what you want to do, the most cost-effective way to move to mars. >> if you didn't have the ng tow station up there, would you be looking for a capability like 't that? >> i think youhe would be spende considerable resources to get a platform to operate in, get to the station. also, don't forget the usi transportation angle as well. to we have a means to get to spacen to demonstrate technologies. the research platform that's sp already supplied, that already has crews, that already has calm, propulsion. what we found in some of our prl space tech demonstrations to focus on the money for fo technology and leverage what else is out there. as opposed to spending money t time and time again on the basic needs for operations in deep n r space. >> i think another piece on station is the one-year increment we'll do with the cre in 2015. goin we're very experienced looking w out to six months.6. we don't see anything that look problematic beyond six months. even though it's only one data point, it's still one data it si point. we look at o is there anything that occurs long the six-month

period. the are russians have flown ons. several year-long missions. it's but if we look at the tools wih we've got today we can see if ht there's anything in the human system, to see if there is that something that degrades that hasn't reached study grade in terms of human degradation in keeping humans alive. >> 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 a ma value? do you build i n the to communication delay, do you block the windows, so they don't get to look at earth? how do you design something like that? >> it's interesting, we talked o about that. we do some things now, we do --o we're doing a lot of procedures, now aboard the station that are autonomous. where the crews do the operatioe without any ground involvement. that was geared specifically do towards the mars environment where the time delay doesn't it. allow the ground team to oesn't interact with the crew. so we're doing those.he we talked about taking away the windows and taking away window

communication time.s it's interesting -- >> i bet the astronauts love stt that. >> they don't like that.o what they're willing to put up with o all these, i don't know, stressors in their life, right, but just to do it for fun as a test mission, they're not so e keen about that. so that's an interesting human g dynamic already. it's almost, a marathon yesterday, how many marathons dy you have to run before you're ue really ready to go to a marathon. are you good go to run 10 milesh miles, and then are you ready to run the marathon. the trick with mars is not do si much that you've reduced the tc risk to zero. we will not reduce all the risk to zero, but reduce the risk to, a low enough level that we're ready to go give it a shot. but it will not be risk-free on that first mission. >> i didn't see the psychological issues as one of the issues, that probably is te more in your bailiwick. the mars 500 experience and wha

they've done. they's tried to delve into thisi there's big challenges there. >> i think we've got some good studies on the behavioral e aspect. again, i think the dimension is really different. if you look at our crews on station, they spend a lot of a time looking at the home planet, and taking pictures.ooking there's a real tie between the g human and where you are, but n e when that planet, and we've got. pictures from the rover looking back at the earth, and this earth is one star among many, you know, that's a different g psychological push. but i think that's important, too, in the way we talk about ap this. we talk about moving humans into deep space. you know, i'm trying to change the discussion a little bit. t we talk about it as exploration. when i think about exploration,t i think about iogoing, investigating and then coming back. i think we needabou to start tan about in terms of maybe pioneering, where we're actuall going to potentially stay. and that really starts changingo the dynamics.d th so the investment in mars is sos much, we don't want, to do thiss as a one-time mission. to

we want to actually have the asa infrastructure there and think about this as actually moving human presence off the earth into the solar system. >> do you want to add to that? >> no, i think bill said it verd well. mov it'si building the capabilitiesk that are extendible to mars. ar >> i always think about history here. being a history major. you think about the voyages of magellan and can't cook, or whatever.mage frankly, somebody going to mars is going to have more contact ng with earth, or the home port, if you will, than some of those voyages. do you use those historical parallels as you inform your decisions about how to handle this? y >> i think, you know, again, is? historically we ought to discusl a little bit the differences li when you do terrestrial voyagest you still have oxygen to ave breathe, water you can drink, you can bring food with you, yu when you got to wherever you to were going, you could actually grow plants.ou when we start becoming in the gw charts, i say mars ready, or

earth independent, when we starr breaking that tie back to the o planet, that'sr a different reag dimension. i mean, you really have to carry with you, or you have to have mi enough ashussurance that you ca use the carbon dioxide of mars a to get oxygen, can you get water out of the martian environment.n you have to really prove that some of those things are there.e i think terrestrial exploration little different because it wasn't quite the level of what e we're doinrrg here, where we're essentially putting a human in an environment that the human cannot live on on its own.puttig and we have to carry with it so enough support capability to keep the human alive and functioning. >> how much of that ability -- e by the way, if you have and questions, feel free to come toe the microphones and we'll include your questions in this conversation. how much of the ability to, you know, live off the martian land. do we have to prove before we put people on the surface, do you think? >> there's been a number of opl studies on that, that show if you can institute resource utilization, that is, get your

water, get oxygen, you can get water, you can get fuel.t air to breathe.ou can that shows the amount of the so ability -- it becomes a mass problem. how much do you have to take with you and how much can you rely on when you get there. if we're going to rely on a system, you want it to be there ahead of time. you want it to be able to be syt reliable and store the oxygen s you know it's there.d want t i think that would be the most u prudent step to go do. b we're taking the first step in mars 2020. >> that would be advanced missions, multiple landings, where the autonomous vehicles would at least if not prove it, create a store. to >> we have scout missions ahead of time, that the early me explorers didn't have that ly ability. as bill pointed out, the have t environment is soha harsh and s, extreme. >> again, the idea is, when yous put those scout vehicles there, they ought to be generating resources that you can use when the crew mission follows. again, i think in this can us

