing else existed? >> that's right. that's right. and there's been a lot of debate about this, you know? if you were to remove everything from space -- the moon, the sun, earth, everything -- what would be left? would you have an empty universe that still has space and time, or would you have nothing? i mean, a good analogy is if you take an alphabet, right, and you start to remove the letters, z and x and a and b, when you remove that last letter, what's next? is it like an empty alpha wet? not really -- alphabet?

not really, it's nothing. is that true of the universe? does it come into existence only when there's stuff populating it, or can there be an empty space called space time that would exist even in the absence of matter? i think it's latter. >> there's a wonderful thought experiment which you deal with in, i think, your first book. newton's bucket. >> yes. >> explain how that helps you think there is a fabric of space. >> yeah. so this is a thought experiment that isaac newton b came up with when he was trying to understand basically if space was a thing. and he imagined taking a bucket and filling it with water, and he noted that as you spin the bucket, the water climbs up the sides of the bucket. so i think even kids do this at the beach, right? you ship around -- >> what weld call inertia. >> that's right. so the water has some intrinsic quality that causes it to resist

that motion, and when it resists, it kind of gets pushed out, it gets up the sides. so he imagined doing that in a completely empty group verse. now, there's some issues about that because gravity is part of what makes the shape. so he imagined connecting two stones by a rope and thinning hem -- spinning them around. to newton to, it was obvious that the rope would pull taut even in empty space and, therefore, he said what is the rope and rock spinning with respect to -- there's nothing there, there's no earth, no sun, no anything, therefore, the rope and the rocks must be spinning with respect to something called space. space itself must be setting the benchmark, the reference with respect to which that motion is happening. others came along and said, no, you disagree. you remove everything from the universe and take your spinning rock and rope thing, and it's not going to pull taut. it'll just stay completely limp, and it's still an issue that people debate. >> is there any evidence we

could find one way or the other? >> it's very hard to remove everything from the universe, right? [laughter] that's kind of what you'd like to do. so what you do is you try to find alternate implications of one perspective or another, and i would say today most people -- i haven't done a survey, but i suspect most people would say it would pull taut, that space-time does set the reference frame for a certain kind of motion, accelerated motion, but there are others who are holdouts and disagree with that. >> what did we learn from the large hadron supercollider? >> we learned a lot. we learned how to build the biggest experiment that our species has ever embarked upon. these are really, you know, the fantastic temples of the 20th and 21st century. they are our pyramids in a sense. but in terms of the science that we have extracted, the most important thing is the discovery of the higgs particle. i think most people have

probably heard something -- people know about this idea, right? so there was this particle that was predicted mathematically in 1964 by peter higgs and many others who really deserve equal credit for it, but it was just a mathematical idea that was a solution to a puzzle; how do particles get mass? how do they resist being pushed when you want to speed them up or slow them down? and the idea was space is filled with a kind of molasses-type substance called the higgs field that's all around us -- >> and that gives mass to particles. >> that's right. as particles try to move through the steam bath, they experience, roughly speaking, a kind of resistance-like drag force -- >> what is the relationship of the higgs field to the fabric of space-time? >> well, if the idea is correct, there'd be virtually no distinction between them. this substance would fill every nook and cranny of space.

and in a sense, it would be unremovable unless somehow you could recreate the temperatures of the very early universe. so the reality kind of captures that idea. i don't know, do you do you havy tattoos? [laughter] okay, well, good. i don't know where you were looking, and i am not going the ask. [laughter] but imagine that you start to have more and more tattoos, and ultimately if you cover your entire body, then the distinction between your skin and the tattoo becomes kind of meaningless. you are the illustrated man at that point. you're completely covered with tattoos. similarly, space is completely filled with this higgs stuff, and if you can't remove it, there's almost no distinction between -- >> what if be they hadn't found it and they had found there is no higgs field? does the entire standard mold el of -- model of quantum -- >> that would have been exciting

for a theorist. >> would we have lost mass and lost weight? >> well, i don't think the universe cares much about our understanding of the universe. it would have shrugged it off and said, silly little humans. but a wonderful thing as a theorist, we would have been sent back to the blackboard to answer these deep puzzles, where does the heft of the fundamental constituents come from. that would have been enormously exciting for an idea that we thought was the answer to be proved wrong. we are not -- there sometimes is a misperception that physicists or scientists more generally get stuck on an idea, and they become so wedded to it that they'll hold on to it even in the face of evidence that suggests the contrary. no, it's completely the opposite. we love it when ideas that we cherish are proved wrong. that's the biggest opportunity of a lifetime to try to come up with the next new idea that will take its place. now, in this example it was a wonderful triumph of mathematics and experiment where the idea

was confirmed. >> now, mathematics has led you to super string theory of which you're very associationed. ex-- associated. explain why the math led you there. >> well, since the 1960s and '70s people have tried to put together einstein's ideas of gravity, the general theory of rell ti. that we've been talking about together with another theory, the theory of the small ingredients, quantum mechanics. >> by the way, einstein on his death bed was doing that. >> well, sort of. einstein was trying to put gravity together with electroto magnetic theory to build a unified theory thinking that he could do an end return around the -- run around the uncomfortable theories he didn't like so much. he was hoping to go this way and do that to quantum mechanics. but that seemed to not really work out. so we are trying the more straightforward approach, and the standard model particle physics which predicted the

