[space] Is Mars-one a scam?

[lajoswinkler]

The exact legal status of their people they sent is probably an interesting question for the lawyers, but one assumes they would be employees of Mars One so they'd be under contract to follow directions from their controllers. This does raise the interesting question of how Mars One would punish any breach of contract, but in actual practical terms the fact that the outpost would be utterly dependent on Earth for resupply does mean there's a limit to how tetchy they could get away with being. At a minimum Mars One could discipline them by limiting access to things like news and entertainment from Earth, comms with family members, and quality of food and creature comforts sent in replenishment missions. The power balance in the relationship is entirely in favour of their controllers on Earth.

They can not do that legally. Limiting the resources such as information, entertainment, communication and nourishment would be a breach of human rights. There would be an outrage if Mars One commits such crime. The stocks would plummet. The power balance is pretty much in the hands of the public.

[NERVAfan]

There is no maybe this or maybe that. We simply don't know the effects of microgravity or partial gravity on development of a foetus, an infant or a child.

Not on humans, no.

There ARE studies on the development of rat fetuses in microgravity though... I linked to two of them, and quoted from them, on the last page.

Partial gravity, yeah, no one's really studied much if at all AFAIK.

Centrifuge experiments would be a good idea... or maybe just land a bunch of rats on the Moon or Mars with regular food and water dispensers...

There is that aspect, but there are about a million practical and ethical factors that speak against the wisdom of adding extra mouths to feed in a cramped habitat stranded millions of km away from Earth in a poisonous atmosphere and only periodically resupplied at great expense. It's not at all an appropriate environment for raising a child, and they'd expose themselves to severe criticism if they simply did it for ratings.

OTOH. Mars One is planning a colony, which does kind of imply reproduction.

Now if you assume beforehand that it won't work out, then yes, it looks like a really bad idea. But assuming the colony will survive and prosper I'm not sure why it's such a bad idea.

(Now, I don't think Mars One will ever raise the money to actually colonize Mars, or even a tenth of it... but the same thing sort of applies to anybody's efforts to colonize Mars, whether it's them or somebody else after SpaceX builds its "Mars Colonial Transporter".)

EDIT:

But I was under the impression that mammalian fetuses had been observe to fail to develop in microgravity. I can't find that article again, though.

Well development certainly has been done in microgravity. Now maybe miscarriage rates were higher, but the abstracts of these fetal studies seem fairly optimistic.

None of these experiments seem to be a "full cycle" though.

Here's another... though this sounds like it might be a different paper about the same research, it also mentions Wistar rats and 0 to 2 G conditions... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16237823 "In embryological experiments it was demonstrated that during space flight it is possible not only to maintain physiological functions of an adult organism, but to form functions of a developing fetus. The animals that spent the portion of their prenatal development in space flight were capable to go through the entire cycle of postnatal development, up to sexual maturity and reproduction. In ground based centrifuge experiments with 2G it was demonstrated the possibility of realizing, under hypergravity, of all the main stages of prenatal and early postnatal development of rats: fertilization, embryon implantation, fetal development, birth and lactation of progeny. Exposure of rats to microgravity did not reduce their life span post flight."

[theend3r]

They can not do that legally. Limiting the resources such as information, entertainment, communication and nourishment would be a breach of human rights. There would be an outrage if Mars One commits such crime. The stocks would plummet. The power balance is pretty much in the hands of the public.

Look what we have here, an expert on martian law. If you seriously think any laws or rights apply in such an unconventional situation, you're mistaken. And even if they did, do you think you have some kind of right to be provided with entertainment or communication? The regime there would be similar to the military one. Imagine a soldier screaming he wants to watch TV, ridiculous. Nourishment would have to be provided but it's quality could vary.

[ThinkOutsideTheHangar]

DAMN IT NASA! If they had just accepted NERVA (the nuclear rocket engine, think LV-atomic motor) we would have gone to Mars ages ago. Wehrner Von Braun even put the launch date sometime around the 1980.

[Seret]

They can not do that legally. Limiting the resources such as information, entertainment, communication and nourishment would be a breach of human rights. There would be an outrage if Mars One commits such crime. The stocks would plummet. The power balance is pretty much in the hands of the public.

They absolutely could. The declaration of human rights only says that a person must be provided with "adequate" food, etc. It doesn't guarantee that a person can't be punished by an organisation. If it did prisons would never work.