constrained environment we've got, we've got to make sure everything we do is ex stensiblf to the next step. oxyg we want to build enough to be ma used and play forward in anothe scenario. >> as you paint that picture, ta and i think you've done a nice a job pulling together a lot of these disparate elements that provides a cohesive narrative, i hope that plays well on capitol hill as you try to sell this program.as you but what's interesting about it, it's kind of like, we all think of success in space as apollo. there was a deadline, and a commitment. there was a a cold war.comm all of these things lined up. we perceive that the way to go e to space.d he if you don't set a space and go, that's a failure. this is a little more like, it seems to me, building the interstate system.me, there's a sense of let's build some infrastructure out there. and it doesn't, frankly, have

the same headline capability, ie you will, that the space race had. but what it offers is sustainability. and i guess what -- that's a long way of me saying, this is a nuanced story. so how can we convey that story to people who are less dialed into what nasa is doing right aa now? or is that my job? >> that's your job. >> oh, okay. >> but i tell you, it's all of our jobs, right? we need to look at what we're wn doing today, and describe it inn a way thatd really makes sense. we flew this thing called veggi, that will grow plants in space. this is the first time we've grown plants for the crew to eat.this is so this is not for a science ewt experiment to seeo how the plana will go in microgravity, this is actually food for the crew to augment their diet.rogravit this is the beginning of starting to push us off of the i earth into space to go do

things. it's a small thing. go but we ought to be talking about it. it's a big thing. >> if a 3-d can print a pizza, e think you could do that, actually. >> 3-d pizzas are tough to chew >> rubber. >> i think you really did hit h the nail on the head in terms el of -- i mean, i get the n terms excitement, too, i want to get one mission, create a mission patch. but i don't know ifea we have tw luxury to do that right now witi budgets and forecasts and where we are. budg but we still can get there.a i thinkre we have to take and successes in the steps along the way, whether it's growing plants, propulsion, better eva suits, better landing systems. we're going to be moving the needle forward.ng we'll have to paint it the right context with as few power pointo charts as h we can. but that's the key. >> you had three charts.

one of those charts is like five charts in one. just to make that clear.n you know, you get the sense thae if you talk about it long enough, maybe it could become aa reality. but we do have the fundamental issue of dollars and cents heree so if you take that vision, that narrative, and you jive it withi what the money is right now, when do we get to mars?ma as somebody said last night, yot know, it will be 20 to 30 yearse but we've been saying that for 20 to 30 years. been if you do the math on that, i'm pretty sure we don't get there. so how do we reconcile that vision, with what congress and what the american people have w put on the table for nasa? >> you know, i think, again, the way i kind of lay it out, and wy talk about last week is, we cannot do it at the same budget level we're at today. this is just not going to work, right?level and the current budget has a 1%u

increase. it's going to need t more than that. so i think there'sthe a modest increase, but we need to show the congress and show folks, if we get this additional funding, here's the advances we can make. here's the pieces that are ss, there. and then show howe we're not jut doing a demonstration, but this piece actually fits into the in mars capability puzzle this wayl and if we make that, maybe we can continue to break that o paradigm and get additional funding to move forward.addi we also needti to look very har to what we can do at internationally. our international partners are w very interested in doing this ne activity. can we leverage ofryf their wor. and likewise, the private sector. there's tremendous capability there with cargo resupply and o crew going to station. but can we then start expandinga that into the exploration domaid and do those kind of things with the industry.in >> the one thingto i would add x that, that bill had in his chart, something that's a little different than the path is you see the mission director, you know, the core working together we have work going to mars on the science mission that's ma

feeding forward into what we're going to do for exploration. the technology that we're doing for our biggest customer, alongn with the broader community, working together to get he technology feeding into those missions. on our rkinside, and this is kif the down and dirty of it, we're trying to work with other partners. we're trying to work with other government agencies on the technology pieces that will feed into it. again, it's going to be a storyi to tell, but we can work on the technology pieces and leverage l other investments. that's the , key, i think, to d it affordableably. >> the first chart, it all lookt good when we're working it together. but you're giving up control tg do it.ethe i'm going to be doing more than the science mission director would like to do on mars. be i would like to take a much ireo larger object at ther surface o mars to do a landing. i would probably like to have more capability than a science mission needs.than a if we do two sieve missions, tho cost of that is some larger number. can integrate those f together and be willing to give

