hearing on efforts to improve education on science, technology, engineering and math. the mars exploration summit began with opening remarks from nasa administrator charles bolden, he spoke about the importance of humans becoming a multiplanet species and nasa's goal of putting humans on mars in the next two decades. this is 30 minutes. thank you very much, and thanks to all of you for allowing me to be with you this morning and it kind of kick us

off, i hope. i also want to thank explore mars as well as g.w. president steve knapp and scott pace of the g.w. policy institute for bringing us together for the humans to mars summit. let's leave that slide up, i'll talk about it all day long, and at least you can refer to it and you don't have to look at me. with mars making it's closest approach to effort last week and currently appearing as the brightest body in the eastern sky during the month of april, this is an ideal time for this conference, as the red planet draws nearer to earth--sort of as -- i'm surprised she remembered, maybe i'm not surprised she remembered, but we did talk last year about my three grand daughters, the number one granddaughter being 14-year-old mckayla who wants to

be the rocket scientist, who has begun telling me i'm thinking shortsightedly when i talk about going to mars. she talks about going outside the solar system. so i told her, one thing at a time. let's get to mars first. during the next three days, you're going to get an update on nasa's steppingstone approach to mars from some of the leading experts at the agency including ellen stoffen, our associate administrator operations director, and mike gazirik, national technology space admissions director. and i will be learning and listening to all of you as you share your thoughts on the best step forward. while humans have been fascinated with mars since the beginning of time, there are a number of very tangible reasons why we need to learn more about our closest planetary neighbor, for one thing, mars's evolution

and formation are comparable to earth and we know at one time mars had conditions suitable for life. what we learn about the red plant may tell us more about our own home planet's history and future and help us answer the fundamental human question does life exist beyond earth? while nasa has been on a path to mars for decades, with our earlier mars rovers and orbiters, a critical national policy statement in support of our strategy, was on april 15, 2010 during a visit by president obama to the kennedy space center, where he challenged the nation to send humans to ans a destroyed by 2025 and to mars by the 2030s. the national space policy stayed in 2011 further supports those goals and over the past several years, nasa has been developing the capabilities to meet these goals through a bipartisan space exploration plan agreed to by the administration and congress

in the 2010 authorization act and embraced by the international space community in the 2013 global exploration road map. while robotic explorers have explored mars for more than 30 years, nasa's plans for the exploration of mars begins aboard the international space station, our springboard to the exploration of deep space. even as we speak, astronauts aboard the iss are helping us learn how to safety execute extended missions deeper into space. we're guaranteed this unique orbiting outpost for at least another decade by the administration's commitment to extend the iss until 20 in. there means an expanded market for -- microgravity and opportunities to live, work and learn in space over longer periods of time. and as most of you know, we're

working to return both cargo and human launches to the iss to more than soil. the president's 2015 budget supports the administration's commitment that nasa be a catalyst for the growth of a vibrant american commercial space industry. already two american companies are making regular cargo deliveries to the space station. in fact i think most of you know we had an easter sunday delivery of dragon and it has now birthed to the international space station and will be there for a number of weeks. while the russian space agency remains a strong and reliable partner, later this year, nasa intends to select from american companies competing to send astronauts to the station from american soil. if congress fully funds our 2015 request, we believe we can do this by the end of 2017. our next step in deep space, where nasa will send the first mission to capture and redirect

ans ans a destroyed to -- returning to earth with samples. this experience in human space flight beyond the earth orbit will help nasa test new systems and capabilities such as solar electric propulsion. beginning in 2017, nasa's powerful space launch system or sls rocket will enable these proving ground missions to test new capabilities. human missions to mars will rely on orion and an evolved version of the sls that will be the most powerful launch vehicle ever flown. i have made reference several times now to earth and the proving ground and you're here to talk about mars, so just sort of as reference to my chart, since mike's going to use it, bill is going to use it, ellen's probably going to use ill and anybody else that comes from nasa is probably going to use it because we want it indelibly

emblazed in your brain. we fade are earth reliant. we are dependent on being on this planet. yet. i don't know whether buzz is going to talk to you about it later. but buzz and i agree on a number of things and one of them is that only multiplanet species survive for long periods of time. here in the western world, we think very shortsighted and some of you have heard me say this before. we think about the time in which we're going to be on this earth or which our kids or our grandkids are going to be on this earth. many other civilizations think much longer than that. and we need to start thinking that way. we need to remember that we'dep department on a star, the sun is on a star and just like many other stars that we study all the time and many of you who follow the exploits of the hubble telescope get a picture of a star that used to be but is

no longer. one of these days that is going to be the story of our star, the sun. so if this species is to survive indefinitely, we need to become a multiplanet species. one reason we need to go to mars is so that we can learn a little bit about living on another planet, so when mccaylee, my granddaughter is ready to move out of the solar system, we'll know more about this planet than we do today. mars is the steppingstone approach to other solar testimonies and other galaxies that people have always dreamed of but frequently don't talk about. so we're earth reliant right now. and our steppingstone in the earth reliant system is the international space station. i hope i don't need to remind this audience, but i will take advantage of it anyway, because i find that sometimes people don't remember. we have now been on the international space station continuously without interlineupation for almost 14 years, continuously, without

interruption for almost 14 years. everybody's excited right now because of what's going on in the ukraine, although i'm cautious, i'm cautiously optimistic because we went through this when the russians went to georgia and the station continued to operate the way it is now. we continue to operate just as we always have today with cosmos and jacsos, and esa and all of our partners. so the iss continues to move on as our steppingstone to the rest of the coz mows. the proving ground is where we need to go. so we're going to present our case to you over these next three days and hopefully you will pummel us with questions. i'm having trouble with the lights, but i think i may see, michele, are you down there? there's michele on the third row. i know mike was here, but you should pummel us with questions about why we chose this path. there are all kinds of ways we

could go to get to mars. to include those that people espouse, which is just go right now, forget about all this other stuff, just go. we don't think that that's the right idea. so we don't think we can just go, but we need to take a measured approach as we go. so we have chosen an asteroid to be our proving ground. so we can develop the technology to make it the disfans to mars, we can learn how to operate in that environment. because mars and it's moons will probably not be like operating in lower earth orbit. we're accustomed to -- i give them the example of when i was a young snotty-nosed astronaut in camden, and i was one once. and i remember going to the johnson space center for the first time and they said you're going have a class on orbital mechanics and you're going to go over to the simulator and you're going to learn how to rendezvous

and dock, i said piece of cake, i've been rendezvousing for 14 years now, i have been flying for 17,000 hours, all u you got to do is put your nose on the airplane that u you want to rendezvous with and just go. the first time i got in the simulator, the instructors, they didn't push back, they just said okay, another little snotty-nosed quid that thinks he knows everything, we'll just see. so i got in the shuttle mission stimulator and off shuttle to rendezvous with the space station or something and i didn't come within hundreds of miles. and it was because i was flying an airplane in the atmosphere that doesn't have to worry about orbital mechanics or anything of that stuff. and it seemed like the more i fought to get there, the favorite i got away, and then i learned a little bit about orbital mechanics and how you have to do stuff. when we go to mars, we're going to find the same problem, it's not like flying in lower earth

orbit. we already know that, but what we don't know is what is it like flying? we're going to use an approach to an asteroid in luner orbit, to figure out how do we maneuver out there, and we're going to in a steppingstone manner, go out and probably maneuver afternoon the moons of mars and figure out how do we get down to the planet safely with human beings? so that's sort of what we talk about as being the proven grounds in being mars ready. and with some modest increase in nasa's budget over the years, we're going to be able to get to mars by the 2030s, president obama didn't ask us to do anything, he just tells us and we make it happen. a feet of robotic spacecraft are already around mars, dramatically increasing our knowledge about the red planet and paving the way for future

explorers. the mars science laboratory, curiosity, rover, is sending back radiation data from the surface today. this data will help us plan how to proteblg the astronauts. seeking the signs of past live, also will demonstrate new technologies that could help astronauts survive on mars. engineers and scientists around the country are working hard to develop the technologies astronauts will use to one stay live and work on mars and safely return home. this conference is bringing together the best minds to share ideas about the path ahead. it's important to remember that nasa sent humans to the moon by setting a goal that seemed beyond our reach. with mars as our focus, we're steadily building the capability to enable human missions to mars. the challenge is huge, i don't want to fool you, the challenge is huge. if you don't think so, then please listen up as we talk over these next three days.

