[space] Is Mars-one a scam?

[ZedNova]

No. What pushes Humanity to explore and expand is to find ways to improve our living conditions by increasing wealth, comfort , security, or all three of those conditions. That's all.

We go where we will be safe, where the food grows, where we will find a decent job and get a better home, like our ancestors followed the bison and dwelled in caves. When people emigrate it is always because they hope to find a better life for themselves and for their children, not because they want to "give themselves a meaning". Exploration and colonization was a government-sponsored initiative to increase the wealth and political influence of the country. The goal certainly was never for the colonies to become self-sustaining and independent, quite the contrary.

The "give ourselves a meaning" is western romanticism, not human nature.

True, although I've always found exploring to be invigorating. Even if i got a few cuts and splinters because of it.

There's really no reason to go to mars, unless there's a Stargate, or some sort of near Limitless source energy. Maybe to pave the way for Terra-forming, when the population of earth gets dangerously high.

[SargeRho]

I see it differently, there's plenty of reason to go, and little reason not to.

[rkman]

Also the Falcon Heavy is not just a powerpoint presentation

Falcon Heavy could not put a large payload on Mars.

Falcon Heavy could put 53 tons in low Earth orbit, less than half of what Saturn V put into LEO, which barely put the Moon within reach.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V

[Albert VDS]

Is Mars One a scam? Maybe not but it's not going to happen. Why?

Source: Global Exploration Roadmap 2013

You do realize that the Mars column is for a return mission, it would look a whole lot different if you take out the return trip.

[SargeRho]

Payload to Mars of a Falcon Heavy is 13.5 tons. There is A LOT you can do with 13.5 tons. Just let the engineers do their job, that usually brings great results, as seen at SpaceX and Tesla, and everywhere else the managers don't interfere with the Engineers *cough cough* Challenger disaster *cough cough* Venture Star.

[WestAir]

Let's be perfectly frank here: One day our species will set foot on Mars. All of us here are comfortable saying that.

Will Mars One be the group doing it? If this discussion is any predictor of future events, then the answer is no. Personally I feel a group with far more industrial infrastructure at hand will be the first to do it: Like China, India, Russia, Japan, or the US and its larger corporations; And if that is the case, then Mars' Ones claims do become a scam.

[Nibb31]

My point is more along the lines of: You don't need a large factory to build rocket engines.

Citation needed.

And robotic mining is a thing.

Any real-world examples of low-maintenance robotic mining on Earth to prove your point?

Also yes, the F9R will be able to carry a DragonRider to LEO. The F9H would be able to send it to Mars, while having at least the 2 boosters being reusable.

Citation needed.

RedDragon is a modified DragonRider for cargo missions. A crewed MTV might have to be assembled in 2 launches + crew launch. Still less than half a billion for the launches. Rocket stage for the transfer to Mars, an Inflatable Hab, perhaps from Bigelow Aerospace + a DragonRider for landing the Crew. A DragonRider can hold up to 7 people.

You forget the supplies for the journey (hint: they won't fit in a deflated inflatable module for launch) and the dozens of launches to land enough supplies and equipment for the crew to survive on Mars.

Individual launch cost is irrelevant. The cost 'per seat' has to take into account the total cost of the program, including development of hardware that doesn't yet exist and delivering all the supplies and equipment to Mars.

A F9H launch is expected to cost around $100M for 1 ton delivered to Mars surface. Simply delivering 20 tons of supplies (which is basically the contents of a two ATVs to the ISS, ie: not much and certainly not enough to sustain 6 astronauts for a year) will cost $2 billion. This doesn't even include the cost of the Dragon itself and hardware development.

[Nibb31]

Payload to Mars of a Falcon Heavy is 13.5 tons. There is A LOT you can do with 13.5 tons. Just let the engineers do their job, that usually brings great results, as seen at SpaceX and Tesla, and everywhere else the managers don't interfere with the Engineers *cough cough* Challenger disaster *cough cough* Venture Star.