higgs particle, hugely successful, is unable to put gravity and quantum mechanics together. that leads us to at least on paper super string theory does put them together. >> is there anything coming up in the next five or ten years that you would say would help give you a physical test of what you're doing now? >> no. >> okay. >> yeah. you know, i wish the answer -- you know, i can go speculative here, you know, which may be speculation on speculation which is always an uncomfortable place to be. but just to say we don't believe any of these ideas until they make predictions that we can test. so let's be real clear here. if you ask me do i believe in string theory, the answer is, absolutely no, i never have and i never will until there is experimental data that supports it. having said that, it is the most promising and, i have to tell you, mathematically-compelling approach to putting gravity and quantum mechanics together, and that's an important puzzle to

solve. that drives us to continue working on it. in the best of all worldses when they turn on the had on collider back on in 2015, is it possible that some of these ideas will make contact? yes, possible. we could see evidence of extra dimensions. that's one of the features of the theory. particles slam together, some of the debris can get knocked out of our dimension. we would imagine that by a loss of energy. we could call supersymmetric particles which the theory predicts we haven't yet seen. we could see microscopic black holes that would decay into a spray of other particles. so all these things are possible, but i don't like to place hope on them in that i consider them long so thes. so when -- shots. so when they don't come through, i don't want it to be, hey, you guys predicted that was going to happen, but it didn't. no. it's possible but up likely. >> -- unlikely. >> is it inevitable in super

string theory that there are other universes? >> it's not inevitable. >> but you believe it's true. >> again, believe is a funny, funny world. do i believe in other universes? absolutely not. do i find it a compelling possibility and i see how the math naturally suggests it and does that compel me to work on it? it does. but until there's observation or experimental support, i don't believe anything. >> and -- [laughter] i guess einstein once said that one of the grand questions was did the good lord have a choice. >> yeah. >> the way he invented the universe. explain that and answer it for us, or for ion sign. -- einstein. >> so einstein asked a very important question which is could the universe have been otherwise? could the mass of the particles be different, could gravity have behaved differently? did god, did the lord have a choice or is somehow that dictated by logic and mathematics alone?

and we don't know the answer, but if these ideas of other universes are correct, then it's completely opposite. it may be that every possibility is played out on the grand landscape of reality. so rather than having one unique universe, it might be all possible universes. the is probably somewhere in between. >> we've run out of time, but let me hit you a couple of quick things -- >> sure. >> one of which is, why does this all matter? [laughter] >> well, if you ask my mom, it doesn't, right? >> she wanted you to be a doctor. >> yeah, exactly. gives her a headache and all that kind of stuff. [laughter] but i think it helps many people get a sense of how we fit into the larger picture, how we're part of this spectacular cosmos. and i don't want consider it making us somehow small and insignificant, although we are, but take into account these little tiny creatures walking around on the surface of the earth can figure out what happened a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second after the beginning and what things will be like a

hundred million years in the future, that to me is a story. the most exciting drama we've ever been engaged with. that's why it's mattered. >> and for people who want to hear more, there's a world science that you and your wife are doing and world science university. give it a quick pitch. >> yes. world science u is a new online platform that we at the world science festival have developed to try to get these ideas out to the general public. but not just the level we're talking about here which is interesting and exciting, but the real math behind it in a highly-produced, highly visual way. so if you like relativity or this kind of stuff, check it out. >> just google world science university. >> world science u. >> and brian greene. and the festival is when? >> may 28th-june 1st. >> you can buy tickets? >> they just went on sale, although a few things are already sold out. a few things around the city that will immerse you in science. >> brian, thank you. >> thank you. ..

>> c-span2 providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy events. and every weekend, booktv, now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2 created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service for local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like u like us n facebook and follow us on twitter. >> more now from the recent mars is somewhat. in these next portions remarks from nasa chief scientist james garvin and a discussion about the mars probe. together these two segments run about an hour and 20 minutes.

>> well, thanks, artemis. can anyone hear me? thank you very much. i want to take you on a tour really can like the atlantic sagas of what the science discoveries from morris, special and last 14 years of our program of exploration is the mars exploration program which is improved at our jet propulsion labs can us. i'd like to leave you with a thought that the science discoveries that i hope to convince you are real. they come from a large scared of scientist across universities, nasa centers and private industry. are really the impetus for human exploration of this planet. many of us have been working these missions although it back to vikings and i hope i can give you that since. i want to remind you where we are. we are a long way today from mars, even though we're in a very close approach geometry right now.