up not the perfect mission, p together we're advancing human space flight for humans into the solar system. that's how we win. so we've got to figure out a wag we don't look at it from each one of our little stovepipes, t but look at it in a way holistically, we can work k together to go do this. the challenge is big enough. it's not going to be solved by g any missiono director itself. e it has to be the whole of the agency pulling together and the whole of the international who community pulling together aslet well. >>ll i would think getting to ms would be easier than asking for nasa working together. >> i don't know about that. >> you're not going to go there. >> i'm not going there. go >> we've got a question in here. say who you are, please. >> yes. please. thanks. steve>> brody from isu ks. international space university. 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 with very deep pockets. we've had now the very real win-win with the commercial cargo, and hopefully that will continue with the commercial hol crew. but howt do you see -- do you se any other -- is it through conversations you've already had, or sensedat's out there an major contributory contributions from either individuals, from companies, or whatever, that will really, you know, get that sort of principal and give you more than what you've got now for the program ahead?rogram >> i would say, again, we need - to definitely look at this.look we see a lot of folks working on

engine technology which is interesting to me. space x just signed a space act agreement to look at engine work down at stennis.gine w and lowhere that's been the domf of the government to look at the engine capabilities, some of that has been picked up by som private sector emoney. -- we need to watch for those pieces and move forward. we did interesting things on space station with the system st that takes carbon dioxide from the removal system and combines it with waste hydrogen that comes off the electrolysis of te water and makes more oxygen, and makes more water, and creates methane as a waste gas. we didn't pay for any of the ga development, we essentially agreed to pay for the water that was generated by the device. th 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 don't generate any water, you don't get any pay.ter but if you generate water, you'll get paid this amount fort this period of time. they were able to do all the development up front for that system. it's been fro working very wello onboard station. are there other models like that that we can leverage off the private sector, and find thingsa they want that actually benefit us.nd just jus don't assume it always to be the government doing these activities. >> the other thing i would add from the technology standpoint, a similar story. when we see interest in high power solar propulsion, not only for a cargo tug, for future exploration, for moving the asteroid, but we see an interest in the spacecraft industry. can we generate that interest? we think we can. it has incredible benefits not just for the next generation bei teachers but other government r agencies that we won't speak about here.

it can get content up to the satellite. >> what's the right mix on that? can we get to mars leveraging private sector ingenuity?o there are certain things that will never be a business case s for, right? levera to what extent do you have to go to business and say, hey, we w have a need, and to what extent, are they coming to you? >> i think the answer is yes on some things.you? some things like optical calm, green propellant, solar propulsion, maybe. some others not.me landing is perhaps a little unique to the agency landing on mars. >> hard to sell that to h an automaker. >> i would say in lower earth orbit, i don't envision another government space station beyond the space station we have todaye i see the private sector picking up the next generation of space station in lower earth orbit and they will do that to generate commercial products that they

learned and got to experiment with onboard space station. i see our space station today as a chance for them to experimento with what might be helpful in the pharmaceutical world, ande the drug world, in the biological world, and materials world, that they can see, hey, y there's something here that the microgravity environment gives me a different insight into a et physical process. i would like to have a researchv facility in space to do that.li we've enabled transportation through both cargo and crew so a it's not cost prohibitive for tn them to get there. they can then work with some thc companies that arean talking ab building laboratories in space and maybe a single purpose a laboratory now is a research environment. that's creating essentially now a private sector infrastructure that we can use and we don't have to replicate any of that in any of our future plans. i'm hoping that we use stationst toat be that next piece. piec thise extension of station afte 2024 actually gives us a figh fighting chance to expose a broader community beyond aerospace to the advantages of doing research in space. >> having another ten years of s station. that was a significant -- it was

a huge thing, i think.huge i is it enough time for you?u? you're talking a pretty long a time frame for what you want to accomplish here.accomp ten years from now, you don't u want a station, are you wishing you had it there? i >> you use what you can. you >> i'll use what i can.what i i think the big thing is it it really changed the environments for the commercial sector. when we thought the station wasw going to end ine 2020, i couldnt get any commercial company to think at all about doing space research. thale focus was too short.thin the stability wasn't there.t. but just that change of four moe more years, 2020 to 2024, has really changed the commercial i sector's perspective of how the can use space. and the fact that we're doing the cargo flights we are privately, they can go get private services now to take ct cargo up.ak eventually we'll have a crew. they're starting to see, hey, this isn't such a foreign su environment to us, we're willing to go invest.in i think going back to the oing question that was asked here, ia when that tipping point kind of changes, where now the private e

sector doesn't see this as sn't something so risky that only governments can do, and they cas start turning profit in lower ir orbit, then i think you start seeing a much broader base to a build going forward. >> it was hard to regain the confidence of the private sector, and the academic world,c too, when the science budgets were cut dramatically. n >> yep. and we're slowly, i think, getting that back again. but again, they're skeptical.>>' it's the stability thing. as you talked about before, being sustainable, and building plants and processes that can si take the storms that come when d we have a sequester that comes and the whole problem doesn't fall apart or we get an and administration change, or a revector to work all over again, if we make measured, sustainabla progress,bl i think that's how ultimately get to mars.thank >> a question over here?om >> my question has to do with o the slide that's been shown twice now regarding the provingo