From Wikipedia:

Red Dragon is a concept for a low-cost uncrewed Mars lander that would utilize a SpaceX Falcon Heavy launch vehicle and a modified Dragon capsule to enter the Martian atmosphere. The concept will be proposed for funding in 2013 as a NASA Discovery mission, for launch in 2018.[77][78] The mission would search for the biosignatures of past or present life on Mars. Red Dragon would drill about 1 metre (3.3 ft) underground in an effort to sample reservoirs of water ice known to exist in the shallow Martian subsurface.[77][78]

A Dragon capsule is capable of performing all the entry, descent and landing (EDL) functions required to deliver payloads of 1 tonne (2,200 lb) or more to the Martian surface without using a parachute. Preliminary analysis shows that the capsule's atmospheric drag will slow it sufficiently for the final stage of its descent to be within the capabilities of its SuperDraco retro-propulsion thrusters.[77][78]

[SargeRho]

1 tonne or more. Currently a Dragon can return 3 tonnes from LEO to Earth. And nowhere did I call for a DragonRider or RedDragon to be used to land supplies on Mars. I said you can do a lot with 13.5 tonnes.

The Falcon 9 was built from the beginning to be Reusable and to carry the Dragon. It would be fairly counter-productive for them to build it in a way that doesn't allow for that.

[Raven2099]

everything is a potential scam in all probably reality when involving $

[Seret]

My point is more along the lines of: You don't need a large factory to build rocket engines.

No, you're right, if you're only building small numbers you might get away with a smallish factory. Plus another one to build the machines and tools in the rocket factory. Plus warehouses, vehicles, power, water fuel, consumables, etc, etc. The you need people, who need food, air, water, heat, exercise, entertainment, etc. The list is endless.

You can't just magic stuff into existence. Here on Earth industry makes up about 30% of all economic activity, on a high-tech space installation you'd probably need a much higher percentage. It takes a huge amount of effort to keep civilisation running and supplied even in the lovely conditions here on Earth. On another planet's hostile environment it would be immensely harder. I wouldn't be surprised if a future colony spent over two thirds of all it's effort just keeping itself running.

And robotic mining is a thing.

If you mean: there are machines that automate some mining processes, then yes, of course there are. Mining is not a dude with a shovel these days. That's not the point. How do you repair those machines? How do you supply them with spare parts, fuel, lubricants and other consumables? How do you supply and support all the other equipment in your mine, the roads, the vehicles, the explosives, the ore handling machines, etc, etc. And even if you've got that sorted all you have is a raw material that still has to be transported, stored, and processed into useful form. And even then you've still only got the basic product (eg: a metal ingot) that still requires extensive processing into it's final form. All this industry takes infrastructure, parts, consumables, power, water, people to run and maintain the machines, etc.

There's plenty of things you can do with 3d printing, that will make extraterrestrial colonisation far, far easier (and cheaper).

There are some things. I'm not knocking AM, it's cool technology. But it isn't the all-conquering wonder-tech some people are hailing it as. Colonies in space will still need to be machining, casting, forging, forming, sintering, laying up, welding and hitting stuff with a hammer. There's a lot of stuff you just can't make with AM. How would you suggest we build a single-crystal turbine blade for a gas turbine engine using a 3D printer? Or a titanium pressure vessel? Or anything out of composites?

[SargeRho]

By robotic mining, I mean that machines that are partially automated/partially radiocontrolled for mining exist. A single operator could potentially operate a small army of mining robots, with fully automated vehicles transporting the raw material away. This kind of stuff is for perhaps decades after the colony was first started. Initially it will of course depend on Earth, but it will become more and more independent as time goes on.

As for food and air: Greenhouses and large domes full of plants. Heat and power: Solar and nuclear power. Exercise and entertainment: Running around those domes, activities in spacesuits outside and some treadmills...perhaps the colonists could use exoskeletons in the long run that can also act as exercisers by resisiting rather than aiding the wearer's movements. And television. There will be plenty of stuff to do on such a colony.

You can make the explosives from the ambient air, or not use explosives and do it the good old way, with drills and wedges...or their hydraulic equivalents. A single crystal turbine blade would for now need to be made on Earth, like many things. But not all things, not even all things of that type. Rocket injectors, I think even full rocket engines, can be 3d printed. Composits would need to be made manually, I suppose. I don't know if there are machines that can do that yet. Reusable rockets and the Mars Cycler come to mind again.