and it's really, really striking, i reminded are administered of this about 15 years ago, that mars is not our mother earth. profoundly different world. it does not read our text books. in fact, the mode where in today is one of rapid massive discovery. our ideas are changing. a large committee of scientists working with missions like curiosity, mars reconnaissance orbiter. landscape is changing. we don't totally know what we have and that's important as we look towards the air of human exploration. mars is an ever-changing frontier. we are just realizing the questions we have to ask you allow us as where human exports on the service do the job we do so well. that situational awareness. this is a view we see of where we're going with curiosity over the next hundreds of sol's and as we drive every day we see elements of the new mars, even

way back to viking. let me paint a picture for you by reminding you that science organizes itself in different ways. for the last almost 20 years we've looked at mars science schematically through four primary things. obviously, would like to know whether we're alone in this universe, a profound question goes back farther than we can even record in history, but getting at the question of life, active biological systems, were they ever there, could they be there, it's a tough question. it took a long time ago to understand the past record of life on our planet. even sometimes the extent level of life. that was a joke. anyway. to get the question of life we need to look through the record books, recordings elements of climate change, change of environment, the rock record, the pages in stone that don't lie but are not always available

to us. and through the preparations for having us be there to make these discoveries. we organize our program through these means following different threads, understand the role of water. ours is a water planet. we know that now. understanding whether there are places where they were here on earth to be inhabited by organisms and finally understanding what the signs of life and more profoundly now could they be preserved backs if they were there and they're not preserved because they can be, what good does that do is? we need to parse those to our program. what we have 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 we've had come hypotheses were testing, things about the mars we want to know to get at those games. and in many ways enhanced by technologies, new approaches, new measurement. the mars we've seen during the course of this program, although

it back to around 2000, although it to the president and moving forward is about questions, measurements, approaches, vantage point. the same way we people would attack problems in science. this is all about s.t.e.m. it puts together the engineering, the science questions, the math and technology to solve problems. we been doing that remarkably effectively. our batting average is literally 1000. many teams in the major league in baseball would love to have it. we have done that well since this program came about. it's a partnership with engineering. i want you to understand we can 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. let me explain the discoveries we've been making. this will be the movie version. many of my colleagues would like to tell it and would tell it must better than i with more time but let me try to do that.

first let me remind you the mars we see is rather for voting. it's not really waiting for us. it's extremely cold, oxidizing, can't breathe the air, lost its magnetic field, don't understand why the surface is covered with large deposits of dust that are very inconvenient. sort of micron scale, not good for spaces or rovers or actuators or camera lenses. this is not the place you go for your summer vacation. scientifically though it is. we have learned that since the first voyages of the '60s and into the viking era that it really is impressive. what we see and what we get are really, if you will, although bit of a misnomer but really mars has done. went to look at the mars today and project back in time to a planet that really we think records in its record book something similar help us

understand our planet earth. let's look at the mars has an extremely rarefied atmosphere today. we've often talked about the temperature at our toes versus, for sure that like me and my head, woody guthrie radian of a 10th of a degree. comment on mars but even barometric pressure variation to the kind of surface liquid water we like you on earth, necessary for the kind of microbial life, it's rampant. can't exist today. water in the state at least a short-term, human rights gale days is unstable. but i 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. we learned that. if someone says we discovered water on mars, most of our science colleagues at least the last 20 years said we kind of knew that, thank you. the question is what does that mean? how much was there? where did he go? how would that have affected the

geological history, the end of the revolution, the climate and 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 seas if that oceans covered the lowlands. to point out, the recently can do this kind of study is because way back in the '90s we had the forethought to make measurements 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? that's what we've done. this also allows us to figure out where to land in an engineering sense. so we flood mars and the lowlands and the northern plains, often covered with dust, large basins, the biggest impact site discovered in the solar system, these would've been underwater and we see landscapes that reflect some of the signs

geomorphic late in the rocks and landscapes that tell us this may been the case. we're still looking for the shorelines and how that would be reflected in the shape of the planet but nonetheless we see that. then there's the question of the record of life. on earth we sort of know that, or at least we think we do. we look back in time to the artist times over planet coming at of late heavy bombardment. the planet became a lease habitable by the single cell world of pre-rna world into the world we know with limited dna, a few billion years ago. that's recorded in the rock record. things got better in terms of atmosphere and the more complicated organism leading up to these eventually us came about. that's what we think we know very simplistically about 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, could this have happened on mars and could have been preserved? key question.

if it happened and is not preserved we can tell. how do we ask, is the mars of today reflecting a history like this or a flat line history or even a history of extent like? what we did about 14 years ago after some setbacks in mars exploration in the late '90s we restructured the entire program. got the best women and men in the country together working with her team at jpl. we put together a mars exploration program driven by science with a strategy that said, first do the reconnaissance. where do you go? it's a big player. 150 million square kilometers. can't go everywhere. let's understand where the action is from orbit, let's land where the action is and move around as if we were there. sort of apollo without the astronauts with recently smart robots, and then eventually get to a point where we could do in situ analysis and return stuff for mars to earth. while we were doing this we realize there were meteorites delivered to us from mars.