ground missions. and those are beyond low earth orbit. it said one to 12 months. i'm interested primarily from the biomedical challenges side of things.of is there currently a plan in place for approving ground mission of 6 to 12 months, and if so, what does that plan entail? >> what we're thinking about, again, in the lunar space arounc the moon, we're looking at a t crew attended capability, cohabitation module.pability i don't see that as a moon habitation module per se, but d, that would be the habitation module we potentially use on a o mars class mission. so the idea is to take this life support system that we worked on space station, that's a mars class, and put it into a crew e tended space station, and sticka it around the moon. that nablenables a lot of lunart activity and there's a lot of interest in the community that it's a base operation to do thai activity.vi can get view times of the and

north pole, south pole, and the moon. we've driven lot rovers from sp station out in california to go look at how we would deploy antennas on the far side of the moon. you could dohis that from this w tended facility in deep space. i think if you think about it, e we talked about maybe pre-positioning hardware around mars. so you'll launch a component with life support system.compon it spends a year journey to get. out there. year now it's in the martial environment and doesn't get activated for another year.w it has to come up and operate immediately. sometimes ourti systems are noto good just sitting around. this proving ground letsd us go ahead and put a laboratory around the moon. maybe where we visit it every other couple of months, it look, at how we shut the system down and how we reactivate it. is it's being judged by how it get helps us get ready for mars. rs >> if you had your druthers, and again, in a perfect world with unlimited money, would it help w to land on the moon? or would it be a detour that

just would kind of suck resources, time, whatever? >> the challenge there, of course, is it doesn't have much atmosphere. that landing piece doesn't play out there. the lunar landing would be woul chemical. i'm not sure that -- >> as the president said, been h there, done that, is that the tr way you look at it? >> i'd say not quite so much.bun when charlie talked, somebody asked him about the partial gravity. that's the advantage of the adn moon. by being on the surface of the n moon, you get to see the human in a partial gravity environment. we live here in 1-g station, to zero gs. i think you can interpolate to mars. we canceled the large centrifuge for space station, but we have some small centrifuges on station that we can look at things at the cellular level, and small plant level. i think it will give an indication if there is a problea in the intermediate gravity level.ravit i don't think it's worth the k s expense right now going to the o

moon toin get that partial grava condition. i believe we can get that withvn station, unless this research o station points to us seeing soms huge problem where partial gravity is a consideration that we would have to deal with.er >> you can imagine there are capabilities and learning to live onties the surface, but thd also, again, private partnerships and private organizations that are also interested in the moon.nerships there are some ways perhaps we t can partnered in a very splamar to go do that. >> in the proving ground regionh if the international partners really want to go to the surfac of the moon, let them go do moo that. or if commercial industry sees the advantage of using some lun ar materials for certain activities, that's fine.materi we'll go support that.e. then our focus is really going f beyond. we don't have to do is everythi for ourselves. but we should be aware of the ut environment we're in, and then leverage off of the other activities that are being done that help us get to the goal of what we're heading toward mars.r >> we'ree figuring out a way t partner with the chinese? >> ihe think the chinese will e key player somewhere in this situation. i can't imagine at some point we

don't work with the chinese. >> >> s partnering with the chines? >> i can't answer that. >> how about you? how >> and still continue to sit on this stage. i'll be teleported to mars momentarily if i offer any realp answers. >> questions? >> my name is greg cecil. and i am a former space shuttle worker. and i'm now a middle school science teacher down in floridai and my question is that, constellation was set up by the bush administration to take us to the moon and mars and beyond. unfortunately when the new then administration came ewin, that s canceled. my greatest fear is that now that you have an idea what yout want to do, and you have a roado map set up with sls, if we have a new administration come into power in 2016, 2017, will we 010 have everything scratched again, and starting from base zero? has nasa considered that, and nc worried about that?

>> i would say yes. we're really working as fast as we can on both orion and sls. you'll get to see an orion test flight at the end of this year,. in december. get that's going to look at the heat shield performance. that's essentially 80% of the software we'll fly on e exploration class missions around the moon. so that's a big plus. the actual first dome for the exploration mission one in 2017 is actually manufactured down in new orleans. we're putting inn a large machit that will actually start at wil building the tanks down there. we're working on the exploration of the upper stage for mars class missions.missio i think by the time we get into 2016, i'll have significant ant hardware, in fact we have it hat today, that you can go out and d touch and seef. it's not mission destination itn specific. what we're doing by going to lunar spacebeod if somebody dec to do lunar activities, we can go dodo lunar activities. it's also focused toward mars. we're trying to kind of stay

destination independent, but caa capability driven and make the t point to the next group that p t comes in with the idea, we understand what you would like d to do, how you put your fingerprint on this vision.s we create enough flexibility and a vision that we can change thet vision a little hebit. but we don't lose the ultimate o goal of where we're going. the sustainability is absolutely critic critical. >> how many congressionally linked jobs do you have to have before you have enough inertia r for a program that sustains itself? what doesains it take? >> if i could answer that, i would have a ph.d. an >> there's your thesis. right there. >> i have one.thesis. i can't answer that either. >> why can't we do space -- >> we do ourselves a big disservice. ourselves about the perfect plan. right? and at some point that's not helpful. >> it doesn't do any good.ng >> the problem is the outside r worldob seesle these supposed ss