Edited August 22, 2013 by SargeRho

[Anton P. Nym]

By robotic mining, I mean that machines that are partially automated/partially radiocontrolled for mining exist. A single operator could potentially operate a small army of mining robots, with fully automated vehicles transporting the raw material away. This kind of stuff is for perhaps decades after the colony was first started. Initially it will of course depend on Earth, but it will become more and more independent as time goes on.

Operation isn't the big problem. Maintenance is, and alas I have yet to see automated or teleoperated repair/recovery equipment deployed or even in the development pipeline. (Mines today don't have that problem because they can send a guy down or haul the machine back up when it needs fixing.) Mining is particularly harsh on equipment.

-- Steve

[SargeRho]

Maintenance could be done by the colonists. I think in fact, maintenance would be one of the "biggest" jobs on a colony like this.

[czokletmuss]

You do realize that the Mars column is for a return mission, it would look a whole lot different if you take out the return trip.

Well of course - after all it's much easier to spend on Mars 10+ years then 1 year.

[Albert VDS]

Well of course - after all it's much easier to spend on Mars 10+ years then 1 year.

Musculoskeletal: Long-term health risk of early onset osteoporosis Mission risk of reduced muscle strength and aerobic capacity

- Caused by long durations of weightlessness. - Green for Mars One

Sensorimotor: Mission risk of sensory changes/dysfunctions

- Caused by long durations of weightlessness. - Green for Mars One

Ocular Syndrome: Mission and long-term health risk of microgravity-induced visual impairment and/or elevated

- Caused by long durations of weightlessness. - Green for Mars One

Nutrition: Mission risk of behavioral and nutritional health due to inability to provide appropriate quantity, quality and variety of food Nutrition

- No resupply available or means or producing your own food. - Orange for Mars One

Autonomous Medical Care: Mission and long-term health risk due to inability to provide adequate medical care throughout the mission (Includes onboard training, diagnosis, treatment, and presence/absence of onboard physician)

- An actual problem concerning the Mars One mission. - Red for Mars One

Radiation: Long-term risk of carcinogenesis and degenerative tissue disease due to radiation exposure – Largely addressed with ground-based research

– Cause by long duration in space and insufficient shielding on your hab. - Orange for Mars One

Toxicity: Mission risk of exposure to a toxic environment without adequate monitoring, warning systems or under - standing of potential toxicity (dust, chemicals, infectious agents)

- Depends on how you handle EVA - Green/Orange for Mars One

Autonomous Emergency Response: Medical risks due to life support system failure and other emergencies (fire, depressurization, toxic atmosphere, etc.), crew rescue scenarios

- An actual problem concerning the Mars One mission. - Red for Mars One

Hypogravity: Long-term risk associated with adaptation during intravehicular activity and extravehicular activity on the Moon, asteroids, Mars (vestibular and performance dysfunctions) and postflight rehabilitation

- Risk caused by long duration of weightlessness and returning to Earth. - Green for Mars One

So we have:

5 green (or 4 depending on how you look at it)

2 orange ( or 3 depending on how look at it)

2 Red

Seems to me that it would be safer to go on a one way trip to Mars than to do a 6 month Moon mission.

[czokletmuss]

1. Nobody know how a human body will handle 0,4g for a long time (Apollo astronauts spend days at most on the Moon, we're talking about years)

2. How do you know 0,4g won't cause it also?

3. like above

4. No resupply = death. There is no closed life support system at the moment.

5. I agree.

6. SPE could kill you.

7. "Depends on how you handle" means green light? I can't agree with it.

8. I agree.

9. Maybe.

Plus 10. Mars One doesn't have money, knowledge or hardware. They have pretty fancy PowerPoint presentations though.

[Diche Bach]

Musculoskeletal: Long-term health risk of early onset osteoporosis Mission risk of reduced muscle strength and aerobic capacity

- Caused by long durations of weightlessness. - Green for Mars One . . . SNIP . . .