but we love huge challenges. we're making real progress right now as a radiation monitor on the curiosity rover records the mars radiation environment that our crews will experience. advanced entry, descent and landing technology are ready for entry speed testing high above the waters of the pacific ocean in june. orion ask finishing preparation for a heat shield test in december. we're counting on the support of congress, the scientific community and all of you in this summit to help us realize that goal. the future of space exploration in my estimation the bright, but it will be up to all of us in this assembly to bring the rest of the world along on this great adventure that awaits all humanity. so with that, i'll finish my

formal comments and then, do i have time for questions? can i do that? >> yes, you do. >> great. uh-oh. oh, that's okay. >> welcome to our company. >> that's all right. so i think they told me they have mikes that way and that way. right here. so if you all will come down, i'll try to answer questions that you have. and if i can't answer them, trust me, there are enough people out here in the audience, that i'll let ask and you can answer some of them. and there are two mikes, are you all awake? yeah, come on up. >> my question's not directly about mars, but it's about, you know, human access. >> yeah. >> american human access to space. congress was not especially polite to you last time you had to testify before congress, they wanted a contingency plan about

how can we quickly get american access back to space. space x thinks they can do it by 2015. i think a kosovo contingency plan if we could give them additional funding so that they're not just flying their own crews, but can in fact fly nasa crews. >> if we elected space x as one of the providers, then i would be able to do that. which haven't selected a provider yet. you may know more than i know. i don't know that space x is the best provider. they haven't provided any human rated vehicles yet. but they're in competition, there's a blackout right now so i don't know what they're doing. we're going to select the% potential providers and we'll go with them. they may be ready before 2017, but our goal right now is to be ready by 2017. i told congress a few weeks ago, the contingency plan for rockets

is years away by $10 million. and the american capability to put humans in orbit is $800 million by next year and a few years away, that's better than the contingency plan on rockets. there is no instachbt access to space on american rockets. it just ain't going to happen because we didn't pay attention, you know, years ago. >> i think part of that was congress's fault. >> i'm not going to -- i don't want to get into the position where i'm blaming congress alone. it's been a number of administrations. the decision to do this, okay, and i'm going to help some people here who don't remember history. the decision to tart this path came in 2004, when we lost columbia, the colombia accident investigation board met and gave a report and one of my predecessors, the nasa administrator at the time said i'm going to accept every

recommendation in that report. whether that was wise or not, i don't know. but that was the decision that was made back in 2004. and so we started on this path. and i think we have kind of picked it up. we have picked up the pace at least in the five years that i have been nasa administrator. we only talked about commercial cargo and now we have it. and we had no money that the administration put toward it, not even a proposal. so when the president came in, i think the first time we requested -- and congressman wolf corrected me, the first time in the budget, although we knew we needed a million dollars, the first time in the budget, we asked for $500 million. i don't care what the administration or staffers say $312 is not 500 million. and it's not more than $500 million. so we have never gotten more than what the president asked

for the commercial crew. it's my intent to get down on my hands and kneeings and beg and plead and help them understand that this nation needs our own capability to get humans into space. and we can do it. >> we have no experience whatsoever with gravity, 38% gravity as we have on mars with any biological system much less humans, so in previous conferences, i have heard american folk, european and russian all say we need to put a centrifuge on the space station and do something with mice or something. why don't we see nasa doing that? >> well, because back when the space station was envisioned. and again, i wasn't here, so i'm going to tell you what i heard. although the plan was for a centrifuge to be on the international space station, it fell victim to what things usually fall victim to, the budget. so it just fell out when we looked at how much money was

going to be available for station. but we're looking for alternative ways to do it. if you look at that chart, the proving ground, we're going to be orbiting in -- you know, in sis lunar and transorbital movement. some people will hopefully take an opportunity to drop out of lunar orbit to the surface. we have international partners who are saying we can't do it on our own, but if you can help us, we think we can get to the surface of the moon. we have challenges going on right now, to see if commercial companies or entrepreneurs can put things on the surface of the moon. we are not going to get 4% of the federal budget.

so in this group, if you are serious about wanting to go to mars, then start thinking about reality. and reality is the budget. and we are not going to get 4% of the federal budget to go to mars or any other place. so we're going to have to figure out ingenious ways to do it, based on the present budget plus some modest increases. and i think we can do it. and you all may not agree. but if you feel we have got to have the apollo era funding levels, then forget it right now, don't even spend your time in this conference. because we are not going to get that. people told us we couldn't see commercial cargo. anybody in here who works in nasa will tell you five years ago, people said it won't happen. some of my predecessors said commercial crew and cargo, forget it. i'll give you $500 million and that's all you're getting for

commercial cargo. and we took $500 million and we now have commercial cargo. so we're just saying, you know, we got some smart people too. and we do listen to you. and so that's really what we want to hear in the three days of this conference, is given the budget realities of today, how do we make that happen? and no, we won't have four slss out orbiting, there are pieces of this chart -- truth be told, okay? sometimes even we are not real good at chartsmanship. slss are not going to be flying around mars. i know there's some purists out here who are going, look, he doesn't even know what he's talking about. he's got slss going around mars. they do like most first stages and second stages and all that, they end up in the ocean somewhere. we do know that, so don't -- humor me. question?

please come -- don't let him talk all this time, just come right up. >> yes, sir, two questions actually. >> okay. >> question one, what do you say to the public when they say that nasa is dead. that's question one, after the space shuttle, that's a popular perception. and question two, please speak to education of k-20 and what you guys are going to do to help get your message out to kids. >> when people talk about nasa being dead, i say i wish i could agree with you, but we're still working really hard keeping curiosity going all the over the lunar surface, we have orbiters that are orbiting mars right now, giving us data, we've got juneau on the way to jupiter. we have got plult toe -- new horizons on the way to pluto. we already put messages around mercury, we had never done that before. we're working with our international partners, there are 15 nations contributing monetarily to life on the international space station, we

now have commercial cargo that's going back and forth to the international space station, we have three companies in serious competition to carry crew to the international space station, we hope to make an announcement, sometime end of the summer, early fall. if that's dead, so be it. i can't -- i can't help, you know, you understand. i'm a shuttle person. i love shuttles. it was time for shuttle to go w and it was time for shuttle to go long before we phase it it out. because shuttle was not -- and i know there's some shuttle people in here. i talk to bob thompson all the time. i spent a saturday with him not very long ago down in houston over beer, you know--he helping me understand why if i had just kept shuttle going, we could have used shuttle to get to mars. that's true. we could have. you know, if we had on object fuel depots and the commercial companies were flying rockets the way that they will do

someday, we could have done that a so those of you who are shuttle fans who still think it should be around, i'm not going to argue that point. like i said, there are 1,000 different ways to do what we want to do. as a marine, i was taught as a second lieutenant. lieutenant, make a decision, because if you don't, the troops are not going to follow you anywhere and they're going to leaf you at the start line. to they'll tell you their mission is over when they come back and talk about it. we made a decision, some people in this room don't like it, but we're on our way, and you can either go with us or figure out how to start all over again, and everybody in this room i think knows what happened when you start all over again. we're favorite down this road than we have been in a long, long, long, long time. if you don't want to admit that, i can't help you. but if you stop and think about it, we never had a commercial capability to get anything to space the way we're doing today.

we're oh, so close to having a commercial capability to get crews to space. and nasa is finally freed up to work with all of you to do exploration, which is what everybody in this auditorium, i hope, came here to talk about. so, you know, get over it. to be blunt. this is the path we have chosen. help us get it right. i mean we can tweak it along the way, everybody knows that, if you don't start down a road, you know, and figure out, okay, we took a wrong turn, how do you ever get to the destination? we can tweak this, i can't tweak just constant ideas with nothing. we now have hardware under construction, we can do this. but i need your help. question here? >> excuse me. >> okay, that's all right. one more. >> okay. >>. michele will answer them when she gets up and bill will answer too. >> i would like to put a bug in your ear, there's an example, of

gravity, that could operate on space station which has been sitting in the wings for probably a decade. have yourself or your mignons reexamined the mars gravity biosatellite? it was a joint task between georgia tech and m.i.t. years ago, it sits in moth balls, can been flown on small boosters, it's a century fujs full of mice, female mice as a matter of fact. >> is that important? >> well, it is for the statistics of the biophysics. it can be marked outside the space station, you don't have to add the centrifuge of the space station, spin it up and take it o out. the other question -- >> that wasn't a question, that was a statement. >> the question is, have you considered it. >> i didn't know got it but i will go back and look.

>> mars, gravity biosatellite. and second question, is it automatically crazy to imagine more money? we have spent monotonicly les on the geo sciences and now we're down to more than two in the budgets that we spent to become great in the world. there's no reason i can see why we should not redress that grievance, although obviously it's an uphill battle. >> no, i don't -- >> why not go for the big money? >> well, we're going for the biggest money we think we can logically go for right now. but i just think it's unrealistic to assume that this congress and any future congress is going to jump to 4% of gdp. i just don't think -- >> 1%. >> we may get to 1%. now 1% is -- 1% would be like a gold mine.