people all arguing, so there must be something that isn't right. >> right. >> so then they kind of go, well, we don't really want to g, do that. we we need 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 susn itself. so can we all as a community gea together and recognize that a sustainability is important. >> right.sust question overai here?question >> hi.fi har harry. going back to the origin of nasa and its predecessor in fact.nd and also, as head of the joint office of nasa where we developed the nuclear rocket propulsion, and in 1970 we railroad ready to really move ro 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.of it we really had it.ident president nixon at that time killed that program and several others in the space program. we haven't given rebirth to that. we really ready were to moveac forward with a mars mission at that time.e reth a mar 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 devele thrust? you mentioned nuclear electric, which is certainly very good, but it's a low thrust system ust that takes longer for a mission. >> i think we're still living on the shoulders of giants.houlde you're oners of those giants. because many of the technologiel and capabilities we had were either proven out, including iu some of the work -- every time we come up with a new system, i

now ask, it was done in the ent/ '60s. it here's the test data from the '60s.yeah, every single time. sglits's all been done. >> it's all been done.ll been it's all been done. so nuclear thermal, i agree, it was really push forward, in a significant way in the '70s. i think 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 thel best means we have to get there, as quick as we can. and as quick as we can, helps with the crew, helps with radiation. so it is a question of investment, priority, and when do you invest and how much do it you a invest and when do you don it. we have modest investments righ? now in nuclear thermal. i think we kind of tried to makd sure we're not overlapping, right? there's modest investments there to keep the system alive. the and when we can get the right e budget and the right time, many would argue that's the way to go.a way >> i think it was unfortunate uf calling it the fukushima engine.

wasn't that a bad idea?though >> frankly, i just don't see we're going to get there, even in 30 years. the way it's going. when you say 30 years, i think, gee, we were doing it in 1970. >> there are some trades that would argue in cryogenic propulsion, that you can -- if under certain conditions the plan is on the right alignment. it's a very narrow case you can do it. but to get there repeatedly in fashion, we've got to get back to that. >> we're a little short on time. we're getting down to the five-minute realm. if i could ask you to get right to your question, i would appreciate it. go ahead, sir. >> rick tomlinson. you guys are coming a long way.a some of the answers i've seen m with bill and you, have been god very good, music to my ears in working with the private sector. but there's still this learning that needs to occur. maybe not so much at nasa, but h over on the hill and the hil

staffers, and the people there.e the fact that the private sector, not just commercial, but the private sector is going to t maybe be starting slow.be but them be m going faster and g faster. there will be times they a get d ahead of you.e you you can see some of these billionairesyo pull together an could do a mars mission and it r might start to go a faster.mis wouldn't it be a good idea to have sort of an annual, at least, review wherein nasa and the leaders in the private sector sits down and talks th about, ande maybe coordinate tk these things, because it's goine to happen, it's going to get . faster and faster and faster. you might land there second.>> >> that sounds like a reasonable thing we should think about. thg >> i could think of -- >> i think, again, kind of back to the other discussion. we've got to make sure we're now just talking to ourselves all the time. i think to your point, rick, we need to go look and say, maybe n we need to talk about these things to a broader community, expose them to what we can do. and also have them tell us whatv they can do.tell us the private sector can clearly t

take more e risks. they have significant investment funds. what are they interested in, cat where would they like to go.to and i think it might be helpful to have a broader kind of forum or expand this human-to-mars workshop to include maybe maybe a broader community. >> you yo still need to make it look like a victory if you get there second. all right? >> quick question, please? >> yes.>> excellent point from the gentleman who brought up the up alternative of nuclear thermal propulsion. that's kind of a related therml question. and that is, why is there so much of a focus on solar electric propulsion? >> the focus on solar, a couple fold, right? for the asteroid retrieval mission into the proving groundo where we can operate in deep space, it has the capability, and most efficient form of transportation really out theree in space.tion out we think about transportation oe earth. we have tugs, we have barges, e have fast vehicles and slow. we think it's extremely

efficient and ready for the next step.everage it's good for multiple purposesm it's the next one we can push ee over the needle. it's not only looking at the national research council, theye came out with a high priority, high power stp. if you look at most of the trade studies, it enable es stud exploration. >> i think a big piece is what mike was pulling on, it has more applications than just to nasa t and just our mission. to get high power solar rays ist important to the communication satellite industry. lite ould very much like to have those. so they're going to be pushing this technology so it's us and s them pushing, so it's not just nasa pushing this for our own needs. the othersh piece of the eelectc propulsion piece to replace liquid motors on communication satellites, commercial industry is interested in that piece. so this is a way we can leveraga off of what commercial is off of already doing and moving forward. and in a nuclear thermal propulsion area, it's pretty much us alone pushing.