Uhhhh . . . I think it might be wishful thinking to reclassify several of those as "green/orange." Particularly, toxicity, radiation, nutrition, ocular, sensorimotor and musculoskeletal.

My understanding is that, the physiological harm from "micro-gravity" (sic. "weightlessness") is not a threshold effect, but rather a continuously varying albeit perhaps curvilinear effect. Gravity of 1.0 g is the healthiest, and gravity of 0.001 (or whatever it is outside of a planets hill sphere) is the most unhealthy. But that doesn't mean that 0.376 g is equally as healthy as 1.0g. It stands to reason that 0.376g is at best (and without remedial preventative care such as restrained exercise regimes) only 38% as health as 1.0g. In fact, if most of the ill health effects from micro-gravity derive from the initial reductions from 1.0g, anything below some relatively high level (0.8g, 0.54g, or whatever) might effectively be just as bad as 0.001g.

[Wait- Was That Important?]

I would be much more willing to support Elon Musk, a man with established launch architecture and an in-space presence, along with a highly functional and (so far) productive company, than a Dutchman with a decade to design and launch a self-sustaining colony on Mars.

Really, it's kind of a joke. Worst case scenario, it's just a ploy to get people excited for the prospect of a mars colony, which isn't really all that bad.

[Stargate525]

My understanding is that, the physiological harm from "micro-gravity" (sic. "weightlessness") is not a threshold effect, but rather a continuously varying albeit perhaps curvilinear effect. Gravity of 1.0 g is the healthiest, and gravity of 0.001 (or whatever it is outside of a planets hill sphere) is the most unhealthy. But that doesn't mean that 0.376 g is equally as healthy as 1.0g. It stands to reason that 0.376g is at best (and without remedial preventative care such as restrained exercise regimes) only 38% as health as 1.0g. In fact, if most of the ill health effects from micro-gravity derive from the initial reductions from 1.0g, anything below some relatively high level (0.8g, 0.54g, or whatever) might effectively be just as bad as 0.001g.

It's not, though. It's much more of a parabolic curve. A lot of the problems with weightlessness is that your body uses gravity as a 'down' position for a lot of its functions; digestion, balance, orientation, blood flow, etc. Without that, it gets confused.

If it has that down position (which we certainly would in half a g), then it's merely a case of being very strong for the environment. Your heart won't have to work as hard to get blood to your head; your legs won't need to support as much, etc. For some people, it might be MORE healthy, long-term. The biggest problem is that once you normalize to half a g, going back to earth might be impossible, as you're now at, effectively for your body, 2g.

[lajoswinkler]

Man, I love reading dream bashing. No sarcasm here.

Here's a question for those that think this is a viable project. Let's say you have a machine doing something in your habitat, like taking care of your urine. It breakes down and requires maintenance. Assuming you know how to fix it, you take the neccessary tools and get down on it. But one of your tools breaks down. What are you going to do?

Call mommy (Earth) for help? "Hey, I need a size 4 defloppulator, please send one ASAP!"

Yeah, you'll get one, in few months if you're lucky.

You've got only size 1, 2, 3, 5. No defloppulator #4, no urine recycling. Immediate microbe threat to your habitat. Immediate water reclamation threat. Result: death in two weeks.

No 3D printer will help you, because defloppulator is made of high carbon steel and germanium. OK, you could get some germanium if you break down one high yield fluctuation dampener, you've got 5 of those stored. What about steel? Destroy more tools? Melt it? Using what? Energy from solar panels? ROFL

Precise machining? Using what? Ultra-lazor-robotic-something? No problem, just build yourself one.

The complications arising from a single thing going wrong are staggering.

People overlook these things because they're accustomed to modern life where you "get stuff". But how do you get them? Somebody has to make them.

That TV in your bedroom, it contains parts put together by some guy in China. Those parts are made by robots. Parts for those parts are made by other industries. Materials used for those parts are made by refining parts extracted by basic, heavy industry, something modern people forget so easily.

Yeah, it's easy to claim you're "environmental" while you're driving an electric car. You don't have to breathe air contaminated by large factories that use GWhs of power to melt and electrolyze molten rocks.