>> indeed. >> and i'm not saying -- i'm just -- i said a modest increase, but we have to be able to demonstrate that we can do what we said we can do. commercial cargo was a first step. people said it couldn't be done, we have done that. we have got to get a commercial crew and we have got to demonstrate that can do it consistently. step by step, otherwise people are just not going to support us. >> thank you all very much. i really appreciate it. thank you. more now from the mars exploration summit with sr. officials talking about nasa's budget challenges. the discussions moderated by science reporter miles o'brien, it's 50 minutes. all right, thank you very much, michael. so, gentlemen, let's get this

straight. because what michael lays out there is a lot of technological challenges that requires about six to eight eureka moments that if you're keeping score. can we go to mars today in a perfect world if we had a blank check, could we go today? or is it impossible right now? >> i don't think it's impossible, but we clearly need to work on things we have talked about. it's not just going to mars, but actually landing on the surface. i thi . >> one look at it, with apollo 13, with the event that it had. we had to keep the crew alive for 84 hours. so we had life support systems, if you're going to go to mars that have to work for months, possibly over a year, depending on how long it takes you to get there and how long you stay. it's going to take some time to

get a reliable system in place. we can land a metric ton on the surface of mars, that's all we know how to do. that's about the size of a mini cooper car. if we're going to explore mars, it needs to be something bigger than that. there are challenges that we have, we know what the challenges are, but it will take some time to get those technologies ready. >> do you have a sense of how many breakthroughs you meneed t get there? >> we ought to talk about it a little bit. i'm not sure they're breakthroughs in a sense. if we can build on what we know now today, and just expangd it. for example life support, we have life support on the station, it works pretty well, it's 85% closed loop. but we need to push it to where it's more reliable, doesn't require more maintenance, we need to look at the ability to print parts. i don't consider those necessarily big breakthroughs, but we have got to get comfortable that this technology

is at the maturity level where you're going to use it for this mission where it absolutely, positively has to work. that's where i see the challenges. >> and i think the states are going to allow us to do that, the proving ground that charlie and bill had mentioned, that's the key, we have to take systems from days or months or weeks and turn it into longer durations and we need the time and capability to do that a. >> is there something you want to add there? >> i think we have to make sure that every piece of technology we work on that it's extensable to mars, does it really extend to mars and can we use nit that vision? i don't want to do the demonstrations just for demonstrations takes, i want to be putting systems together that we can actually use for mars. in the robotic spacecraft, i have given that to the team for the design condition, that is the basically architecture that you will use to transport cargo to the visibility of mars.

so now we're looking at missions built on using that as a key piece. so orion and sls, we know what capabilities they have -- so we're doing the next life support system for the station, it will be the life support system that we plan to put -- it's not a demonstration, let's test this see how it works, nope, we're actually going to take those systems to space and see how they work. >> what do you think about after you work on problems, it can change of course. but right now what's the hardest problem, is it radiation exposure or something snels. >> i think radiation exposure needs some understanding. there's not much we can do unless we fut some kind of magnet it shielding in there. we went to the institute of med sing, we asked them to take a look at our current standards for radiation limits on astronauts, we said could we

potentially push those limits a little bit. is it ethically acceptable to change those limits that we use for mortality could we change those and alter those and they gave us some considerations to talk got that, so we're pushing not only the technology that help protect the human, but also looking at the requirements we have and are they realistic requirements or is today's medical environment allowed us to do things differently? >> the restrictions themselves, they might be good restrictive, and astronauts might accept that risk? >> yes, and we have got now basic guidelines from the institute of medicine of what considerations go into that discussion. >> that solves a lot of problems if you chain the runge the rule that. >> we're not totally changing the rules, but we have got the frame work, the point ask we're not looking at a single solution or a single break through, we're looking at a solution to a problem that gets us to where we

want to go. >> lths talk about iss for a minute. iss is a proving ground. a lot of people would say militarily, iss as a drain on the budget is a problem. does iss give you more than it takes? >> i believe it does. . it forces you to make decisions right up front. if we make that exploration life support system. i have got a test that i could never test. we could test on the ground and what we learned on the space station, we thought we had the greatest carbon dioxide system in the world. what we found out when we get it into space, -- the tigon tubing is permeable to carbon dioxide, it goes into the water system and creates a knew tree yenlt rich atmosphere for bacteria. and we tested extensively under ground and we saw none of those

problems. going to the microgram environment of the space, that tease itted out and pushed those problems, so i think station can give you that chance to really dry unand test that equipment in orbit. but you don't use station as and an ancillary or piece, you pick pieces that are absolutely necessary and you use the unique advantage of the station to do that and some things are better tested on the ground. so you make a smart decision of what yaw want to do, the most cost efficient way to keep moving towards mars. >> if you didn't the station up there, would you be looking for some capability or something like that. >> you would be using considerable resources to get to the station. don't forget the transportation angle as well. we have the means to get to space to demonstrate capabilities. we have a research platform that already has propulsion. what we found in some of our space tech glen stragss is to focus on the technology and try

to leverage what else is out there. we're focusing time and time again for the same kind of basic needs. >> i think another piece on station the one year implementation we're going to do with our crew on 2016. we're very experienced looking out to six months, we don't see anything problematic out beyond six months, even though it still is one data point, it's one data point. we have looked at it before, the russians have flown several year-long missions. but i think it's time we now look at it with the tools we have got today to see if there's anything 23489 human testimony that changes over that skix-month period, if there's something that's continuing to degrade. >> so how important is it to simulate a mars mission in lower earth orbit that way and how close do you have to make it to a real mars mission to be of value?

do you build a communication delay, do you block the windows so they don't have to look at earth? >> we have talked about that, we do some things now, we're doing a lot of procedures now on board station that are autonomous, where the crews actually do the experiment without any ground involvement in it. the time delay doesn't allow the ground team to interact with the cry. so we're doing those. we have talked about takes away the windows and taking away communication time. >> i bet the astronauts love that. >> they don't like that. >> so what's interesting, they say to go to mars, they're willing to put up with all these stressors in they have life, right, but just to go it for fun, as a test mission, they're not so keen about that. so that's an interesting human dynamic already. it's almost, with the marathon yesterday, how many marathons do you have to run before you're really ready too go the a marathon, or are you good enough to run 10 mile ors 18 miles and then you're ready to go do ask

marathon. so i think the trick with mars is to not do so much. we will not reduce all the risk to zero, but to reduce the risk to a low enough level that we're ready to give this a shot, but it will not be risk free on that first mission. >> among your challenges, i can see the psychological issues as one of the issues. i mean, the mars 500 experience and what they have done, they have tried to delve into this. but there's some big challenges there. >> i think that we have got some good studies, again on the behavioral aspect. the dimension is really different. if you look at our crews on station, they spend a lot of time looking at the home planet and taking pictures. from's a real tie between the human and where you are. but then when that plaechbt, we have got pictures of the rover taking picture of the earth, and the earth is one star among many. that's a different psychological push.

but i think that's important too in the way we talk about this, we talk about moving humans into deep space. i'm trying to change the discussion a little bit. we talk about it as exploration, when i think about exploration, i think about going, investigating and then coming back, i think we need to talk abouting in terms of maybe pioneering, where we're actually going to potentially stay. and that really starts to changing the dine familiaricses, so the investment in mars is so much, we don't want to do this as a one-time mission, we actually want to have the infrasfrur there and think about this as moving human presence off of the earth and moving into the solar system. >> i think building the capabilities that are extensable as which go to mars. >> i always think about history, being a history major, and you think about the voyages of magellan or captain took, frankly somebody going to mars is going to have more contact with earth or the home port if you will, so use the analogy thash some of those slow it

yajers. do you use those historical parallels as you inform your decisions about how to handle this? >> i think, again, historically what we ought to discuss a little bit, the difference is when you do terrestrial big voyages, you still have oxygen to breathe, you still have water to drink, you could bring some food, when you got to where you were going, you could actually grow plants. when we start becoming, in the chart i say mars ready for earth independent. when we start breaking that tie back to the planet, that's a different dimension, you have to carry with you or you have to have enough assurance that you can use the carbon dioxide vooirmtd -- i you're going have to prove that some of those things are there. terrestrial exploration was a little different because it wasn't quite the level of what we're doing here, where we're essentially putting the human in an swrooirmt where it cannot

live on its own and we have toer carry with it enough to keep the human alive and functioning. >> questions, feel free to come to the microphone so we'll include your questions in this conversation. how much of the ability to live off the martian land do we have to prove before we put people on the surface? >> there's been a number of studies that show if you can do institute resource utilization, that is get your water, if you can get oxygen, you can get water, you can get fuel, you can get air to breathe, that show the amount of mass, it really becomes a mass problem, how much do you have to take with you, and how much can you rely on when you get there. i think one could argue, if you're going to rereely on a system, you would want it to be there ahead of time. you would want to be able to store the oxygen so you know it's there. that would be the most prunlt step to go do. we are taking the firls step here in 2020. >> that would be multiple