there isn't quite yet another private sector application for that class of rocket. but we need to keep investing io a technology, and take the workd that was done back in the '60s and take it to that next step. because we know a lot more abouk control systems now. computers are much more comput sophisticated in terms of automatic control systems.isti we can take somcae of that and move it forward at the right n pace and then expose that. but i think our focus is along s the lines of sustainability. of this is something that isn't th uniquely needed for isus.iquely it can be shared with a d with broader -- a der >> i think that's the key aspect of where we are today.this not trying to do it all selves ourselves and trying to be smart about it. one of the challenges for the nuclear thermal is the ability to store liquid hydrogen. that's one of the keys to it. we're working on that now.ne of it's not only good for cryogenic transfer, but also good for nuclear thermal. we're trying to take the common pieces and threads and do it today.piec >> buzz? >> i have several questions.

but we have a break coming up.k and people can be thinking about utem. in relation to doing things in g the past, and then kind of putting them on k the shelf, it reminds me of the hl-20 derive from the bore 4 photographed. and a lot of wind tunnel tests. and it was part of a program, d and it was put on the shelf. shf and jim benson bought it, and ou now mark is doing it again.gh i'm just wondering if inflatables as a trans hab was a program at one time, and now it's back in another program developed by las vegas bigelow. just several days ago we had a giant thinker leave us, john

hoopolt, and he was a great rolt model for me. and i hope that some of the thoughts that i come up with cap in some way w mimic what he's bn able to doo.mele at the moon, we had a free fr return trajectory, and we modified that once the sps was s working. we were always in a relatively close lunar earth orbit. and apollo 13 indicated that we could probably come back. that i don't believe we have that capability in the trans mars injection with the fly-by free y return that is an acceptable solution, nor do we have a rescue ability.cue why don't we do like many other industries do instead of one bin large thing that could fail, wh

don't we have two small things like fighter airplanes, they fly in formation, if one can't do e the job, the other one can. sure, you could do them, leave a staging orbit at five-mile mile formation difference, or ten-mile. now, wait a m minute, don't be . stupid, why don't you put them together in this staging orbit and have them fly out, now you can jettison the one that failsn and continue toe do the job if f you have two crew modules. on the subject of crew modules, can orion air oh break into mars' orbit? does it have the capability of doing that?orbit. when i look at what i need at mars, i need landers. and landers are capable of air c oha braking, and transporting n

people from one position to another to bringing back peopleg i don't know who's here from lockheed, but i've got to ask m the question, why do we need orion in mars' orbit? r 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 launce vehicle, and then a larger habitat. once we have the larger habitat, we can put the people in the wec launch vehicle. the why can't we put them into the large vehicle in a landing vehicle just as well. j as an orion.us let me leave it at that. at

>> i suppose yes or no is not an option. [ laughter ] >> i would say, first of all, on expandable, we're going to look at that on space station with beam in 2015. we're actually going to go look at expandable technology to see what advantages that gives to to us. so we'll get aus. chance to seeh it's reported to have were to a thermal conditions. it's also the larger volume to put water in for shielding for radiation, which would be a good thing. we'll actually get real world experience withre expandables onboard station.on to buzz's point, we're looking , at, we call it now evolvable in a modular architecture for marsg maybe multiple habitation prepos modules, habitationit module una around mars someplace ahead of e time. and then do a rendezvous, and pre-position your vehicle for ba return from mars.

we're looking at, we call it evolvable, where it can -- we build pieces, we position pieceu up front, and then we also calli it modular because we're trying to use similar components throughout the architecture.nd so we're starting to look at those things. femos and demos are also piecese for us. can we take advantage of the natural satellites around mars and use those in the mars arc tech ter and use a piece of those for what we're trying to go todo. we're looking a lot at high elliptical earth orbit transfers. and some of the stuff that buzz has been doing.we're we're taking a different approach toward mars than mars before. missions were more ssic apollo style in a way, where we launched everything in a campaign within a year, and seni the armada of spacecraft that you saw in the graph towards gn mars. i think we'l l do that over a ed period of time, over a period os years and build more of an evol evolvable vapiece. we need all of us to start thinking maybe in a different f

way. it's not a single mission, but it really is this pioneering aspect. h how do we move human presence in, and once that mental changer starts making and you look at it from the long term, then you invest in some things that might take actually longer to go do, but they might be more more sustainable. we're looking at many things y f that i was talking about. >> last word, mike? >> i think that's well said.ookt we're going to get to mars, in u sustainable and affordable way. we know the technology is important. that's why weth have the investments we have under way.ad we'll continue to make those investments over the next 18 months, in a number of key areas. >> gentlemen, thank you very much. great talk. enjoyed speaking with you. thank you. joining us from the international space station is commander steven swanson currently onboard. commander swanson, welcome to c-span. >> thank you very much.

