this runs about one hour 30 minutes.

[inaudible conversations] >> that afternoon everyone. i'm kathleen hicks. i direct international study program here at csi s and i want to welcome you to our celebration of nasa's 60th anniversary. we have a hat trick of nasa administrators here and we are very grateful to our sponsor at boeing for putting together and helping us put together to today's event. our keynote address will be delivered by the administrator of nasa and he was elected to represent oklahoma in 2012 in the first congressional district in the u.s. house of representatives and he has just returned back from oklahoma this morning. we are grateful he came back for this event today. his federal service started in the u.s. navy and he also has a degree. [inaudible] following his keynote address

it will lead a moderated discussion with former administrator charlie and the sis senior advisor sean o'keefe. after all of that, we will invite everyone to join us for some birthday cake to celebrate nasa's 60th anniversary. without further ado, please try me in welcoming administrator pride & . [inaudible] >> thank you. thank you kathleen for that nice introduction. thank you john for all you do for csi s. this is an organization that i have a high regard for. the center for strategic and international studies is an important organization that helps us as policymakers to make good decisions. i have spoken before this group a number of times, as a member of congress and now as a nasa administrator is an absolute honor to be here in

this new capacity in which i serve. i want to start by also letting everyone here know that it's a bit humbling for me to stand before this audience and have, in my audience, a former nasa administrator sean o'keefe and charlie both of who have served this country very well i'm grateful to have the opportunity to occupy an office once held by both of you. the shoes are very big and i'm going to do the best i can to fill them. thank you for your service as well. [applause] so here we are celebrating the anniversary of nasa and we are doing it at the sis where we talked about strategy and the strategic implications for organizations like nasa, for the united states of america. i will start by going back in time just a bit.

how about the year 1950. a lot of people don't realize nasa had its start a long time ago under an organization called the national advisory committee on aeronautics. this was started in 1915 as a way during world war i to align academic institutions with industry and government in order to take advantage of aeronautics, who during world war i. at the time just to be clear, in 1915 when it was created, i read this just this morning, i thought it was fascinating, they tried to pass a bill in 1913, they dropped the bill in the house and in the senate identical language and tried to pass it through congress in 1913. it failed. they couldn't get it to pass. a couple years later they

actually shoved it into a naval appropriation bill and that's interesting because that's how we do it today. if you're trying to get something pass and you can't get it done in a standalone bill you shove it into another bill that's guaranteed to pass and you accomplish the objective. interestingly i've had a little expense with that with the american space renaissance act which i drafted knowing full well that ultimately had very little chance of passing but i also knew full well it would be one of the best ideas in space reform and we could get other legislation passed. we've had a lot of success doing that over the past two or three years. now as nasa administrator, we are able to affect a lot of those policies in the executive branch which is

interesting and a great change of venue from my perspective. nasa got its start in 1915. it was a national advisory committee on aeronautics and started with about a hundred people and there were four centers across the country. one was langley which is still langley, one was in california which is still a, there was the lewis research center which of course is now the glenn research center out in ohio and the armstrong flight research center, this was even before it was dry dan, it was called the mirror arc flight research center. these four centers composed and their objective was to ultimately help academia industry and government advance aeronautics in ways that otherwise would never happen. so what they started doing is they started working on wings that ultimately can benefit

united states of america. eventually their mission change but it wasn't just to win world war i but ultimately to advance aeronautics in the united states both commercially and militarily. now, at that time you can imagine they weren't using terminology like the offset. you're all familiar with the first offset because this is the sis and the second offset and now the third offset and how many more offsets for they were using that language but ultimately they were trying, here's another one you use here, the qualitative military edge, qualitative technological edge. that's what they were trying to accomplish although they didn't use the terms back then but they started designing airfoil and these kind of capabilities that ultimately produced aircraft that could really perform much better than they previously had. one particular ability was a fearing over the radio engine, if you remember the big radio engines, you think back to a

t6, the original texan, not the text into or you think back to a t28 trojan, those massive engines and they put this bearing on it and it reduce the drag by 60%. it increased the airflow over the engine and did a whole host of other things that made the aircraft perform so much better. those bearings on those kind of radio engines were developed and gave the united states of america an advantage for a good amount of time. eventually, it wasn't the wings and bearings, but they developed wind tunnels and engine test stands and they developed places to test flight, ultimately resulting in capabilities that did give us a qualitative military edge. when it came to world war ii, they got very involved in

turbocharging internal combustion engines. : : : >> in fact it was great britain that wanted to be more effective in world war ii and

they went into north american aviation to develop this and they came up with the p40 tomahawk and great britain said no we need something to perform at a higher level. so then they came to nasa and the airfoil was used by the 51 mustang which of course everybody understands the superior aircraft at that particular time. so these are very strategic capability that is important to understand at this time that whoever controls technology controls the balance of power on the planet. and immediately after world war ii.