landings, where these autonomous vehicles would at least prove it, if not create a store. >> one advantage we have to compare to historically, we can send scouts out ahead of time that the early explorers didn't have that capability. but as bill points out, the environment is so harsh and so extreme. >> when you put those scout vehicles there, they ought to be generating resources that you can use when the crew mission follows. in this constrained environment, we have got to make sure that everything we do is extensable to the next step, let's not just do a demonstration of a little bit of oxygen right out of the martian atmosphere, if i want to build o si general, i want to -- >> as you paint that picture, and i think aye have done a nice job kind of pulling together a lot of these december par rat elements in a way that proo vids a cohesive narrative and i hope that plays well on capitol hill as you try to sell this program. and what's interesting about it,

it's kind of like, we all think of success in space as apollo, there was a deadline, a commitment, there was a cold war, all these things lined up. and we perceived that as the way to go to space. if you don't set a date and go and be there by then, that's a failure. this is a little bit more like, it seems to me, building the interstate system. there's a sense of let's build some infrastructure out there and it doesn't have the same headline capability if you will that the space race had. but what it offers is sustainability. and i guess, it's a long way of me saying this is a nuance story, but how can we convey that story to people who are less dialed into what nasa is doing right now. or is that my job. >> that's your job. >> okay. >> but i would say, i tell you, isles all of our job. we need to look at what we're doing today and then describe it

in a way that really makes sense. we just flew up on space x, we flew up vegetation, which is going to grow some plants in space, we brought a bunch of plants before. this is the first time we are actually agreeing plants for the crew to eat. this is not for a science experience, to see how a plant l grow in microgravity, this is actually food for the crew to augment their dpit. so this is the beginning of starting to push us off of the earth into space to go do things. it's a small thing, but we all the to be talking about it. >> isles a big thing, if you can 3-d print a pizza, they'll be really happy. >> we're working on it. >> but 3-d pizzas are tough to chew. >> i think you really did hit the nail on the head in terms of -- i mean, i get the excitement too, i want to get one mission, create a mission patch, but i don't know if we have the luxury of doing that

rights now with budgets and forecast and where we are. but we still can get there and we got to take the successes and the steps along the way, whether it's growing plants, solar propulsion, whether eva suits, better landing systems, we're going to be moving the needle forward and we're going to have to paint it in the right context, with as few power points as we k. >> you did have one try, but one of those tries was like five in one. you know, you get the sense that if you talk about it long enough, maybe it could become a reality. but we do have the fundamental issue of dollars and cents here, so if you take that vision, that narrative, and you jive it with what the money is right now, what -- when do we get to mars? you know, as somebody said last night, you know, it will be 20 to 30 years, but we have been

saying that for 20 to to years, so if you do the math on that, i don't think we'll ever get there. how do you reconcile that vision with what congress and what the american people have put on the table for nasa? >> you know, i think again the way i kind of lay it out, we can not do it at the same budget level we are at today. this is just not going to work. and the current budget has a 1% increase, we're going to need more than that a i thits it's a moderate increase, but we need to show congress, if we get this funding, here's the -- this piece actually fits into the mars capability puz lt this way and if we make that, maybe we can continue to break that paradime and get some additional funding to put forward. we also need to look very hard at what we can do internationally. our international partners are very interested in doing this

activity, can we leverage off of their work and also the private sector, there's a lot there with cargo and crew going to station, but can we extend that into the exploration domain and kind of extend that into the industry. >> one thing that bill had in hiss charts, one thing that is a little bit different than perhaps in the past yorks u ski the mission director, the core of working together. we have work that's going to mars on a size mission director, that feeding forward into what we're going to do for explore ration. the work we're doing for the big elson kur hers, working together feed sbogs those -- on our side, this is kind of the down and dirty of it, we're trying to work with other partners, other government agencies on the technology that will feed into it. it's going to be a story to tell, but we can work on the technology pieces and leverage other investments. that's the key. >> it's going to be hard, and at

first charge, it all looks good when we're all working together. but to do that, you're giving up control. i'm going to be doing more than a science director would like to do on mars. i would like to take a larger vehicle to mars, i would like to probably video more capability than a science mission needs. but if we do two separate missions, the cost of that is some larger number, but if we can integrate those two together and i don't get the perfect human mission, and the science director doesn't getsystem, tha how we win. so, we've got to figure out a way we don't look at it from each one of our little stove pipes but we look at a way hoe listically we can work together to go do is this. thechallenge is big enough. it's got to be the hole of the agency pulling together and really whole of the international community pulling together as well. >> i would think getting to mars would be easier than getting the

nasa-aa's to work together? >> i don't know about that. >> you're not going to go there? >> i'm not going there. >> we'll get a question in here. say who you are, please. >> yes. thanks. steve brody from isu, international space university. you know, throughout my time at nasa and i'm sure yours as well, there's occasional wild cards that help you along and sometimes present additional challenges. one thing i'm thinking about is the infusion and/or offer of significant private resources from some individuals of very deep pockets. we've had now the very real win/win with the commercial cargo and hopefully that will continue with the commercial crew, but how do you see -- do you see any other either through conversations you've already had or sense what's out there any

major contributory contributions from either individuals, companies or whatever that will really, you know, get that synergistic principle and give you more than what you got now for the program ahead? >> mike, do you have anything? i would say again just think -- we need to definitely look at this. we see a lot of folks working on engine technology, which is interesting to me. there's some folks, space just signed a space act agreement to look at locksmith engine work down an stenis. jeff has been looking at some engine work. where as typically that's been the domain of the government to work on some of these new engine capabilities, some of that is -- we need to watch for those pieces and move forward. we did some interesting things on space station, that's the system that takes carbon die ox

side that comes off of the electrolysis of water to make oxygen. it creates methane as a waste gas. we didn't pay for any of the development, we agreed to pay for the water that was generated by the device. we went to industry and said, hey, we're going to pay you $10,000 roughly per pound for water generated on station, if you generate any water, you don't get any pay. if you generate water, you'll get paid at this amount for this period of time. they were able to do all the development up front for that system and it's been working all well on board station. are there other models where we can leverage off of the private sector and find things that they want that actually benefit us? we've got to continue to look at that and just don't assume that it has to be always the government doing these activities. >> the other thing i would add from a technology standpoint a similar story. wen we see interest in high

power propulsion not only for a cargo tug, bewe see it interest in the commercial spacecraft industry. interest is good, can we leverage that interest? we think we can. that has incredible benefits not only for the next generation but also for other government agencies that we won't speak about here but also has interest in the cable operators and cable satellites. we think we can leverage that. >> what's the right mix? can we get to mars leveraging private industry ingenuity? to what extent do you have to go to business and say, hey, we have a need and to what extent are they come to you? >> the answer is yes. optical com. so lar edge propulsion, yes,

there are some comalty. other areas, not. >> hard to sell that to an auto maker, right? >> i would say in lower earth orb it, i don't envision another space station. i see the private sector picking up the next generation of space station in lower earth orbit. they will do that generate commercial products that they learned. i see our space station today as a chance for them to experiment with what might be helpful in the pharmaceutical world and the drug world in the biological world and materials world that they can see, hey, there's something here that the micro gravity environment gives me a different insight. i would like have a research facility in space to do that. we've enabled transportation through cargo and crew. they can work with companies that are talking about building some laboratories in space and maybe a single purpose

laboratory now as a research environment. that's creating essentially now a private sector infrastructure we can use and we don't have to replicate any of that in any of your future plans. i'm hoping that we use station to be that next piece in this extension of station after 2024 gives us a fighting chance to expose a broader community beyond ÷dq@aerospace. >> having another ten years of station, that was a significant -- >> it was huge. >> thing. it was a huge thing, i think. and is it enough time for you? i mean, you're talking a pretty long time frame for what you want to accomplish here. ten years from now, you don't have a station, would you be wishing you had it there? do you use what you can? >> i'll use what i can. i think the big thing is it really changed the environment for the commercial sector. when we say the station was going to end in 2020 i couldn't get any commercial company to think of space. the focus was too short. the stability wasn't there. but just that change of four

more years from 2020 to 2024 has really changed the commercial sector's perception of what space is and how they can use space and the fact that we're doing the cargo, flights we are. they can take cargo up. we will eventually have crew. they are saying, this isn't such a foreign environment to us. we're willing to go invest. i think when that -- going back to the question was asked here, when that tipping point kind of changes, where now private sector doesn't see this as something that's so risky that only government kgs do, they see a way of turning profit or using lower earth orbit in space. then you see a much broader space to build the things we need to go forward. >> it was hard to gain the confidence of the academic world after all that happened in the end of the science space programs that were cut dramatically. >> they're skeptical and we're slowly getting it back. it's the stability thing.