rather favorably by mother nature. we could also study and put that together to understand the planet and we have been in markedly successful. since the orbiters known as odyssey and in the mars reconnaissance orbiter through to rovers like spirit and opportunity, landis like phoenix and currently curiosity and, of course, moving on, we have really rewritten the textbooks. the kids of 2000, those young millennials stammers will see a new mars in their textbooks 2014. things that we did know, we didn't even know about the failure of magnetic field back then. these are some of the data sets reproduce. some of them have huge signs bali. remnant magnetic field telling as mars did have. we think an internal dynamo. the topography with which is good enough to land things on as well as all the water. the understand of the minerals and the context of dust, that character of the planet. we have seen a diverse diet with

complexity over time. let me fill in the tape. over those years what we've been able to do to our mission is increase the resolution and the detail across the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation to see the planet. we actually have a many mars observing system in place now on the surface in orbit to study this world, this fourth planet. some of them tell us about the character of what the surface is like compositionally. of this tell us about the character of the scale we would walk on. by the way, i love to tell this story. when we first put together a roadmap to have cameras that could see things the size of beach balls on the planet, many colleagues said, we don't need that. why would someone want to see those things? engineers qaeda did wanted but a lot of scientists and let's do other things. 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 the choices strategically that help us with where we are. what did we learn from all this? we started to see exposures at the scale, we could imagine ourselves exploring the relationships between rock layers that tell us of the history of water and wind involved on the surface and even the details that take place. so we went from an air of first landing, biking, this is biking to anto in september of 76. there's the flag, color balance. amazing site. just a little side. the probability of landing safely was about 40 to 50%. we didn't know it was a boulder field until we landed. pretty heroic. we landed them with new delivery systems with the airbag assisted pathfinder sojourner moved onto the air of the rovers which basically gave our program the vision at the surface to ask

tough questions that we get curiosity where we are today, 660s into her expiration. but the surface mission starting with the first land on another planet from viking have painted a continuously changing picture. viking, cold, general desert, super oxidant. nothing would survive that that would be related to modern biology. transitioning in to the rock world the mars we saw with pathfinder into the history of waterworld we saw and still see with the mars exploration rover such as opportunity, 36 plus à la mode and driving into this world we are now probing with new instruments with curiosity. so what have we learned? a lot. we still have not assembled the jigsaw puzzle. morris has lots of interesting variations in the compositions. dust storms, active surface change on our skills, dust avalanches. a relic magnetic field, bold initiative and active erisa that we thought.

explosive, impact craters that expose the surface like natural drill rigs. all this together with areas where we've actually seen the water. there's a little trench from our phoenix scout mission in 2007-eight expos in the water we've been measured and verified. we have seen some service laid with radars have been ordered with italy to the polar caps that show us the way the climate record on mars is put together. all this paints the picture for a planet that is really profoundly interesting, a lowering and compelling to get ourselves there. but wait, there's still problems. first, we have mother nature's natural force field with our great magnetic field protecting us from all that nasty stuff that bill and mike talked about that you would expect if you left the protective sheath of her magnetic field. mars does not have bumps on a. it has relic magnetics agers we discovered from the surveyor.

and we think that mars inside versus earth is very different. we are a dynamic planet exchanging energy from the inside out with a dynamically rotating core. producing all this cool stuff, compasses work, always. mars, that story change. maybe it wasn't quite big enough to retain the convective energy to do that. there's munitions would like to fly. insight will contribute to understand this picture as it launches in 2016. but again a different world. we also know that there's a diversity of china places on mars and the things you see here in terms of all the strange names of mineral faces and stuff i won't go through them ad nauseam with you, but everyone of them has a bearing 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 or i should say, yeah,

organic chemistry. we've seen all these things since we began our program in 2000. all this gives us the url the impetus to be there, to want to touch the rocks that contain carbon-based molecules, to go to the places with chloride that might preserve records of law. we sit chloride deposits on earth in super dry cold deserts that actually contain preserve microorganisms. so why not on mars? these become questions for biologists, not theologists like myself but we've also been able to organize the landscapes of mars in time, from the early time before the floods, early mars all the way to the present through the different landscapes we have measured from orbit with these powerful reconnaissance steps. the mars reconnaissance orbiter still orbiting mars everything most of the data from to yossi is a recon asset like no other we've ever sent into deep space. we put it in there in 2000

against many colleagues sang do you really want that? to give us a vision to be able to do this. this is a record book. we've done that. we have fossil river deltas, fossil river deltas on mars but imagine what the mississippi river delta would look like in 10 million years. places that reflect the layering history of the role of water and wood working together. we've seen that mars is pummeled by this stuff a space. our atmosphere shields us but mars is in the everyone of these blemishes not on the order of 250-300 of them tell us basically about the shout interior of the planet as it is affected by the exigencies world of space. our planet has been hit by these things, you would never february. this is common. on mars, they are not showers.

they produced impact event. some of the bigger ones excavate craters the size of football stadiums to small cities, and they expose the shallow subsurface. we are realizing that's important. what you see on the surface is not always what you want to see when you measure things on mars about some of these very tough questions we're asking. we've also discovered that mars has gone through major changes in what it's geology is reflected in the rocks. from the time it was whether, when it was whether and the kind of volcanoes that erupted, the kind that are today oozing lava. this is a very important step. we've also seen with our mars exploration rover an amazing disparate history of water in the rocks. two different size. thousands of kilometers apart.