with fdr there and winston churchill on crimea and they were negotiating how do you secure the peace for the long-term in europe? and ended up to be how do we divide europe between east and west did ultimately divide germany between east and west? that could have millions and millions of people in world war ii but they wanted the preponderance of the land in germany and they had a swaths of land but what we learned it is amazing technology in eastern germany. a scary thought with those

technologies and capabilities of human beings. and talking about the most grotesque ways to test the weapons systems. we cannot allow to happen again and those technologies were there and i question is who will control them? with chemical warfare and those that were tested on human beings. by that concentration camps and the jewish holocaust and it wasn't just the jews but all kinds of prisoners of war from different campaigns.

and the key concern. with those chemical and biological weapons. and low observable submarines. and the jets aircraft and the fee to rocket. and then the whole first crew dismissal. with the rocket of course being with the short range ballistic missile and the question was with all these technologies developed and extremely grateful.

and to extend the war of a very long time. the leaders of the world got to gather and will belong to the soviet union. and harry truman had authorized within weeks to go into eastern germany. and with those capabilities and to send with american soldiers to gather up the capabilities of those feed to rocket physically. and at risk of the former soviet union. and with dose of realism and

this is important, whoever controls the technology controls the balance of power. after signing an agreement to take as much of that talk -- technology that they could with a lot of rockets but then they asked if the german and ultimately help us understand the technology. some of these german technologist ended up to be the best rocket scientist in the world and winning in the cold war. to be clear about this we do science and technology that is

what nasa is and does and we do not get involved with warfare. people ask me all the time will you be the leaders? of course. i'm here to tell you that is not what nasa is or does. i'm also here to tell you that when there was a strategic purpose that united states of america has a economic and technological capability the world would align with us rather than them. that is the purpose of the mission. and what is even more fascinating is 12 years later after the last person walks on the moon, a president announces the strategic defense initiative which ultimately in the media was a terrible idea. there was no wait was

technologically, a missile defense shield alternately it was too expensive and the technology was not there. but here's what we learned. because we just walked on the moon and we did it six times 12 human beings walked on the surface of the man. and then people all around the world they can accomplish this. that is the star wars program to belittle that and said it cannot possibly be achieved. and from the soviet union. with our strategic defense initiative and they went to all these world conferences to

prevent this from happening and ultimately because of their investments, a small small piece and by the way how much to be really spend on the strategic defense initiative? very, very little. that never materialized. but what was the purpose? to force the soviet union to a negotiating table. by the way even before that happened when we walked on the moon who congratulated us first? the soviet union. their cosmonauts to call them and congratulate them welcoming them to their country and university and eventually the apollo program was born. so what was a cold war ended up with and asked mom -- nasa

was at the center of a dialogue that instead of competing with each other to put people's lives at risk that apollo eight was a tremendously risky mission and we achieved that at great risk to american astronauts. then the soviet union said we should reconsider and instead of competing maybe we should partner and that occurred. and those two most powerful superpowers competing against each other. and then that was continuing. and then that would devolve

because of world events, those devolution's have been protected i will give you an example after the invasion of crimea the united states congress passed a sanctions bill on russia. but one piece had to be carved out and that was face because that was the best opportunity to dialogue. we have american astronauts and american cosmonauts from the international space station that allows us to maintain that dialogue. so as an agency to be an amazing soft power tool to the united states of america.

and then with a partnership with soy use. and then that continues today with the international space station. and that is understandable but that partnership continues and then that strategic defense initiative built on the credibility of apollo. talk about the strategic position of the united states of america, and all of the different challenges, believe me, we know what they are. when the whole world stops when these challenges occur. but the whole world stops the here's the question.

why do this? what is the purpose? did they die in vain? i'm here to tell you they didn't. they died for a very important and specific purpose to create a world freer and safer than otherwise would have been an asset is at the center of that since 1958. by dwight eisenhower. it is an honor to be here. standing at the helm of nasa with the 60th anniversary is a bit humbling. and an honor to serve in this capacity and i look forward to a dialogue with my predecessors and i look forward to hearing their ideas as well. i want to be clear. we are here to talk about the 5h anniversary. some of that we lock him --

liked some of it is not so fun to think about but it is also true nasa has an amazing future. a lot of it is possible because of the trails blazed by these folks but it is an important point so think of the balance of power on the agenda and i have talked about this a lot if i can elevate in the minds of the american public and how it is transformed with the ultimate ability to do basic things anybody use gps? anybody use directv or internet broadband?