talked about before being sustainable anl building plans and processes that can take the storms that come when we have a sequester that comes and whole program doesn't fall apart and don't get a revector to start all over again, if we have a plan of making measured, sustainable progress, i think that's how we ultimately get to mars. >> we have a question over here. >> thank you. i'm chris from george washington university. my question has to do with the slide that's been shown twice now regarding the proven ground missions and those are beyond low earth orbit. it said 1 to 12 months. i'm interesting primarily from the buy medical challenges side of things. is there currently a plan in place for a proven ground mission in six to 12 months and if so, what does that plan entail? >> we're thinking about again the space in the vicinity around the moon, we're looking at potentially a crew-tended capability there happenation module. i don't see that as a moon habitation module, per se that

the crew-tended but that would be the one we potentially use on a mars/class mission. we take this life support system that we worked on the space station and put it into a crew it have tended space station and stick it around the moon that enables a lot of lunar activity and lot of interest in the international community about doing lunar activities. you can get nice view times of the south pole and north pole of the moon. do a lot of telerobotic things. you can do that from this crew-tended facility in deep space. the other thing that if you think about it is we talked about maybe prepositioning hardware around mars. so you'll launch a component with a life-support system. spends a year journey to get out there, now it's into martian environment and doesn't get activated for another year.

sometimes our systems are not so good it issing around. this proving ground lets us put a laboratory around the moon and revisit it every couple months, actually looks how we shut that system down and reactivate it. it is actually again being judged by how it helps us get ready for mars. >> if you had your druthers, again, in a perfect world with unlimited money, would it help you to land on the moon? or would it be a detour that just would kind of suck resources, time, whatever? >> well, the challenge there of course it doesn't have much of an atmosphere, that entry decent landing piece doesn't play out the lunar landing would be chemical, so i'm not sure -- >> from that aspect any way -- >> as the president said, been there, done that? is that the way you look at it? >> i would say not quite so much but in charlie's talk, somebody asked him about partial gravity and that's the advantage you get of the moon. by being on the surface of the moon, you get to the see human body on a partial gravity

environment. >> can you interpolate to mars? >> we cancelled the large center future space station. we can look at things kind of cellular level, the small plant level. that will give us some indication of is there a problem in this intermediate gravity level. i don't think it's worth the expense right now going to the moon to get that partial gravity condition. i believe we can get that with station unless this research on station points to us saying some huge problem where partial gravity is a consideration that we would have to deal with. >> the other thing i would offer, you can imagine capabilities and learning to live on the surface and tell robotic. there's private partnerships and private organizations that are interested in the moon. there are ways we can partner and very smart way to go do that. >> another piece is being in this proven-ground region, our international partners really want to go to the surface of the moon, great. let them go do that or

commercial industry sees the advantage of using lunar materials for certain activities, that's fine. we'll go support that. then our focus is going beyond. again, we don't have to do anything for everythings but we should be aware of the environment we're in and then leverage off of the other activities that are being done that help us get the goal of where we're heading towards mars. >> should we figure out a way to partner with the chinese? >> i think the chinese will be a key player somewhere in this situation, so i can't manage at some point we don't work with the chinese. >> should we partner with the chinese? >> i can't answer that. >> how about you? >> still continue to sit on this stage. i'll be teleported to mars if i offer any real questions. >> my name is greg cecil and i'm a former space shuttle worker and now a middle school science teacher down in florida. my question is that con stalation was set up by the bush administration to take us to the moon and mars and beyond.

unfortunately when the new administration came in that was cancelled. my greatest fear is that now that you have an idea of what you want to do and you have a road map set up with sls, if we have a new administration come in to power in 2016/2017, will we have everything scratched again and starting from base zero? has nasa considered that and worried about that? >> i would say, yes. we're really working as fast as we can on both o ryan and sls. you'll get to see an o ryan test that's specially 80% of the software will fly on class missions around the moon. that's a big plus. the actual first dome for the expiration mission one in 2017 is manufactured down in new orleans. we're putting in a large machine that will start building the tanks down there. we're working on the expiration

upper stage for mars class missions. so i think by the time we get into 2016 i'm going to have significant hardware, in fact, they do today that you can go out and touch and see. it's not mission destination specific. what we're doing by going to lunar space, somebody decides we want to revehicler and do some lunar activities we can do that. but it's also focussed towards mars. we're trying to stay kind of destination independent but more capability driven and try to make that point to the next group that comes in with an idea, okay, we understand what you would like go to, how you put your fingerprint on this vision, we create enough flexibility in the vision that we can change the vision a little bit but we don't lose the ultimate goal of where we're going. the sustainability is absolutely critical. >> how much metal do you have to bend, how much congressionally linked jobs do you have to have before you you have enough inertia for a program that it sustains itself? what does it take? >> if i could answer that, i

would have a ph.d.. >> there's your thesis right there. >> there's my thesis. >> i have one. i can't answer that either. >> why can't we do space. >> we also do ourselves a big disservice, right? because we kind of argue with ourselves about the perfect plan. right? at some point that's not helping us. >> the enemy of the good. >> the problem is that the outside world sees these supposed smart people all arguing so there must be something that isn't right and then they go, well, we don't want to go do that. we have to make sure we don't get so caught up in trying to find the absolute perfect plan that meets everything that is -- that doesn't sustain itself. so can we all as a community get together and recognize that, hey, sustainability is important. >> right. question over here. >> hi. harry finger, going back to the origin of nasa and its predecessor, in fact, and also

as head of the joint office of nasa and the atomic energy commission where we develop the nuclear thermal rocket propulsion and in 1970 we were ready to really move forward talking about human mars missions. i heard no word of the thermal propulsion at all here and i haven't heard of it in anything. we really had it. president nixon killed that program and several ores in the space program. we were really ready to move forward with a mars mission at that time. we're talking now over 40 years later. what consideration has been given to nuclear thermal rocket propulsion that we already had

developed then and could move on at high thrust. you mentioned nuclear electric but it's a low-thrust system that takes longer for mission. >> yeah. well, i think we're still living on the shoulders of giants and you're one of those giants because many of the technologies and capabilities we have were either proven out including some of the work -- every time we come up with a new system entry/set landing, i ask, it was done in the '60s. yeah, here is the test data in the '60s. it's all been done. it's all been done. so nuclear thermal i agree with, it was really push forward in a significant way in the '70s. i think all -- most of the trade studies that we see to go to mars, including the ones that we have in space tech say that nuclear thermal is probably the best means we have to get there as quick as we can. and as quick as we can, you know, helps with the crew, helps with radiation.

so it is a question of investment, priority and when do you invest and how much do you invest and when do you do it? we have modest investments right now in nuclear thermal. they're in bill's -- we kind of tried to make sure we're not overlapping, right? there's modest investments there to keep the system alive and when we can get the right budget and the right time, many would argue that's the way to go. >> i think it was unfortunate calling it a puck she ma engine, though, wasn't that a bad idea? >> frankly, i just don't

more in i would appreciate it. go ahead, sir. >> you are coming a long way and some of the answers i've seen with bill and you i've been very good they're music to my ears as far as working with the private sector, but there's still this learning that needs to occur, maybe even not so much at nasa but over on the hill and the staffers and the people there as to the fact that the private sector not just commercial but the private sector is going to be maybe starting slow but they'll be going faster and faster and faster. there will be times where you get ahead of you. you can see some of these billionaires pool together and do a mars mission, it might go faster. wouldn't it be a good idea to have sort of an annual at least reswru in nasa and the leaders in the private sectors sit down and talk about and maybe coordinate these things because it's going to happen. it's going to get faster and faster and faster.

you might land there second. >> i mean, that sounds like a reasonable thing we should think about -- >> hard to think of something wrong with that. >> again, back to the other discussions, we've got to make sure we're not just talking to ourselves all the time, right? to your point, we need to go look and maybe we need to talk about these things to a broader community, expose them to what we can do and also have them tell us what they can do. private sector can clearly take more risk. they have significant investment funds. where would they like to go, what are they interested in? it might be nice to expand that human to mars workshop to include a broader community. >> if you get there second, you still need to make it look like a victory. right? >> all right. do this quickly. quick question, please. >> yes. excellent point from the gentlemen who brought up the alternative of nuclear thermal propulsion. i have a related question.