this is something we've not anticipated. we rename things. we saw rock perhaps made by vulcanism and impact. and then we transition. when we began this program in 2001 we looked at the idea of bring the best in showcase with the most powerful vantage point we could get on the surface. we did that, a nation known as the mars lives -- science laboratory. this carries with it 14 experience including ones that do with whether and radiation, spee-4 teen for humans. for imaging, chemistry, and she has been a beauty performing beyond any expectation. i will give you a brief synopsis now. we actually made more measurements and even this slide her face, almost 500 gigabytes of data has been released to you can see it all. everything ranging from our own little self-portrait which is an

interesting piece of engineering to use an arm and photograph a selfie with 51 friends, but good job curiosity. to the management with me without touching rocks by using a laser induced right down, a partnership with france. the instrument known as sam that can measure things on mars as good as the lab that measured the rock -- the rock the buzz brought back from the moon but we cannot do that on mars without bring it on. talk about engineering vision. science cannot measure parts per billion at the level of detection we can see that we contaminate aspects of our experiment with forward air. we can do that on mars. and so let me remind you again we are a long way from home. closest approach, 36 million miles once every 15 years, but they are small box relative to this dust of you from curiosity. this mobile laboratory even as she sometimes moves at the pace of a giant tortoise is an amazing feat of engineering as

she makes her measurements. she has seen things that can as a geologist are spectacular. these conglomerate rocks, bits of rock made up of the rock is what expect to see when streams and rivers leave deposits that are then baked into stone. this is gl one. it is on mars telling sg '01 worked on mars. that's good. water flowed. shallow water we now know what it was made a. we have drilled mars. these are the size of a dime but we have drilled the surface, measure down centimeters, collected and made measurements inside our belly with this integrated mass spectrometer gas chromatograph system, a lot of words for every cool set of hardware developed at goddard jpl and conference. you can see the surface materials we have excavated are not a classic brown bread or read color of mars that is

almost britain. so what we discovered on mars in 600 days of work is environments on mars that badly after on earth were habitable. ukip of microorganisms in there, keep the radiation down and it would be fun. the build up of chemistry we know and love. this is a classic elementals tough when you for life to do its thing. it was probably water there. there was energy, because india some microorganisms even 3 billion years ago used on earth. we have found habitability works on mars. the question is what does it preserve about what might have been there? that's the challenge we face with curiosity and beyond. one every other things we did, not even imagined when we launched th the nation. we took that rover with its mass spectrometer and were able to use it not only to measure what stuff is made of and how it got there, but by using some very clever chemistry, our teams at caltech and i started were able to actually measure the actual age of the rock. this was a huge goal for mars as

early as 2000 we now did in mars as a side, as a sidebar to what we're trying to do. we also measured the surface -- while the rocks are really old, older than any rock on earth, like the lunar rocks, they've 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 that's been done around our community on this nation that the nasty stuff that we're talking about earlier today destroys organic molecules. if you sent them there for tens of millions of years, they won't look organic. you won't know you found the stuff you're looking for. we have to be more creative and clever. we think we understand the materials that are buried deeper relative to these little hills are protected from space radiation relative to those that are constantly being scavenged by the wind. if you're trying to find organic

molecules, those old cartoons, you really can't look out on a nice parking lot because they will be baked by radiation for tens of millions of years to get to go into places where there is exposed or more protective. this will be important for human explorers to understand that when we start exploring ourselves. the mars we see today is unlike the badlands of the american southwest or mongolia, kazakhstan, really rather telling layered rocks. we love them. this is an artist rendering of what the ancient mars could've been like. the measurements we've made of the isotopes of key elements suggest that we can possibly understand the earlier atmosphere of mars to be a window into whether it could have been habitable. this could help us understand what kind of place we could ask, is there a record of past life? we've done that. the mars we see, this is it, doesn't look like beachfront

terrain today, is really a challenging terrain. we've seen real where on a rover as we driven across it for more than six kilometers. we know it was habitable. that's the record. what we don't know is how long that stage of habitability existed. our science team on curiosity and in the mars program is trying to understand that. was it a long period? a short clip? data cycle? carl sagan talked in much better like which than i about the nature of climate on mars with an attempted hi humor at luncht, forgive me. not funny. it any needs and, we don't know. -- but in any event, we do know. that's why the robotic program, the science push for human exploration to open our eyes to the wind of are so important. i have to show one bit of humor. we found some interesting rocks on mars that one of our scientists found looked a lot like mummified seals. we do not find a mummified seals on mars. but your imagination can take it

wherever you want. i found my initials many time so i know i've been there. some people think they have seen wal-mart. more importantly, we have been pursuing this line of reasoning. we have found the water. water altered rocks. we have discovered that they were habitable zones on march the certainly in gale crater from curiosity. obviously, with opportunity, even if it is in the crater. we are still looking for this one. connecting these things up to there and maybe it will take this, maybe will get so far and then it will take to 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. ..

and we don't know how things are escaping. we don't understand how the surface percolates. we don't yet know if there are flows. we think that there may be.