the way we navigate and communicate, i was at a swim meet with my kids. by the way if i ever get some kind of disease to kill me i want to go to a swim meet because they last forever. [laughter] i was there three days, 14 hours a day you wait all day to watch a thirty second race. anyway, where was i? [laughter] so here i am sitting next to a gentleman from the brassica and what do you do and i said i work for nasa. what you do? i'm the administrator. >> what is the administrator do? and he starts to go in depth about how nasa technology helps them to understand when to plant crops and ready to

harvest and to understand the moisture telling me how they produce food from nasa technology i will tell people about your story. so there is a lot of people to feed and a lot more people to feed and nasa technology can help produce that food. the way we produce energy. disaster relief and predict whether a lot of people have heard me talk about whether because i come from oklahoma and is a member of congress a lot of constituents have been killed in technology -- and tornadoes so how whether better? now to develop those technologies so how do we understand how climate has changed? when you think about

ultimately the way we do disaster relief for national security and defense, certainly one of the things is that every gps or every banking transaction in this country you are required to have a gps ignore for timing. every transaction that is critical piece of infrastructure for this country think about how important is space to everyday lives i would be willing to argue most americans don't know that right now. if i accomplish one thing is the nasa administrator that is the objective to understand and that is so much more than the investment from the united states government that is game changing as a matter of fact there is so much more people

don't talk about that is critically important. whoever controls the technology controls the balance of power. the nasa blazed the trail to make this possible and will continue to blaze the trail the future is just as bright as the history and it is an honor to be here for the 60th anniversary i cannot tell you again, keep doing what you are doing put out those colony people -- papers and i look forward to working with you again. thank you so much. [applause]

>> i am charge of the security project here at csis we want to hear from all of you first so if you have a question, go to the website and type in your question i will get it appear on the ipad and working that into the conversation so please go ahead and ask any question you may have. to the administrator let's get it out of the way. a lot of talk recently firmly in favor of space wars it has been debated in congress something similar to that has passed the house of representatives but as a nasa

administrator glad you can say that is not part of the space force but what was the relationship do you think between the military space force and nasa? why is it important to maintain that separation? >> guided the wonderful question when president eisenhower his vision, there was a time before nasa was created where a lot of folks that believe the department of defense ought to be in charge of space development and exploration and of course all of the national security provisions of space eisenhower went to the civilian space agency where all of our friends or even competitors around the world could partner with us to have an opportunity for dialogue's vision was very different than others to be as

part of the department of defense i want to be clear as part of the space for i voted on it three times in the house of representatives you mentioned that a little bit but this peace corps was very similar the way i see it and there hasn't been any specific what it might look like but from what i can tell the president once for separate from the air force about the last meeting so that means you are talking about the joint chief of staff and his own service secretary. that isn't guaranteed what might develop but that is what it indicates to me. but think about what it is.

actually it already exists inside the airport. so all military service does is organize and train and equip. have army navy air force and marine then you have the combatant commanders that go to war and they are all joint so when you talk about the separate space force to organizing training and equipping that doesn't mean they will go fight the war necessarily but a cadre of professionals that are trained and organized and equipped to do that think about the air force right now that does the acquisition piece for all the air forces space capabilities.

and then the strategic command air force space command that that is the training and organizing so the air force space command was already doing that function but then you have strategic command that is the combatant commander so strategic command could take advantage of those capabilities so a of that exist in one of the challenges that we see what the debate on the armed services committee and that what level is air force leadership paying attention to space? i will tell you they are paying attention without question. has that always been the case many members think that hasn't always been the case but here is what we see if you look at

promotion the cadre doesn't get promoted as much with retention it appears as maybe the space cadre is not have as high of a morale. and that space component media doesn't get as much attention as the other components of the air force. so to create a specimen -- a separate force to have an advocate for the service secretary although it was much like the marine corps with the secretary of the navy and the space core that is what we did for the armed services committee passed overwhelmingly with a bipartisan vote in both the strategic forces subcommittee

and then the part of the defense authorization act in my opinion it passed given all that i just talked about how important space is to our everyday lives and the proliferation of the threat with the chinese launching anti- satellite missions -- missiles and so is the russian to use directed energy to confuse the satellite temporarily or permanently they are all proliferating randomly as the american people are explicitly depended on phase for national security and their everyday lives. in my opinion it is well past due to have a standalone force capable to prepare the workforce to ultimately protect our assets in space.