>> commander swanson, if you wouldn't mind, tell us a little bit about the current activities of the international space station. how many members of crew do you have and generally, what are you doing? >> good question. we have six crew members up here right now. three russians, two americans, and one german. mostly we do science up here. we have over 170 experiments going on right now. but also, we have to maintain the station, and keep it running smoothly and efficiently. >> commander, with the science experiments that you're currently conducting, can you tell us a couple of things, generally, what areas do they fall into, and why is it that these need to be conducted in an atmosphere such as yours? >> yeah, so they vary tremendously. we have outside the alpha magnetic spectrometer, which is looking for dark energy and dark

matter. something that we're trying to figure out just the basics physics of how our universe came to be. from that, we also go all the way to human research, on our bodies. how do we change in the microgravity environment. specifically, our eyes, our muscles, our bones. and we're looking at details about that. and that can have applications on earth, on people with different diseases, who have the same kind of reactions. we just get to see it at a more rapid pace up here. that's pretty it for all of science. things change enough up here that people can analyze how different pieces, or science objectives change in a microgravity environment. it's just different than on earth. that gives them another data set to look at, to compare to. and that in a sense gives them more understanding of the problem. >> so commander, because you're up there in microgravity, talk about the extent of the science.

are we talking basic research or advanced research? >> well, it's both. i mean, i feel advance research is looking for dark energy. there's also advanced research we do in come bus shon, and cancer research. we're looking at t-cells. the science research that we're trying to understand basic physics properties and all sorts of other things. it is both. there's so much science going on. it's just amazing. >> the experiments that you conduct, how many are nasa sanctioned, taxpayer funded, how many come from private sources, experiments that you take on from other sources? >> you know, i don't really know the numbers, but they definitely come from different areas. we have some nasa ones, we have actually some from the european space agency, some from the japanese space agency, some from the russians. and we have a whole group called cases which takes in science

experiments from all over the u.s., and combines them into a group from that area. and they get to fly also onboard, too. so it's a whole bunch of different places i know our experiments come from. i just don't know the correct numbers. >> you spoke about life in microgravity. i suspect, and you kind of addressed this, the toll it takes on a body. could you give our folks what it's like being there living in an atmosphere without gravity? and if you could move around a little bit to give the folks a sense of what it's like. >> yeah. that's a good thing. first of all, you can see anything you hold, just floats when you let go of it. it's good and bad. if i don't watch this in ten seconds, it the float off and it will take about an hour to find it. moving around is also very much fun. i'll give you a quick examples of things you can do.

i'm not a gymnast on earth, so that's the only place i get to do that. >> how long did it take to get used to that? do you hit your heads and things like that? >> oh, definitely at the beginning, it's definitely more difficult. we have a little competition now. it's the idea, you have to get the rotation without any side movement. then you can see how many rotations you can do before you hit something. that's a little competition we run up here. >> give our viewers a sense of how large the station is. we're only seeing a small portion of it. what are we talking size-wise? >> well, it's about the volume of a 747, really. so it's quite big. it's quite large. it's about 250 feet long, and at certain spots it's maybe 130, 140 feet wide at certain spots.

it's actually quite book volume-wise. there's only six people up here, so it's not crowded up here at all. >> you said there are six people from different countries. what's it like working between the countries? >> it's a very good working relationship up here. we've trained together beforehand as a crew. and so we got to know each other very well. and we still work together on a daily basis. and we have really no issues. i mean, yes, there's always cultural differences, but we've learned how to get around those issues. so we're all good friends now up here. and it seems to go quite smoothly. >> commander, here on earth, there are current issues concerning tensions between the united states and russia. you have three russian cosmonauts onboard. do those issues get discussed onboard and do you get any discussions about what's going on on earth? >> yes, they do get discussed,

just like any news event that comes on, we'll discuss it. it's not like there's any negative to it, though. we understand it's politics going on. we understand all that. we also understand it doesn't affect our work, and our relationship with each other. we're all friends. so it really doesn't affect us. but it is discussed. >> what are the nature of the discussions like? >> oh, that's a good question. it varies depending, of course, on the topic. on, say, the u.s./russian relations, we delve into more into the politics of each country, and more, i guess more of the details about the cultures and what that means in each country. and if you break it down that way, you can kind of see what's going on a little more clearly. >> on the science side, commander, for instance, if russia decided at one point because of relations here they wanted to pull back on work of the space station, how is the

united states affected by that? and how is the science experiments affected by that? >> well, right now the the scie is pretty much separated between the u.s. side or the u.s., which includes the european space agency, jackson, canada, all those and the russian sites, so the sites are somewhat separated however we do require the russians for us to get up here and to get back down right now. hopefully in a few years, we won't need that, but right now we need that to happen and and that is probably the biggest deal right there. and if we can't get up here, we can't do the science. >> you want to take the mike with you, as far as much of that now depens on commercial aircraft, commercial spacecraft,

what's the experience with the commercial spacecraft staffing and supplying the station? rite knew they're just supplying the station, we're very happy that we have american cargo vehicles coming up it a great advancement, these are good vehicles. it does depend on -- we are happy about that, and we are definitely looking forward to the next development when we do look at crew on that american vehicle, and that will change our dynamic quite a bit. but for right now, it's just the cargo coming up, as a matter of fact, hopefully we'll have one coming up in less than a month, have some new food and some new science to work on. >> as far as the next step, what's involved in the next step, and how do things change? >> so, yes, the next step, the

next step is actually proving out the vehicle is safe for humans, which we have a few companies who are bidding for that contract right now. once we start into that project, by 2017, we will have a manned test of an american vehicle at that time and they will probably do one test flight, maybe at the station, maybe not, and the next steps from then on will be the rotating crewmembers on that vehicle. >> how much input do you and the other crewmembers have to these private companies? how is it received? >> a few don't have input, but nasa does have input. so i believe it's received quite well from talking to the folks who do that work. and because these companies want to succeed, they want the contracts and they want to build a good vehicle, they really do.