the question is raised about how this cycles, whether the carbon goes through a long cycle and is minimalized. we have to get at it and maybe take human exploration to tie that together. we have seen active features. some colleagues. these slow recurring changing down the slopes of the crater walls may be flows into waters that erupt during times when they found these in multiple sites. could they be accessed where there is reservoirs of the melting point fluids we don't know. the next mission people ask another orbiter? how has it lost its sphere because it has done that. the atmosphere today in the earthy atmosphere recycle itself and became habitable, oxygenated

in favorable. with instruments all over the world is going to invest that question and after it does that and asks premiere only how the atmosphere is today whether unbreathable co2 for plants but not so much for us it is a golden time by reading the record of what happened in the various experience and then looking back to how it might have got into this state. what that would inform us about is the history of the earth this is a profound question it was selected in the basis of the science and engineering and that's how we do things in science. if you are good and get a lot of whatever the judges score now, but good stuff. so of course this is curiosity taking a little selfie.

the record of the critical ratio that tells about the atmospheres for mars versus earth this is the range of uncertainty from viking with a good measurement this is what we thought we would see from the meteorites presumed to be from mars and this is what we got from that data point of curiosity. we want to tell him how it might have broken this to their. these are big changes. we need to get at that. and after maven doesn't science we can use pe 11 as a telecommunication orbiter using the payload to allow us to talk to rovers and other things on the sources. as for the program is integrated in the way that human exploration will be. big thing i want to leave you with as this is what we are up against. 10,000 feet of rock's taking of 600 days to get away from the zone here we want to get up to here in the end of the mission.

it's a long drive through the rough terrain. some of our best astronauts tell us they could walk it in a day. different economies of scale and efficiency getting the person they're with a different price performance number than sending a rover. i will leave you with a couple of -- ie to use these diagrams but i do love them and i took this in college but today asking questions like curiosity is what the correct or it does. we are leaving humans to mars. this is not in a chemical a new chemical that is unclear but it is in fact a kind of goal that would be the guided experiential open by having human people -- obviously human people -- women and men in contact with science

with a different way of exploring. we haven't done this before. it could be different than apollo. people would be on their own adapting. this is what you're doing in the and the space station and the next step beyond that. we put these together all moving towards the goal. how will we explore with people? final point is there's lots of opportunities. one way is to use the kind of trouble science that we've already used in the ocean. this is the art of rendering help robots on the surface with people obviously in a large laboratory orbit could operate and do the kind of things we want. there's different models and human exploration with different roles for people. there are good. it's also important not so important now commit to get the people they are to ask what science is informing. into this partnership that i've been talking about all the time, where the robotics open our eyes to what mars is doing if we start to and we start to bring

the human exploration in place so we can really attack the question of whether we are alone is important. people bring skills our robots, however we build them, however long we take, will never catch up to. we will always be able to adapt, sometimes not linear in the different than our robotic for years and that's good. it's a partnership that matters. so i finish with a couple thoughts. we are here and here. here is curiosity. a couple of people on the creator doing science, geology, climatology. this is a big step. this step is going to get to that. science has given us the ammunition to know what we want to ask when we go. and i think the robotic program will continue through the march 20 rover and admissions in the 20s to open the door to what we are going to need when we get ourselves their editor will change everything, folks. this will be like the columbus moment when people touch mars

themselves with the robotic tools to ask questions we can ask today with our brilliant robotic program. so i don't think we've seen anything yet. mars has never disappointed. it's a discovery engine. let's keep going. thank you. [applause] i'm told i have limited time for a question. remember i'm one guy so don't come only with much. one question. [inaudible] so much about organics that it is the next step looking for life so we have a mission and search for organics so what is the plan you think we need?

>> bernarda, thank you. he will be talking about that this afternoon. the radiation will modify the chemistry and at least we think that and by sampling that was a very powerful set of instruments in the payload together with the instruments developed in germany we will look for organics the first time correct me in the context of the geology and physics of the sample. so it is a key step in on everything i showed you and the discovery in the mission with russia and other partners is critical as well the rover.

as we look at all this stuff going on, we are not done. we have to go inside to look at the seismic background. there is so mars to look at the atmospheric chemistry committed is the 20 science rover and vendors that open where all of the young people here. so, bernard actually the point that we are really thrilled to have a partnership with this next generation whose mobility is both horizontal and subsurface. today is get as deep. so, we want to go -- i'm not 6 feet as we want to go to leaders and the mission will get us there. so, folks, science lives. thank you.

>> this next panel looks at the importance of science and technology education and explore mars and george washington university posted as events. this event. it's about 55 minutes. >> thank you for coming back from the break in the first couple of keynote panelists this morning was an lightening. i got a lot out of it and i think what we are going to do now, we are going to leverage and continue the discussion. so with me today we have james brown, we have julie and we have randy sweet. the way that i want to run this panel is i'm going to kind of give a biography on each of the panelists and then let them go through either a discussion or charts that they have and then afterwards work through the panelists and then we really are very willing to answer any questions you may have.

i have a couple for the panelists. but please, be thinking of questions you have as we are starting to this. so, james brown, we have an interesting panel and i guess the first thing i should say is one of the panelists from actually the moderator, didn't make it for a couple reasons. one was sick into the other wasn't. randy sweet was kind enough to jump in for us today. but james brown is sitting to my left is the executive director of the stem education coalition. this is an alliance of more than 500 business professional educational organizations and it works to raise awareness in congress, the administration and other organizations about the critical role that damn education debate stem remains in the technological leader in the global marketplace for the 21st century. and stem, you know, i am happy to see that stem is getting more and more attention as we get on because it is true.