i want to be clear. this is not what nasa does that it does have billions of dollars worth of your taxpayer dollars at risk because of what is happening in space not just hostile actions that basically other challenges and it's also true that anyway, i should stop there the reality is there is a lot of threat the united states of america has allotted a and more importantly the only agency that has humans that stake up there and of course he put all of that at risk so it's something who's time has come and i have supported that as a member of the house. >> pickup human spaceflight. right now we are dependent on the russians to put our astronauts into space that

working with the russians to launch astronauts has gone back 23 years. it looks like we have 52 american astronaut. but not a single one is african-american. not even launched by the russian so no african-american astronaut has the opportunity. but this past june jeanette was on a mission to be trained and was pulled from the mission. and with those personnel actions. but it does raise the question what's going on? so if that is the case i have never heard that.

i will start asking that question now that you mention that but i have not heard that and i'm aware if that's the cas case. >> i'm not sure where that conjecture came from. but i served as nasa administrator for eight years. in one of my biggest partners on the first joint mission and specifically was to be apollo so use that russians and americans could back work collaboratively in space in anticipation and subsequently in a space station together. that was the beginning of it and they never saw that indication the whole time i was in administrator and with

cosmonauts themselves if they ever had any problems at all. >> when you were in astronaut yourself you trade with them but never experience any problems? >> no. >> is that good to hear? [laughter] american history. >> so the next question obviously with your remarks you talk about nasa plays an important role of u.s. foreign policy and the promisee. and diplomacy. . . . .

that maybe don't have an agency with our level of budget, but they could create a small robotic lander if you do that could interface with an open architecture gateway. i'm talking about an outpost of habitation, the power and propulsion able to go more

places around the world than ever before, but the idea is to create open architecture where our commercial partners can join and an international partner can join. it's not going to happen overnight, but we want it to be the most cooperative international program in history and i think that we can accomplish that. >> what were your experiences trying to maintain the partnership and was it worth it? >> it was a challenge, no question about that. they were dealing with all of

the international partners working through but in many respects, as a fundamental part of the history it's been a great convener of capabilities not only around the world among and between what used to be and what can bcanbe adversaries and finda common space and position and interest in trying to develop that in a more elaborate manner as a global enterprise. so, it takes time and effort to find a common position. it can't be been developed in a mutual advantagthe mutual advane employers involved. it's an enormous amount of effort. ieffort. you feel that you are. you've got your invite in arbitration and element, but it's worth it because you can at least create the opportunity for the common dialog and reduced the tension very powerfully on

how this has played and any number of different adversarial conditions. over the course of the last several decades that is a huge achievement. nasa isn't the foreign-policy. of the war isn't the only technology development by any of these activities but it is a place in which it reaches common interest and can be sorted into what becomes a mutual advantage and bejeweled game if done properly. that is always the risk and one of the things we were talking about. you have to always avoid the issue that the u.s. is simply sitting in the position. it takes a lot more effort in that regard and certainly we are seeing the very effort in the

mutual collaboration and mutual dependency at play today every single day on a remarkable capability that has been operational now for 18 years, continuously with all of the imaginable part others that have been engaged in the international space station coalition working together collaboratively to achieve a way to understand so it's been remarkable in that regard but one that takes a lot of effort and time and works through a public differences. >> you were the administrator wr when the relationship with russia over all started to deteriorate after it was held together by the partnership.

the fact that we are going to continue to engage with russia in one area while we have disagreements with others. >> one thing that the administrators said is how humbling it is to sit in the office. the one thing that i think the three of us have an appreciation for its brain you go to an international forum there is no question to everybody looks. it's the administrator. with the space station we tried to meet quarterly with the member organization and there was never a question of who was going to sit at the head of the table and essentially make sure that the meeting flowed well.

jim mentioned the term soft power. i think with all deference to the state department and the department of defense, they are all good. one of the strongest purveyors is nasa and the sustainability of the space station the last 17 or 18 years despite everything else that goes on here down the planet and one of the reasons is because everybody is focused on a mission. everybody realizes it is a team with no one element survives without the other elements when we have problems with waste management you get something out of this segment or everybody why runs into a normal kinds of things that are necessary. i gave that example because the

first things they ask is how do you go to the bathroom in space and there's only two places you can go in the u.s. segment or the russian segment and they don't always work well together but always one of them is working. and i'm not trying to make light of anything but i just want to emphasize what was said about the critical importance of sustaining partnerships and expanding them whenever we can. every time we go to an international forum opening up to everybody as saying the station is one way to do things. we are getting ready to explore now and there are nations that didn't even have a space program when the international space program started, so we invited everybody to the table command we could have 25 nations, some