why is there so much of a focus on solar electric propulsion? >> the focus on solar electric couple fold, right? one, the retrieval mission, the next mission to the proving ground where we can go operate in deep space, it has the capability and most efficient form of transportation out there in space. we think about transportation on earth, we have tugs, we have barges, we have fast vehicles and slow. sep is extremely efficient. we think it's ready for the next step. we can leverage the interest in industry. it's good for multiple purposes. it's the next one we can push over the needle. it's not only us. look at the national research council, high priority go to high power sep. look at most of the trade studies, it enables exploration. >> a big piece is what mike was pulling on it. it has more applications to just to nasa and our mission. to get high power solar rays is important to the satellite industry. they would very much like to

have those. they will be pushing this technology so it's us and them pushing. it's not just nasa pushing this for our own needs. the higher powered thrusters to replace motors on communication satellites, commercial industry is interested in that piece. this is a way we can leverage off of what commercial is already doing and moving forward and then nuclear thermal propulsion area it's pretty much us along pushing. there isn't quite yet another private sector for that class of rocket. we need to keep investing in the technology and take the work that was done back in the '60s and take it to that next step. we know a lot more about control systems. computers are much more sophisticated. we can take some of that and move it forward at the right pace and then expose that. but i think our focus really is on along the lines of sustainability. this is something that isn't uniquely needed for us. it can be shared with a broader group. >> that's the key aspect of where we are today.

this is again not trying to do it all ourselves and trying to be smart about it. and, you know, one of the challenges for nuclear thermal is the ability to store liquid hydro general. that's one of the k keys to it. we're working that now. we're trying to take the common pieces and threads and do it today. >> i have several questions but we have a break coming up and people can be thinking about them. in relation to doing things in the past and then kind of putting them on the shelf, it reminds me of the hl-20. it was part of a program and it was put on the shelf and jim benson bought it and now mark is

doing it again. i'm just wondering if inflatables is a trans-hab is a program. now it's back in another program developed by las vegas bigelow. just several days ago, we had a giant thinker leave us, john hubolt and he was a great role model for me and i hope that some of the thoughts that i come up with can in some way mimic what he's been able to do. at the moon, we had a free return trajectory and we modified that once the sps was working we were always in a relatively close lunar earth

orbit. and apollo 13 indicated that we could probably come back. i don't believe we have that capability in the trans-mars injection with a fly-by free return that is an acceptable solution nor do we have a rescue ability. why don't we do like many other industries do instead of one, big large thing that could fail, why don't we have two small things like fighter airplanes they fly in formation, if one can't do the job, the other one can. sure you could do them but leave staging orbit five mile formation difference or ten mile and now -- wait a minute. don't be so stupid, why don't you put them together in the staging orbit and have them fly out, now you can jetson the one that fails and continue to do the job if you have two crew

modules. on the subject of crew modules, can o' ryan aerobreak into mars' orbit. does it have the capability of doing that? when i look at what i need at mars, i need landers and landers are capable of aerobraking and transporting people from one position to another to bringing back people. i don't know who is here from lockheed, but i have to ask the question, why do we need o' ryan in mars' orbit? i really don't believe that that's the case. i may have had another question. well, i guess we did have the idea of wanting to have a launch

vehicle and then a larger habitat. once we have the larger habitat, we can put the people in the launch vehicle, why can't we put them into the large vehicle in a landing vehicle just as well as an o'ryan? let me leave it at that. >> i suppose yes or no is not an option. >> first of all, on expandable, we'll look at that on space station with beam in 2015. we'll go look at expandable technology to see what advantages that gives to us. so we'll get a chance to see its reported to have better thermal conditions. also the larger volume allows you to put water in for shielding for radiation which would be a good thing. we'll get some real world experience with expandables on board station. so buzz's point, we're looking

at we call it now evolvable and a modular architecture for mars. so it's along the lines of what buzz is talking about, maybe multiple habitation modules we may preposition the habitation module around mars someplace ahead of time than we do the rendezvous with that module and that's your return vehicle. you may preposition your return vehicle at mars and then come back. so instead of looking at a single mission, we're looking at we call it evolvable where it can -- we build positions, we position pieces up front and call it modular. we're starting to look at those things. can we take advantage of these natural satellites around mars and use those as in the mars architecture and use a piece of those for what we're trying to go do? we're looking a lot at high lipt

kal earthorbbit. we're starting to take a different approach towards mars than we did before. our classic missions were more apollo style in a way. we launched everything in a campaign within a year and sent the spacecraft that you saw in the view graphs towards mars. i think we're going to do that maybe over a period of time over a period of years and build more of an evolvable piece. so we need all of us to start thinking maybe in a different way. so it's not a single mission but it really is this pioneering aspect or how do we move human presence in. once that mental change starts making and you're looking at it for the long term then you invest in some things that might take actually longer to go do but they may be more sustainable. we're looking at many of these things that buzz talked about. >> last word, mike? >> i think well said. if you look at we're getting to mars, we'll get there in a sustainable, affordable way and we know the technology is important and that's why we have the investments we have under way and again you'll see us

continue to make those investments over these next 18 months in a number of key areas. >> gentlemen, thank you very much. great talk. enjoyed speaking with you. thanks for your attention. we'll have more from that summit in just a few moments. first, some live coverage to tell you about on the c-span networks. at 8:25 a.m. eastern, jeffrey zients will talk about the economy and jobs. that's live on cspan 2. here on c-span3, we have a day-long conference with the discussion on underrepresentation of hispanics in media, government and other sectors. that's live at 8:45 a.m. eastern. later in the day, house judiciary committee chair robert goodlatte will talk about presidential powers. that's live at 5:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.

our campaign 2014 debate coverage continues. texas governor's debate between wendy davis and greg abbott. wednesday night at 8:00 p.m. on c-span, live coverage of the minnesota governor's debate between incumbent democrat mark dayton and jeff johnson and hannah nicollet. thursday night at 8:00 p.m. on cspan, live coverage of the oklahoma governor's debate between joe dorman and mary fallin. also on c-span 2, the nebraska governor's debate between democrat chuck hassebrook and pete rickets. between john lewis and ryan zinke. c-span campaign 2014, more than 100 debates for the control of

congress. now we go back to the george washington university forrum on mars exploration. this portion includes nasa chief scientist jame garvin. he spoke about the robotic missions taking place on mars and what they've revealed about the planet. this is 35 minutes. [ applause ]. >> thanks. thank you very much. can everyone hear me? thank you very much. i want to take you on a tour really kind of like the ice lan dick sagas of what the science discoveries from mars especially in the last 14 years of our program of exploration known as the mars exploration program which is implemented at our jet propulsion lab has given us. i would like to leave you a thought that the science discoveries that i hope to convince you are real, they come from a large community of scientists across universities, nasa centers and private

industry are really the impetus for human exploration of this planet. and many of us have been working these missions all the way back to viking, believe this. i hope i can give you that sense. i want to remind you of where we are. we are a long way today from mars, even though we're in a very close approach geometry right now. very good for telecommunication. it's really, really striking that mars is not our mother earth. it's a profoundly different world. it does not read our textbooks. in fact, the mode we're in today for mars scientifically is one of rapid massive discovery. our ideas are changing with a large community of scientists working with missions like curiosity, mars reconnaissance orb tor, the landscape is changing. we don't totally know what we have. that's important as we look forward to the era of human exploration. in fact, mars is an ever-changing frontier. we're just realizing the

questions we have to ask to allow us as that situational awareness. this is just a view we see of where we're going with curiosity over the next 100s of souls literally as we drive everyday, we see elements of the new mars. so le me paint that picture for you by reminding you that science organizes itself in different ways. for the last almost 20 years, we've looked at mars science thematically, through four primary themes. obviously we would like to know whether we're alone in this universe, this is a profound question that goes back farther than we can record in history. but getting at the question of life, active biological systems, were there ever there, could they be there? it took humanity a long time on earth to understand the past history on our planet.