it is a legislative aide for the doc hastings of washington and her director and begin his career with the ship building working on the aircraft construction so thanks. he received a bachelors of science in new mexico, masters from penn state and he holds an mba from george washington university. so, with that, james. >> thank you. it is a pleasure to be here. it's also relatively tough to speak to an audience about these

issues when we have so many distinguished people like buzz aldrin and others in the audience so it is definitely an honor. when i talk about this issue, i'm always surprised by the breadth of the state education and its applicability in the missions and the different things that predate our society. when i start talks like this i like to talk about one step that i think summarizes our particular challenges in the education community quite well. and that is the cooler was done by the parents with issues relating to the stem education and they found that roughly 93% of parents considered that stem should be prior year in the school system on but only 39% thought it was a challenge. it was a priority in the school system. so so that is the challenge if we think about it. everybody recognizes the importance of the stem subjects whether it is to space or the national security or the future

of computing or any other technological scientific endeavors that we know from our history will lead to the future of the country. but, we have yet to make the kind of changes in our education system to really figure plays the pagoda plays the subject seemed certainly if we are going to get to mars, we need to chill from every part of the talent spectrum to get there. it's going to take smart engineers and smart astronauts. it's going to take people who can build the equipment that will get us there and it's going to take people of every background to be able to do that. but the other come and this is raytheon from several years ago. 68% of parents think that their kids are in the top third of the class. and if you think about that, that illustrates the first quite well. but at the end of the day, there are three things when we think about how to build a competitive workforce that can support the kind of grand national missions

like going to another planet i think about three things. one we need to get our federal house in order. as we all know we are dealing with the political gridlock of perhaps a century or more and that's going to have a high water mark and we will get to working on challenges like improving the education system at a national level. so the united states invests about $3 billion in the education programs but they are scattered across the 250 programs and that in itself is a challenge. i know many people are always dealing with issues of efficiency and trying to get the most out of the federal investment we have to make sure they are well spent and that we are making the kind of big events that will get us down the road towards improving education. the other is the states are dealing with what are called common core standards in math and science and i think that is an interesting opportunity for us to improve math and science education across the board.

they've been developed by the states of collaboration between states and one another and it would be nice if when my daughter was four and a half who is in the seventh grade and we decide to move from the district of columbia to the state of washington or somewhere else if we didn't have to repeat algebra so that's another thing i think is going on that's very positive and moving in the right direction and third is if you think about the workforce but underlines the stem fields, it is a little known fact that roughly 50% of the workforce is not going to require a four year degree to enter the workforce. and when you think about stem education education in the minds of policymakers in this town, most of the time they are thinking about about the rocket scientists and people who are going to study in graduate school and who are going to measure their productivity with things like intellectual property. roughly half the jobs that are available in the field don't require your a four year degree so the technicians, auto

mechanics, everybody in software these days even if you are going to look at the basic field you are going to need a background so i think those are three important trends that underline the challenges of getting to mars and improving the health care into dealing with every other major challenge our health care faces. >> thank you. i already have a question for you, james. it makes a lot of sense but it's important to improve the education facilities and the quality of education. what about how the u.s. and to place the children to want to go into the stem field? is that a big piece of it as well? >> if you ask the 93% of parents i think it's a priority, do they have to -- can we go to the next slide? so, one of the staff that you will see is that most of the

appearance of it but stem is where the jobs are and i think if you look at the pipeline of students going into those fields getting the good education and jobs but there are lots of parts of our society that are being left out of this. so if you look at for example the workforce african-american or 11% of the population but only 3% of the workforce and the same is true for hispanics and certain fields for women and i think that is one of the challenges in terms of how do we expand the pipeline and get at that challenge because it is not just good policy and education we have good curriculum and well-trained teachers. the kids can see the example if they have mentors and their family and good role models. i think you are starting to see that emerge in the computing

field. look at the cosmos series that is getting attention and it isn't often that we have had a face like his as the technology enterprise. the next panelist is the vice president into this position responsible for the research technology development and product development programs. she joined in 1981 and was appointed to the present position in june of 2013 and prayer she was vice president for the space programs. from the 2004 to 2005 she was the director for the programs. from 2001 to 2004 she was the executive director of the space systems business development responsible for strategic

direction, investment and growth of the space proposing business. from may of 1999 to october, 2001, she managed the multinational commercial launch vehicle projects during which she interfaced extensively with companies and affiliated government agencies. ms. van kleeck earned her degree in aeronautical engineering from the university of california and has extensive hands-on research systems engineering and system design development and testing. there's a lot of great stuff here. she also is the chairperson of the european state apportioned board of directors. to summarize this she truly is a rocket scientist. julie. >> i used to be.