of whom didn't even have a space program but wanted to be at the table getting their ideas and sharing their ideas on what we do when it comes to exploring. what will we do when we go beyond the overt orbit. we can do some other things and i think it is critically important. >> two p. back on what was said about the whole worl world and l the different space agencies around the world looking in one direction, i did a trip to israel and the farm bureau airshow where all the different space agencies were represented and met with a whole host of them one-on-one and then of course in groups as well. and it was astonishing to me how a lot of them were saying tell us what you need. we are ready to go and we will get the government behind it tell us where you are and i was

expecting to have to do a hard so. we know what we've been able to achievachieve and asked if theyt to be targeted in the future. speaking of what we've been able to achieve in the past, sean off course was at the helm of the time when the international space station was at risk of being canceled if i want to be clear there was a research poll that came out and one of the questions was was the international space station a good investment for the united states of america. that was the question. over a p.% of the respondents said yes the international space station was a good investment for the united states of america.

i come from the political realm. you don't get 80% of people to agree on anything ever. you can say the sky is blue and they won't agree but they agreed the international space station is a good investment. that just shows you the impact that it's had. i watched the confirmation process and i was astonished at the challenges that were happening at the time and also it came down to one vote and now you've got 80% of americans showing you how it is different than any other government agency that you could imagine.

so it's all good. >> i want to go to some questions from the audience. the one related to the soft power of, how do they maintain a leadership role and engage other countries, international partners with its plans to the moon. >> it's to accomplish a stunning achievement. that's kind of how they have led in the past and wel will in the future. he wants it to be unsustainably

-- done sustainably. we are going to go back to the moon and how do we do that given our budget. sustainable need to take our partners with us so it has to be an open architecture to get us to the surface quickl quickly an it moves to the needed classes and they can take humans to the surface of the moon all being able to integrate with an outpost around the moon. if rockets are reusable, the cost goes down and we are learning that more and more every day.

we need the architecture to be reusable. whatever they pick up from the surface of the known they can mn ultimately check out what they're picking up from the surface of the moon. from 20 of eight, 2009, for those years we believe that the moon was bone dry because of where we went. went. we went to six spots on the surface of the moon. the equatorial region and in 2008, they made a discovery in 2009 and they doubled down on it with hundreds of billions of tons. the question is how did we not know tha that intel did not chae the trajectory that we were

headed ultimately we went to certain spots it would be like studying the air and landing in the middle east into trying to do something about colorado. it wouldn't work. there is so much more that we don't know so much more to discover that we want to go to more parts of the moon than we'vthanwe've ever gone to befoy sustainable architecture where we can get back and forth on a regular basis not just with humans but also with robots and ultimately all of that architecturarchitecture would ld and it would all perfectly replicate itself for the mars mission. so we are continuing their journey to mars and i think it is important that we do that. that's how we bring in our international and commercial part verse. >> about your achievements when you're the administrator can commercial cargo program bringing in these private sector partners and getting them into

the game. they've got their own plans to build space infrastructure and some of th the companies talk at going to the moon on their own. how do you see them working with these private sector organizations to coordinate and leverage what they are doing to help advance the exploration goals? >> i wish i could take credit, but it started a couple of administrations before us and we just facilitated it. i think that is the magic word, their job is to facilitate the success of the commercial entities. we called space act agreement which is a type of contract but it is a much more to the commercial entities comes of it i, so that isthe way that he cho business with the commercial

entities upfront. we will tell you what kind of service we want to is the kind of vehicle to do that and they love to give people latest example is the wisdom of that and again it didn't start in the obama administration. like most things it is a continuum. i said you only get to be there for a brief period of time. take credit for everything that happens because you are the guy that made it happen. but facilitating the commercial entities is one of the duties of nasa and we took that seriously. so you try to find ways to be flexible in the way that we do business to adopt some of the

practices and policies that the civilian entities recommend and i think that is what made us so successful. the best example i can give you with the value of the system that we put in place was the most bac back-to-back commercial vehicles in a period of time and then a cargo vehicle. we were kind of stunned that for a while that we had our european partners to be back on so we still had capabilities to get to the space station and sustained the group said its facilitating the success of the commercial partners and working to open the door to enable as many internationaany plus manyinternt

to be part of the family of spacefaring nations. it's not a big space nation that thebutthey are one that we woull the non- traditional partner. they are providing something that is going to be a device to mitigate the effects on the crewmember. that is a big deal from a country that doesn't have a big powerful space agency. by and large when you look at all of the different elements of technologies and capabilities in and so forth that are emerging, yes some of them come from the different agencies and