Mars One is not going anywhere, unless everyone is ok with launching people to their deaths. Launching a tin can is easy, but real life has no F9 key.

Edited August 22, 2013 by lajoswinkler

[Diche Bach]

It's not, though. It's much more of a parabolic curve. A lot of the problems with weightlessness is that your body uses gravity as a 'down' position for a lot of its functions; digestion, balance, orientation, blood flow, etc. Without that, it gets confused.

If it has that down position (which we certainly would in half a g), then it's merely a case of being very strong for the environment. Your heart won't have to work as hard to get blood to your head; your legs won't need to support as much, etc. For some people, it might be MORE healthy, long-term. The biggest problem is that once you normalize to half a g, going back to earth might be impossible, as you're now at, effectively for your body, 2g.

Interesting. That does make some sense hypothetically. But is there really any data to show that living in 0.376g is in fact less unhealthy than living in 0.001 or for that matter, "more" healthy than 1.0g for some people or for some physiological functions?

My understanding is that, the problems of microgravity go beyond the simple mechanical load on the skeleton and muscles. There are issues with various functions (immunity for one) that may relate to microgravity effects at the cellular level. Moreover, experiments done with microorganisms that were reared in space show pretty clear effects on this critters, and they live in a fluid environment where a musculoskeltal system is irrelevant.

As I said, in the absence of real data on the topic, it seems to be wishful thinking to project that living in 0.376g will be more like living in 1.0g in terms of health than living in 0.0001g

Man, I love reading dream bashing. No sarcasm here.

For me at least, "bashing" dreams is not a reason to participate in a thread like this. In fact, I _share_ the dream that humanity will one day walk on Mars, indeed, that they will one day LIVE and thrive there. It is a meritorious dream.

But as Napoleon Bonaparte (I think) said: "Hope is not a strategy."

If you are truly devoted to a dream, then you will be no less devoted to it, even when you realize it is unlikely to culminate in your lifetime. We all contribute more to the eventual fruition of these dreams when we operate on realistic, indeed, somewhat pessimistic grounds than when we operate on overly optimistic and hopeful grounds.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Diche Bach

[Stargate525]

Interesting. That does make some sense hypothetically. But is there really any data to show that living in 0.376g is in fact less unhealthy than living in 0.001 or for that matter, "more" healthy than 1.0g for some people or for some physiological functions?

My understanding is that, the problems of microgravity go beyond the simple mechanical load on the skeleton and muscles. There are issues with various functions (immunity for one) that may relate to microgravity effects at the cellular level. Moreover, experiments done with microorganisms that were reared in space show pretty clear effects on this critters, and they live in a fluid environment where a musculoskeltal system is irrelevant.

As I said, in the absence of real data on the topic, it seems to be wishful thinking to project that living in 0.376g will be more like living in 1.0g in terms of health than living in 0.0001g

microgravity =/= reduced gravity.

You're arguing a circuit here. We don't have the data, so we can't go to Mars, but if we don't go to Mars, we can't get the data, and if we don't have the data... A lot of this thread is in the same vein. Most of this stuff we won't know until we get someone, something, living on Mars to find out.

The closest thing we can do, short of going to another planet and living there, is building a giant spinning ring in orbit calibrated to give .38g, and having someone hang out up there for a year or two. NASA had a smaller one planned to test the viability of those kind of rings, but hey, funding got in the way of it.

[lajoswinkler]

I just enjoy the process of peeling away the BS and getting to the core of the problem. I'd really like if this project was possible. I'd like to go to Mars and collect rocks. Hell, I'd even be ok with living for quite a while in a smelly can, all alone, taking care of the station, if I knew I was coming home and that I'm actually safe.

I'm all for developing projects and not giving up just because something isn't technologically feasible and viable at the moment.

But this, this is insane. We might as well put few people in a can and use heavy equipment to offer the can to wild animals like a pot full of food, while recording it with a camera. They'd suffer less.

[Moon Goddess]

My opinion can be summed up pretty easily,

Can humanity send people to live short/long term on Mars? Yes and we should.

Can Mars One send people to live short/long term on Mars? Not a chance.