>> first slide please. that's the last slide isn't it? what i'm going to talk about is going to mars and how that affects u.s. competitiveness. so i'm going to do that from the standpoint of being in the rocket company. everybody has a different idea what that means if you look up the definition it's the ability to sell things into the market. many people would say we are competitive worldwide. i think a lot of that has been because we are technical leaders and pushed the envelope in a number of things which is a part of the american spirit. you know, she gets more -- as

you get more of an international marketplace that is still very important but the other way for the competitiveness is how do you 18 being the best value of the cost effective, and that speaking from being a rocket scientist we've always pushed the envelope but even in the last ten years has been more cost competitive come into the financial or because we were always liked can you really make it happen? now it's becoming part of everybody's life. it's becoming more of an international commercial marketplace to become competitive so you look at this and say okay does that have an affect on american competitiveness and i would say that it absolutely does. if i look at what makes you competitive and what makes many of our airspace company's competitive come it is to be have the technology, are we going to, you know, push the

envelope and provide those things that no one else has been dubious products that meet certain needs and we have the do we have the workforce that can keep that going and keep making ourselves more competitive and keeping this a sustainable business. and also trying to get to mars we are going to attack every single one of those things and i think that brings a great value to this country. next slide, please. you've seen the slide before and we saw it earlier. some people say we are not going to mars until 2030 that but i would say we are going to be going to build the infrastructure, the workforce, the product to take us to mars and and there will be ongoing at the next 15 to 20 years and it's necessary because this is a difficult thing to do. but along the way we are going to be driving competitiveness into the companies in the

country and likely worldwide. if you reflect on the the slide you see the basic building blocks and those are going to be the most powerful rockets ever build -- belt. developing the infrastructure we've had to face technical challenges we've had to do before and the capabilities of the workforce. once we have these products we now have products to sell to other applications and if you heard from modularity and using things and where we are at in the country and not where we were during apollo.

here we are dealing with constrained budgets and with those things we drive the need to look at the problem differently. we can't just spend money to achieve a singular goal in the budget constrained environment every investment that we make needs to have payback elsewhere. yes, furthering science and technology is important, but we want to do that in a way that leaves us with products that can be used elsewhere making good on that investment and that is the thing the budget constrained environment i think is doing is putting us all in that environment of having to think about how do i -- how do we create architecture projects and not just achieved a very difficult thing but also be useful in other ways and to me that underscores the definition of being competitive. next slide please. >> okay. mars is hard. you've heard from the doctor many of the different

challenges, and it's pretty exciting when you think about trying to tackle all of those different things with the amount of resources he's been allocated but it also gives you a perspective of what we are really facing to do this. but as we attacked each of those different technologies in the areas of, you know, transportation and for us infrastructure needs propulsion as a rocket company. but the support and also the landing in business. we are going to overcome a number of difficult things, create new technologies and pc those things in other products we can't even imagine today. we think of the many things that came out of the apollo and the space program today and see the cameras and cell phones and the clean water systems that are being used in mexico. attacking those many different technological hurdles will result in things that will benefit not just the bars program that companies across the world. next slide please.

>> this will enhance the competitiveness of the companies in the u.s.. as we were to go through every dollar invested in the human spaceflight has returned $8, you know, to the u.s. economy i would imagine we would see a similar type of return. not just going to mars become the journey to mars as we move through getting beyond the earth alliance and actually on to mars in the 2030s. next slide please. >> and then we bring it home. we heard a little bit about the solar electric propulsion and we learned some questions about that in the last panel. to me this is a product of the solar electric is important because it's much more efficient if you can use it for a certain ramification less than commercial that means you carry less propellant which means your

rockets are smaller and everything is affordable. if we look where we are today, we are using solar electric propulsion and some of the satellites of government as well as commercial and the commercial world has jumped on board and that you see a number of different satellite architectures being upgraded to go either partial or all electric and that is because the economics are good. the place for the solar electric propulsion and the pursuit of mars is to develop a high-power systems and the high-power systems and to develop those infrastructures such as solar electric that we talked about barges in the space to actually move things around and these would be far more cost effective than doing things with chemical propulsion to cause you don't have to lift the propellant off the earth you have to lift a much smaller portion of data. so as we look at the type of systems that are a relevance to our pursuit of mars would be

driving to power up, driving the capability of the solar rays and the propulsion systems and power systems and what we will see is those migrate into the commercial satellite world probably in the next generation or the generation after that. so truly enhancing by developing this will enhance the competitiveness. the propulsion industry at the commercial satellite industry in general. so just to give you a snapshot of some of the things i think can come from this i try to bring it home to what it means to a particular company like ours in propulsion and think of all the things that were talked about in the last panel and look forward to seeing what else we will see today and being the big science-fiction person we say finally making science-fiction real and i'm thankful to be a part of it. thank you. [applause] >> thank you.

randy sweet until his defense about seven minutes ago he didn't even know he was on the panel. so he was kind enough to jump in. when i heard he was in the area i thought he would be great and have the benefit of getting to work with him. he's been with lockheed martin for over 30 years and is the director of the civil space and business development. but he has a heritage backing of the shuttle program. as a matter of fact, he was an orbital test conductor. so when the shuttles were being processed and getting ready to fly, when the astronauts climbed in the vehicle they are working with otc, orbital test conductor if you will. randy, with that, the floor is yours. >> i don't have any prepared remarks, that i would like to talk a little about my perspective of -- first i will talk about stem a little bit. obviously on the program we do a