laboratories, but an awful lot else has come from the sources and what is calle common to evee of those circumstances, they were setting up the organization that relies upon the available commercial technology that can be leveraged to a different game is the problem you are trying to overcome? the 1958 act is what they are supposed to be a. they develop the capabilities that will overcome limitations to get to something else you wanted to. and in that, you've got a resource for some bizarre organic, progressive nevertheless that this has moved

off much more to the commercial but it's primarily to look at getting to the next capacity that you need to go and where you need to achieve the next outcome. that is what they are able to articulate and with that comes enormous achievements and success and those are accompanied by a fact nobody else has tried to attempt to and that requires not just collaboration in the commerciall capabilities but with international partners, broad capabilities, wherever it resides, that is what you are looking for a.

>> we tend to drift into these. there is a big organization that does a lot of things. they have relatively nice sized protectorates and the less if you will come aeronautics is our heritage and that is where some of the incredible developments today are going on. there are the two that are recognized. the supersonic aircraft and in science we lead the world when you talk about planetary science, you name it. that is where everybody looks to us and also, we have unbelievable international

unlikely international partnerships looking at the glacial character does. they've got a focus on some tough problems to make the world a better place to be. it's a great place to assemble and take a look at those different kinds of things. >> on the plans for the international space station retirement around 2024 can be 2y handed over the commercial partners and operators. do they need more time to make the transition or can they make

it by 2024, and what happens if it wasn't? >> we put together the request for information which ultimately seven years from now would you be able to add a consortium of companies would you be able to manage it in a way that would be cost-effective and close the business case for the great return on investment? we had a period of time when apollo ended and we had eight years before the launch of the first space shuttle and a period of time and the space shuttle ended.

the question is how do we do that, we know that they cannot last forever. it's a physical impossibility. sure we can extend it with what we are doing right now is forcing a conversation as early as possible to say if we want to have humans in blue earth orbit forever and think of people graduating from high school right now, people graduating from high school have had somebody in space the entire time they've been alive, multiple people the entire time they've been alive. the other thing is they've been putting a lot of money into human activity in low earth orbit for 20 years. the question is can we go further.

have we learned sufficiently what we need to go further and the answer is probably not, but it's one customer or many customers with a commercial capabilitfor the commercialcapal space station where the government and one customer could be manufacturing or medicine, they are doing three d. printing of biological components have come to think about them being printed in space because of the environment that enables that to be possible. for these capabilities are developing right now very very fast. seven years from now is it going to be possible to have the commercial industry. forward we are going to see what

industry is proposed but ultimately i think seven years is quite a long time as fast as technology is developing. and i do think that the low earth orbit can be a commercialized where they are one customer of many, multiple providers competing on cost and innovation if it is ultimately what will give us the best result. >> what are your thoughts, do we stick with 2024 or do we end it? >> a food for the avoidance of a gap between the circumstances where we are able to operate together and learn something at the. it's a risk in a hard time they've learned from now but we keep repeating the same instances as we discover that reality and logic. but the other that goes to this is the logic by continuing an effort like this and in many

ways there are arguments that can be posed from a scientific engineering etc. as to whether or not it can be sustained and whether there is a platform a federal approach. but in the meantime it keeps the convening capacity, to keep exploring, to keep turning over different ideas of how to use the capabilities and infrastructure that defines them what the limits are and informs what you need to do as a succeeding opportunity as opposed to start with a blank sheet of paper every time there's been one of these kind of gaps. the last point has been repeated several times and is just the amazing ability to keep you focused objective on the part of several different international global partners and players engaged in this capacity as a

means to then discuss the dialogue, and it's hard. there's no discounting this kind of collaboration between different nation states with different objectives and views and so forth as they relate to the challenge. you spend a lot of time working through it, but it is always to the advantage and you are also e process of selling differences on a wide range of other issues that you never would have anticipated because you had the opportunity and the reason to define how do i dea we deal wits limitation, overcome it and get on with it together rather than each going out there and everybody is going out for a pass. it doesn't work that way. >> general, what are your thoughts?