that was a joke. so to get at the question of life, we need to look through the record books, recording elements of climate change, change of environment, the rock record, you know, the pages in stone that don't lie but are not always available to us. and through the preparation for having us be there to make these discoveries. we've organized our program through these themes following different threads, understanding the role of water, mars is a water planet, we know that now. understanding whether there's places that if they were here on earth could be inhabited by organisms. could they be preserved if they were there and they're not preserved because they can't be, what good does that do us? we need to parse those through our program. so what we've 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, high high pott these we're testing. new approaches, new measurements. the mars we've seen during the course of this program as you see all the way back to around 2,000 all the way to present and moving forward is about questions, measurements, the same way we people would attack programs in science. this is all about stem. it puts together the engineering, the science questions, the math and the technology to solve problems. we've been doing that remarkably effective. our batting average is literally 1,000. many teams would love to have it. we've done it very well since this program came about. it's a partnership with engineering. i want you to understand, we can't do all of this without

engineers helping us do that. the fact that many of these missions survive today, way beyond design life, opportunity being a good example is really testament to that. so let me explain the discoveries we've been making. this will be the movie version. many of my colleagues would like to tell it and would tell it much better than i with more time. let me try to do that. first, let me remind you the mars we see is rather foreboding. 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 deposits of dust that are very inconvenient, sub micron scale, not good for space suits or rovers or actuators or camera lenses, this is not the place you would go for your summer vacation. scientifically, though, it is. and we've learned that since the first voyages of the '60s and into the viking era that it

really is impressive. are really, if you will, a misnomer for what really mars has done. we have to look at the mars today and project back in time to a planet that really we think records in its record books some things that really actually help us understand our planet earth. so let's look at it. mars has an extremely rarefied atmosphere today. in fact, we've often talked about the temperature at our toes for a short guy like me in my head would go through a gradient of tens of degrees. the difficult to do here on earth, common on mars. the kinds of surface liquid water we like here on earth necessary for the kind of microbial life that's rampant, can't exist today. water on the short term human life scale, days, weeks is unstable. but that could change. mars, in fact, does climate change really well. the record of water on mars in the minerals and the landscapes

pretty much wherever we look is there. we've learned that. so if someone says we discouverd water on mars, well rk, we kind knew that. thank you. what does that mean? how much was there? where did it go? how would that have affected the geological history the eternal evolution the climate and the looking for signs of life? many of us believe that the mars we see today at one point reflected a history where water was a prominent surface feature, lakes and sees if not oceans covered the lowlands. i should point out, the reason we can do this kind of study is because way back in the '90s we had the forethought to make measures of the very fine scale topography and character of the landscape so we can literally flood mars and play the tape back in time and ask what would it have been like? does that make sense? physics and chemistry. and that's what we've done. this also allows us of course to

figure out where to land in an engineering sense. we flood mars and the lowlands and the northern plains often covered with dust, large basins, the biggest impact site we've discovered in the solar system. these systems would be under water. some of the signs gee morphically that tell us this may have been the case. we're still looking for the shorelines and how that would be reflected in the shape of the planet, but nonetheless, we see that. and then there's the question of the record of life. and on earth, we sort of know or at least we think we do. and we look back in time to the earliest times of our planet, coming out of late/heavy bombardment. the planet became inhabitable by the single cell world into the world we know with primitive dna, a few billion years ago. that's recorded in the rock records, things got a little better in terms of the atmosphere and the more

complicated organisms us came about. that's where we think we know very sim plisically on earth. the question is we see records of these things recorded in the rock record on our planet, which is extremely dynamic. the question is, well, could this have happened on mars and could it have been preserved? this is a key question. if it happened and it's not preserved, we can't tell. how do we find snout how do we ask is the mars of today reflecting a history like this or a flatline history or even a history of extent life? what we did about 14 years ago after some setbacks in mars exploration in the late '90s, we restructured an entire program. the best women and men in the country together working with our team at jpl. first, we'll do the reconnaissance. where do you go? it's a big planet. 150 mile square kilometers, you can't go everywhere. let's understand where the

action is from orbit. let's land where the actions is and move around as if we were there. sort of apollo without the astronauts with reasonably smart robots and then eventually get to a point where we can do analysis and return stuff from mars to earth. by the way, while we were doing this we realized that there are meteorites delivered to us from mars rather favorably by mother nature. we can also study and put that together to understand the planet and we have been remarkably successful. since the orbitors known as odyssey and through two rovers like spirit and opportunities landers like phoenix and currently curiosity and of course moving on to maven which is on the way, we have rewritten the textbooks. the kids of 2,000, the young mill len yal stemmers would see a new mars in their textbooks 2014. things we didn't know about the magnetic field back then. but these are just some of the balls reflecting the data sets

we produced. some of them have huge science value. the magnetic field. the topography which is good enough to land things on as well as to follow the water. understanding of the minerals and context of dust. we have seen a diverse planet with complexity over time. let me just fill in the tape. over those years what we've been able to do through our missions is increase the resolution and the detail across the wavelengths of electro magnetic radiation to see the planet. we actually have a mini mars observing system in place now on the surface in orbit to study this world, this fourth planet. and some of them tell us about the character of what the surface is like compositionally. others tell us the character on the scale we would walk on. by the way, when we first put together the road map to have cameras that could see things the size of beach balls on the

planet, many colleagues said, we don't need that. why would one want to see those things? engineers kind of did want it, i must add. but lot of scientists said let's do other things. but i can say now with some confidence that the team that were able to build these amazing instruments for orbit, the success of those have allowed us to watch ourselves drive on the planet and make choices strategically that help us with where we are. what did we learn from this? we started to see exposures at the scale we can imagine ourselves exploring. relationships between rock layers that tell us of the history of water and wind evolved on the surface and even the detail to pick places to go. and so we went from an era of first landing viking -- this is viking ii in september of '76. there's the flag, of course, color balanced though mars atmosphere is not quite so blue. amazing site, the probability of

landing safely in this bolder field was about 40 to 50%. we didn't know it was a bolder field and so we landed any way. pretty heroic. we landed then with new delivery systems with the air bag assisted pathfinder, moving on to the era of the rovers which basically gave our program the vision at the surface to ask the tough questions that begot curiosity where we are today 606 days into our exploration. but the surface missions starting with the first lander on another planet from viking have painted a continuously changing picture. viking, cold, sterile desert, nothing would survive that would be related to modern biology. transitions into the rock world mars that we saw with pathfinder. into the history of water world. we saw and still see with the mars exploration rover such as opportunity, 36-plus kilometers and driving into this world that we're now probing with new instruments with curiosity. so, what have we learned?

a lot. and we still have not assembled the jigsaw puzzle. mars has lots of interesting variations and composition. dust storms, active surface change on hourly scales, dust avalanch avalanches. explosive faces. impact craters that expose the surface like natural drill rigs. all this together with areas where we've actually seen the water. there's a little trench from our phoenix scout mission in 2078. we have seen sub surface layering with radars that have been partnered with italy to show us the way that climate record on mars is put together. all this paints a picture for a blan et that is really profoundly interesting, alluring and compelling to get ourselves there. but, wait, there's still -- there's still problems. first, on our nice convenient

earth we have mother nature's natural force field with our great magnetic field protecting fr us from all that nasty stuff. mars does not obviously have bumps on it, it has relic magnetic signatures. magnetic electron experiment. and we think then that mars inside versus earth is very different. we're a dynamic planet exchanging energy from the inside/out with dynamically rotating core. producing all this cool stuff, encompasses work, all this. mars, that story changed. maybe it wasn't quite big enough to retain the con vektive energy to do that. we're still working on that. insight will contribute to understanding. this picture, as it launches in 2016. but again, a different world. we also know that there's a diversity of kind of places on mars. the things you see here in terms

of all these strange names of mineral phases and stuff i won't go through them ad nauseam with you, but every one of them has a baring on how you record the history of water and sediments that could preserve potentially the history of life. if it is preserved as organic chemicals, we've seen all these things since we began -- reagan our program in 2000. all this gives us, if you will, the impetus to want to be there, to want to touch the rocks that contain carbon phase molecules. to be able to go to the place with chlorides that might reserve records of life. why not on mars? these become questions for biologists not geologists like myself. we've been able to organize the landscapes of mars in time.

all the way to the present through the different landscapes we've measured from orbit with these powerf fuful reconnaissan steps. we put it in there in 2,000 against many colleagues saying do you really want that to be able to give us a vision to do this. hutten and smith put together in the 19th century for earth and we've done that. we have we have fosle river deltas on mars. places that reflect the layering history of the role of water and wind working together and we've seen that mars is pummelled by the stuff of space, our atmosphere shields us but mars isn't and every one of these blemishes now on the order of 250, 300 of them tell us

basically about the shallow interior of the planet as it is affected by the exogenic world of space. you all remember february 2013 and other events like that. this is common. all the meteor showers, well on mars, they're not showers. they produce impact events. other events craters the size of football stadiums and small cities and they expose the shallow sub surface. what you see on the surface is not always what ewe want to see when you measure things on mars about some of these very tough questions we're asking. little far there. we're also -- we've also discovered that mars has gone through major changes in the way it's geology is reflected in the rocks from a time when it was wetter. this is a paper by banfield and others. when it was wetter and the kinds of volcanos erupted that were

explosives, st. helens. to the dhiend are today oozing lava. this is a very important step. we have also seen with our mars exploration rovers an amazing history of water in the rocks at two different sites, thousands of kilometers apart. we renamed things, blueberries and newberries. and then we transitions. when we reagan this program in 2001, we looked at the idea of putting the best instrumentation with the most powerful vantage point we could get on the surface, we did that through a mission known as the mars science laboratory today with the rover called curiosity and this behee mouth the size of a mini cooper or vw bus carries with it 14 different experiments including ones that deal with weather and radiation, for