they do listen, and they try to make the best vehicle they can. it is a cost analysis going on at the same time, so they can't build the most luxurious cadillac out there, however they build a good vehicle. >> commander, you talked about moving forward these states of 2017, that you talked about. as far as the station itself, how long is it going to remain functional? >> that's a good question. right now, i believe it's on paper for 2024. and that's just more to certify the life of certain components and also for the resupply missions for certain things. so it can go longer if we want, it all depends on how we want to spend our money. >> what do you mean by that? >> well, if we want to go -- the nasa budget is limiteded and a portion of it goes to space

stations and keeping it running. so we all of a sudden have a different task that we want to take on, say going to the moon or mars or an asteroid or whatever it might happen to be, and we may not be able to do both depending on how big each plan is. >> what is the role for future manned space flight, say, past the moon? >> right now, i think the station is a test pad, we test all sorts of things up here. right now we have a recycling system for water, so we recycle all our water, and we need that if we're going to go other places. that's just one example. there's many examples we have. we're testing out new technologies up here that will enable us to go farther. >> so you would say the station is needed past 2024? >> that's a good question. i'm not sure it's needed, it

would definitely be a good test bit for all sorts of things. we can easily get things up and down if you're going on a long mission enter else. if you want to make an update to your product or equipment, you can do that more easily. it's a great test bed. but it's all about having a limited amount of money and where you want to spend your money and what are your objectives. >> so if nothing's decided by 2024, what happens to the station, does it just fall to earth? >> again, that's going to be a decision for a management, like i said, when you consider our politicians and the nasa administration. however, if it does -- if it decides it is no longer needed, we actually will orbit the station, and it will burn up on re-entry. >> commander swanson, we every day go through our normal lives

on a gravity atmosphere, what's it like on a day to day level, in a weightless atmosphere? tell our viewers something they might not expect about living in space, that you have to overcome because of the environment you're in? >> yeah, it's really the simple things that are much more difficult up here. i mean, you get up in the morning and just shaving and getting yourself ready in the morning. my commute is awful short, it's about 20 feet behind me, so i don't have to go far. it's just little things like that in the morning, you don't have a sink to wash up in and the water of course doesn't run down, so you have to shave totally differently, you have to brush your teeth differently. eating is also a chore, because everything floats again and it comes in packages and it all wants to go everywhere. you use gravity to bend over toify your shoe, and you don't

have that here so you have to be just a little bit more flexible. all these things you didn't think about make it a little less efficient to be up here. the whole floating thing is just a very fun thing to do, looking out the window is fantastic. it just can't be beat. >> so commander swanson, though, once you return to earth, living in the environment you're currently living in, what happens, how does your body adjust? >> that's a good question, we work out two hours every day up here to help in that return, and the idea is that we -- so our muscles will be strong and our bones will not loses any bone density, when we get back, we call it our neurovest tib lar system. when we get back, it varies a lot between people. once that gets back under control, you're still strong and your bones are good, and it just

takes six weeks of rehab, and you're back up in the 95th percentile or maybe even higher than that in what you can do. >> how long have you been on board the space station? >> i've been on board about 2 1/2 months and i return in three months. >> your back ground is in computer science, how do you end up an astronaut on a space station? >> a good question. well, i did go to work for nasa, which is a big help for me and i decided that being an astronaut was a goal. so really, what i also worked on was aircraft control systems, that's what my main work at nasa was on and that could play into working on the shuttle and also then helping out and just got lucky in the selection process, that's really -- there's so many qualified people who try to be astronauts, it takes a little bit of luck just to get in and i happened to get a little lucky,

i had all the requirements needed and just a little bit of luck and i made it. >> so commander in about 30 seconds, tell us about the best experience you have had on board the station itself? >> well, the best experience is as always looking out the window, and the best way to look out the window is not have a window framing and that's when you head out the door, it's a fantastic feeling, it is a little pressure on you faat the same time, but, boy, it is a good experience and something i'm looking forward to doing again. >> captain stevommander steve s talking to us about life aboard the space station. thanks for talking to us. >> my pleasure, take care. coming up tonight on c smsp 3, a look at the future of

technology. first a discussion on gps and tracking technology. the other looking at an increase in consumer drones, that's followed by a house small business hearing on commercial 3-d printing and regulations on connected cars and soft riding vehicles. next a panel on the development of tracking technology and it's use in disaster relief, finding lost air liners and people. this event was posted by the new america foundation, it's an hour and ten minutes. >> thank you very much. well, welcome, everybody, thanks for coming out. we're here to talk about technology and so many -- so much of the time we tend to turn to technology to solve our problems. and we havet