[laughter] >> i haven't been the general for a long time. [laughter] can they push forth with a new agenda? >> we talked about this before so i'm going to take a little bit of a different path. i refer everybody to who was my brain in that capacity. one of the stipulations that we made internationally with all of these nations for them to be

part of the program as we do not want to have a gap. we cannot tolerate a gap and while we recognize the fact the sooner we can get off the international space station is something that the u.s. has to be a primary part are for the better that we are not coming in the station with nowhere to go. when jim talks about the gateway and everything else, it is critical to facilitate the success of commercial entities to take over if you will, a lot of people don't like that word, but take over the low earth orbit and with nasa the customer, one of many. and then to do what it does so while committing the leader in the orbit until the commercial entities can migrate with us but we don't wan want an orbit whenr that day comes that the space station goes away because it's

over. we cannot tolerate another big like that and that's why i am a mars guy. i haven't anyone who thinks you could skip the moon but who cares. i like being the guy at the head of the table. if you are not there inviting other people to come along with you, you are not a the head of the table. we provided for the world and international document standard so anybody that loves to go to the space station can use the standards that he made availab available. it's not secret, it's not

private. this has fueled by these standards, you can probably qualify. i want them talking on a list would place rather than somebody else's place. this one little thing. >> a question from the audience and this is a tough one. what is your view of repealing the laws that prohibit the u.s. china cooperation? >> i don't know that it would necessarily require the repeal of. you don't have to put it in the next appropriations bill if i'm thinking about it right.

>> i appreciate the question. the provision isn't against collaboration in science. it's against collaboration because we work cooperatively in air traffic management and science and global characterization of glaciers and all kinds of stuff. that's the last thing congressman wolf did before he left the congress when he softened the language and set come to the congress, let us know what you want to do, tell us who's going to be there by name and guaranteed through all of these agencies that you're not going to have any bad actors at the table mainly for human rights violations. that was his passion. we sent a letter over to congress indicating that we are going to be meeting with some folks in germany.

so we are going to have the dialogue. as charlie said, we do have partnerships already. the challenges going forward, there's of course the walthere t we have to follow that it's critically important and then a whole host of other challenges we have with china to include the theft of intellectual property, and as charlie mentioned, human rights challenges and a whole host of other than. so to the extent a deal can be hatched that ultimately puts othethings on the table if it enables them to partner with china in a way that doesn't ultimately challenge our own national security, then i would before that but it's going to be well above my pay grade. [laughter] and it would include things like that are dissent from the air

defense identification zone, it could include building islands in the south china sea. these are outside of the realm of the administrator and i am thrilled about that. [laughter] but i would imagine to the extent that it changes, it would be inclusive of a number of other. >> what are your thoughts and should we be trying to cooperate more with china on human spaceflight, particularly going back to the moon, should we try to bring them in as a partner? >> i think it's inevitable, in part because you've already created an open-source system. in any capacity right now you can research online and don't have to break through anything

right there on the website you can find out a manner of different things, but its characteristics you have to have a service as part of the back is to make this capacity the leverage, the investments made by a the government, by the people of the united states a greater game for anybody to want to get a mixed solutioncomes of it is by definition available for open source and in all the years i spent previously it is exactly the reverse and in attempting to protect the information because of the nature of its sensitivity. the opposite is the charter and mandate to make it available it

is the means for anybody to do so and in that regard the linkage to the question is very clear this is a partner but does have an international reputation for trying to derive information from all sources. with that said, they could avail themselves of it now. you might as well be working with those to come and object rather than to be constantly competing for the purpose of something as basic as how do you access what's already commonly available anyway? and that means we are moving through each of these different intervals of time and a common reference point and mission objective and understand exactly where each other are coming from and all of those advantages and

limitations that are far better than constantly being on opposite sides of the equation and attempting to artificially limit something that fundamentally is impossible to do. we discriminate over it, nationstates etc., the technology doesn't care. it can be any circumstance you want to use it for and how you control that and then apply it to the leverage with the best example of how that can be done it's far better to do it get it together then in the way that encourages lots of adversarial conditions. i've always been an advocate. i spent 34 years as active duty and what i learned almost cost me my job as an administrator and you are one. [laughter]

i'm not changing my mind. i think engagement is absolutely essential. i think our system of government in our democracy is the strongest thing in the world and i've not met anybody yet if they spend enough time with me or us that doesn't recognize the fact what we have to do something isg everybody else wants and you can't get them to believe that if you don't allow them to at least see what's going on. sean mentioned that the military. ironically among the most open the military because we want people to know you do not want to come and t-tango with me so i will let you inside my tent and i will let you see the kind of things we can do but w what we o them together or we can go the other road and none of us want

to go the other route. i'm a strong advocate for engagement which means bringing everybody in that wants to be in and watch them and kind of monitor what they do in the way that i think the handle our relationships with the priority right now. when questioned on the line i want to ask the former administrators looking back at your time, it was one of the hard things that you have to do as administrator reflecting back on it now? >> the most concise answer i've been able to come up wit with se of his regular question a is discovered and realized in fairly short order and the privilege and the owner as we have reiterated to be in that capacity is the highs are really high end of those are really low

and there isn't a hell of a lot in between. other than that, faulty respect, testifying before congress. >> was that a highwa high or a . [laughter] >> it's a circumstance you have to adapt and work through an extraordinary group of professionals that are incredibly gifted people and the expertise of every discipline that you could imagine any problem they've got you can assemble folks to find a solution to do something that is just an imponderable problem. having everybody focus on how do you get to that objective and by the way avoid the highs and avoid the lows.