decent images, for chemistry in different ways and she's been a beauty. i'll give you a brief synopsis now. we've mae made more measurements that this slide shows. nearly almost 500 gigabytes of data has been released. everything ranging from our own little self portrait which is an interesting piece of engineering to use an arm and photograph a w job by curiosity to the measurementeds we've made by not actually touching rocks. a partnership with france. to the instrument known as sam that can actually measure things on mars as good as the labs that measured the rocks that buzz brought back from the moon, we can now do that on mars without bringing them home. talk about engineering, vision, science can now measure parts per billion at the level of detection where we can actually see that we contaminated aspect of our experiment with florida air we can do that on mars. and so, let me just remind you

again, we're a long way from home. you know, at closest approach, 35, 36 million miles once every 15 years, but earth and moon are small dots relative to this view from curiosity. so, this mobile laboratory, even though she sometimes moves at the pace of a giant tortuous is an amazing feat. she is seeing things to me as a geologist are spectacular. these conglomerated rocks with bits of rocks made of other rocks are what we expect to see when streams and rivers leave deposit its that are baked into stone. this is gio one. that's good. water flowed. shallow water. we now know what it was made of. we've drilled mars. these drill holes are the size of a dime, but we have drilled the surface. measured down centimeters, collected it and made measurements inside our belly with this integrated mass speck

trom ter gas system allot of words for a really cool set of hardware developed at goddard and france that allows us to measure exactly what made the stuff you see here. you can see the surface materials we exkoe vated are not the classic brown red or red color of mars that is almost brown. what we discovered on mars in 06 days of work, there are environments that would be habitable in they were on earth. the buildup of the kind of chemistry we know and love, this is the classic el mental stuff we need for life to do its thing. there was probably water there. the minerals and oxidation suggest there was energy. some use under the ocean today. so we have found habitability works on mars. the question is what does it preserve about what might have been there? that's the challenge we face with curiosity and beyond. one of the other things we did,

not even imagined when we launched the mission. we took that rover with its mass speck trom ter and we were able to use it not only to measure what stuff is made of and how it got there but by using clever chemistry, our team at cal tech and at goddard were measure the age of the rocks. this was a huge goal for mars as early as 2,000 we now did it on mars as a side bar to what we were trying to do. we also measured the surface exposure age. this is really important. while the rocks are really old, older than any rock on earth, like the lunar rocks, 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 mission that the space radiation, that nasty stuff that we were talking about earlier today destroyed organic molecul

molecules. you won't know you found the stuff you're looking for. so we have to be more creative and clever. we think we understand that the materials that are buried deeper relative to these little hills are protected from space radiation relative to those that are constantly being skaf anged by the wind. so if you're trying to find organic molecules, you can't look out on the nice smooth parking lot. they'll be baked by radiation for tens of millions of years. you have to go into places where they're exposed or more protected. this will be important for human explorers to understand that when we start exploring ourselves. so the mars we see today is kind of like the bad lands of the american southwest or mongolia, kazakhstan, really rather telling layered rocks, we love them. this is mt. sharp, this is an artist rendering of the what the ancient mars could have been like. the measurements we made of these isotopes of key elements

suggest that we can possibly understand the earlier atmosphere of mars to be a window into whether it could have inhabitable. is there a record of past life? we've done that. the mars we see, this is it, you know, doesn't look like beach front terrain today is really a challenging terrain. we've seen wheel wear on our rovers. we've driven across it for more than 6 kilometers. we know it was habitable. that's the record in the rocks. what we don't know is how long that stage of habitability existed. our stage team the trying to understand that. was it a long period? was it a short blip? did it cycle? carl sagan talked in much better language than i about the cycling nature of climate on mars. was an attempted humor at lunchtime. forgive me, not funny. but in any event, we don't know. we have more measurements to make.

that's why the robotic program, the science push for human exploration to open our window, our eyes to the windows are so important. now, i have to show one bit of humor. we found some interesting rocks on mars that one of our scientists founds looks a lot like mummified seals you see in the an arctic. you're imagination can take you wherever you want. i found my initials many times so i know i've been there. some people think they've seen walmart. i'll leave that to others. but more importantly, we have been pursuing this line of reasoning, we have found the water. water-altered rocks, ice, we have discovered that there are habitable zones on mars. certainly on gale crater from curiosity. obviously with opportunity and evidence in gusef crater. we're still looking for this one. connecting these things up to there and maybe it will take this, maybe we'll get so far and then it will take the humans,

but this record of potential biology, particularly the record of past life which we think will be a better hypothesis to test scientifically is really important. so, we've made great progress. the real question then is how can we use this bow wave of science, this era of almost renaissance-like discoveries with a large science community, literally more than 1,000 scientists across universities and other institutions are working mars now. we've built up that community internationally. how can we use that to ensure the sustainment of this questioning regime to question into human exploration? so i leave you in the next five minutes with my final thoughts. first, unfortunately it's not easy. we've all heard mars is hard spoken in different languages. and whatever. but, you know, we really want to see whether there's any record of the kinds of carbon that would record the signature of past life in the chemistry and

understand where that stuff goes and how that links to modern life. the diagram, by one of our best and brightest young scientists kind of shows all the action. we don't know how things are escaping from mars. we haven't understood how the surface water percolates in gullies. we don't yet know if there are brian fwllows. the questions raised here by how all this stuff cycles, whether it's min earlized, we have to get at that if we're going to be serious and maybe it will take human exploration to tie that together. we have seen active features, some colleagues believe these c floes, recurring slope linear, sliding down the slopes of crater walls may be floes of brine. these have been found in multiple sites. could there be reservoirs of these low-melting point fluids? we don't know.

maven, a lot of people ask, another orbiter, don't we need another rover? we would love a rover. how has mars lost its atmosphere? it's done that. in earth our atmosphere recycled itself, became habitable. mars maven, lockheed martin, instruments from all over the world is going to address that question and, after it does that, and it asks primarily how an atmosphere that is today rather unbreathable co2, nice for plants but not so much us. how it has evolved in time by reading the record of what's happened today in situ through various experiments, mass spe o spectometer. the mission was selected on the

basis of its science and engineering. that's how we do things in science. kind of like the stem olympics. send a mission to mars. if you're real good, you get a lot of -- whatever the judges score now. it's good stuff. taking a little selfie. m maven will do that. critical ratio that tells you about escape rates for mars is different. viking with very good measurements. this is what we would thought we would see from meteorites and this is what we got from one data point from curiosity. we want to fill in how it would go from there to there. these are big changes. we need to get at that. maven will do that. we can actually use it as a telecommunication orbichlt ter,

allowing us to talk to rovers and other things on the surface. big final thing i want to leave you with is this is what we're up against on mars. 10,000 feet of layered rocks. taken us 600 days to get halfway into this zone here. we want to get up into there by the end of the curiosity mission. it's a long drive through rough terrain, you know. some of our best astronauts will tell me they could probably walk it in a day. it's taken 600. different economies of scale and efficiency. so i leave you with a couple of -- i hate to use these dig diagr diagrams. i do love them. science-driven program asking questions like curiosity, what the directorate does.

it is, in fact, humans to mars, this meeting and this would be a kind of goal that would be open to serendipty by having human people -- obviously human people. women and men in contact with the science. not light minutes away. it will be different than apollo. this is what we're doing with the space station and the next steps beyond that. we put this together all moving toward this goal. this is the key first step together with that. you've heard that today. so, how will we explore with people? final point is there's lots of opportunities. telescience that we've already used in the ocean. artist rendering of how robots on the surface with people, obviously, large -- they're all

good. choosing one is not so important now. it's more important to get the people there with the questions to ask. this partnership that we start to bring the human exploration into space, people bring skills that robots, however we build them, how long whoa take, will never catch up to. we will always be able to adapt. sometimes nonlinearly, different than our robotic warriors. that's good. it's the partnership that matters. we're here and here. biology, geology, climatology. this is a big step. this step is going to beget

that. two thoughts. science has given us the ammunition to know what we want to ask when we go. the robotic program will continue through our mars 20 rover and missions in the 20s to open the door to what we need when we get ourselves there. that will change everything, folks. this will be like the columbus moment. to ask questions that we can't ask today with our brilliant robotic program. i don't think you'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. i'm one guy representing a science community of thousands. don't pummel me with too much. >> one question. >> go ahead. >> good to review. you have mentioned some results

on water, you have talked so much about organics, the next step before looking for life. we have a mission that searches for organics, possibly signs of life with a drill. what is the plan in the u.s. and what is the next mission that you think we need before we go with humans? >> bernard, thank you. jim green will be talking about the whole program architecture this afternoon. he is the plantry division directorment i'm just a mars science geek. good question. that mission is the leap to the subsurface we've all been waiting for ever since i was on viking as an intern. to get below the depth where the ionizing radiation will modify the chemistry or at least we think that depth and by sampling that stuff with a very powerful set of instruments, pastel payload in germany, we