how do you find how to move everybody through the equation to reemploy and dedicate themselves to the next solution. that's what got us to the achievement that buzz aldrin and his colleagues were able to obtain a because everybody kept their eye on the objective. when the times were really tough in some circumstances and things were celebratory but they always stayed the same. here's the goal let's not get distracted from the objective and that was a challenge given the extremes in those cases and also the nature of the tragedies and successes to motivate people to look in different directions for what th that objective ougho be a and to go through the discussion in a way that then resolves it and moves on rather

than continually debating the difference is. spirit i share this with people because it's really important. the worst, the absolute worst administrator of the agency could have had in my first years, i was lousy. i didn't understand washington, i didn't understand the politics of the system and everything else and it wasn't until i got through the first two years of being the rogue administrator that road administratorthat i ry what did i believe in and why did i come, why do they let the president talked me into doing something that my wife said, do not go to washington because they will ask you to do something that you don't know -- no. i believei believe that the aged most importantly, i love the people.

once i realized my job was to take care of the people and they would take care of everything else, it became one of the best jobs i've ever had in my life. so i just cannot say enough for the workforce and the people that made every single day really special. driving up the parkway every morning worrying about what kind of day it was going to be condemning it coulcomingit coult every single day that i went home for the last six years, i said the boy did we really make a difference today. i think for me that was the biggest thing was just being around the greatest group of people in the world next to marines. >> looking forward, 60 years of history behind you but are you most excited about coming into the future

>> anything i say right now is going to get me in trouble with somebody else. [laughter] i think what we are seeing right now is for the first time in a long time increasing budgets. the president's budget request has been strong, congress has been increasing it from there, the president is calling on us to do big things, going back to the moon, creating an architecture that includes commercial and international. there'there is no shortage of eg thing is. as far as the challenges go, we have to be clear about what the commercial industry brings to the table and ultimately what nasa is currently doing. one of the foundational things, one of the fundamental challenges we will face in my

tenure at nasa is should government do this or should the government i get out of the service. on any given issue there is no one right answer. there are capabilities we need to develop capabilities that exist and we need to purchase those in service but i'm very excited about seeing how ultimately all of it develops in a way that enables the united states of america and our international partners to do more than we've ever done because of the new capabilities that are coming online. i think what we have to be really careful with is not allowing it to become political or partisan that this person is for commercial and this person is for traditional. our traditional partners are acting more commercial than probably ever in history and our commercial partners are having to figure out how to meet the

requirements in ways that they never had you figured out before so there is a massive blending that's happening where ultimately they try to figure out what is the right way to acquire the capability that we need right now. and i think it is destructive to the country to try to put one against the other and creepy sites. ocreate these fights. of course i understand the industry is for themselves and that is the part of culture into like that because it makes them compete at the same time making that a reality without turning it into a key is this guy and she is that they. that isn't going to be good for the country's. that would be a challenge going forward but i'm also excited about the fact that if managed correctly, we will be able to do more than we've ever done before as a country and we will be able to do it with all of our international partners. you mentioned israel, they have

a commercial company rates now raising money privately. they are launching in december for a small lander and they are going to be landing in february. that's one of the reasons it was important for me to go to israel. how are you doing this and is there a way to nasa can take advantage of it and bring them on board for the future architecture program. that's just one country. you would have some that have never had space agencies before and now do. united emirates example they have a mission to mars. for a country with 1 million people and 9 million immigrants, that's an amazing capability that they've developed and of course they wan won't give a partnership with the united states. they want an astronaut program. there's no shortage of

opportunities in the future because of what is happening in the transformational capabilities that have come about in the last ten years because of the trail pieced thee gentlemen have blazed into so many others. if managed correctly, the future is exciting for a whole host of capabilities. >> i want to thank all of you for joining us here today. it's been a great discussion. i don't know if we actually got the cake. we heard that there was a process earlier. we will see what he got out therwe've got outthere to celeb. please join me in thanking the administrator and former administrator. [applause]

[inaudible]