One of the things it does actually guarantee is a right to reproduce, so if one of them insisted they would have to back down. The sheer impracticality of the idea however would suggest that strenuous efforts would be made to prevent it. It's quite possible they'd require male volunteers to get the snip to qualify.

The actual infrastructure Mars One are talking about sending is not appropriate for raising children. The public would not support a child being cooped up like that. I sure as hell wouldn't.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Seret

[Seret]

OTOH. Mars One is planning a colony, which does kind of imply reproduction.

When you look at their actual plans they're quite limited in scope. A proper multi-generational colony would have to be much more ambitious. It would need a population large enough to be a viable gene pool (IIRC this on the order of 100 people), proper medical facilities, schools, large recreational spaces, an accommodation surplus, etc.

That's why I'm saying I don't think they have Martian babies on they roadmap, their infrastructure wouldn't support it. They say they're founding a permanent colony, but they'd probably have no shortage of volunteers from Earth if they wanted to replace dead crew members.

[Nibb31]

Any mixed crew going on a long duration trip (including an official NASA sponsored expedition) would probably be required to use contraceptives or to undergo voluntary sterilization for the first couple of decades. There are simply too many risks involved.

[lajoswinkler]

Look what we have here, an expert on martian law. If you seriously think any laws or rights apply in such an unconventional situation, you're mistaken. And even if they did, do you think you have some kind of right to be provided with entertainment or communication? The regime there would be similar to the military one. Imagine a soldier screaming he wants to watch TV, ridiculous. Nourishment would have to be provided but it's quality could vary.

This has zero connection to martial law. Yes, the laws would still apply because they don't depend on the current habitat. If they chose to breach those laws, the public would go mad. First settlers on Mars, and the company is turning their lives into hell because someone made a baby? You don't really understand how people would react. I guarantee you that Mars One stocks would plummet and that there would be a mess on Earth.

Soldier is not being punished by not having TV. He chose that. If you send a colony on Mars, stranding them there forever, and you mess with them like they're lab rats, you will lose support on Earth. Governments were destroyed because of lesser things, mind that.

They absolutely could. The declaration of human rights only says that a person must be provided with "adequate" food, etc. It doesn't guarantee that a person can't be punished by an organisation. If it did prisons would never work.

One of the things it does actually guarantee is a right to reproduce, so if one of them insisted they would have to back down. The sheer impracticality of the idea however would suggest that strenuous efforts would be made to prevent it. It's quite possible they'd require male volunteers to get the snip to qualify.

The actual infrastructure Mars One are talking about sending is not appropriate for raising children. The public would not support a child being cooped up like that. I sure as hell wouldn't.

The Declaration bans certain types of punishment. Human rights don't just spin around food.

Yes, they would have to back down, but they could prevent it by castrating the colony, voluntary, of course. If someone wants to go to Mars, sterilization it is.

I totally agree with the child raising. That would be one of the main reasons to put sterilization among the conditions for going there.

[Mazon Del]

The trick of course being that the intention for this colony IS to be self sustaining, including population. They WANT the people to breed and while they care about how this might affect the children they are leaving that as a choice for the 'parents'. Applicants who make the cut and go to Mars, go knowing that they may be in for a stream of malformed babies that die before we figure out how to make one. It is very sad, but it is a risk we choose to accept, and it is most certainly not hidden from us. We knew what we were getting into when we signed up.

[theend3r]

Soldier is not being punished by not having TV. He chose that.

And those colonist didn't choose it? Btw what can the public do? Damaging the company essentially means damaging the colonists. It's like saying that you don't like how animals are treated in some animal sanctuary so you'll destroy it.

[Omicron314]

Although this thread hasn't been posted in for over a month, I think it will do well to restart the discussion in light of the most recent news.

According to space.com (which many on this forum already read avidly, to my knowledge), Mars One has whittled down the potential astronaut selection pool to 705 and has signed a deal with Darlow Smithson Productions to host their TV show (although I've not been able to find much about them from a quick search; are they reputable? Popular?)

So, with that new information, has the discussion changed? Now that they actually have the deal, is it more likely that they will at the very least launch their first mission?

[Brucey]

Although this thread hasn't been posted in for over a month, I think it will do well to restart the discussion in light of the most recent news.

According to space.com (which many on this forum already read avidly, to my knowledge), Mars One has whittled down the potential astronaut selection pool to 705 and has signed a deal with Darlow Smithson Productions to host their TV show (although I've not been able to find much about them from a quick search; are they reputable? Popular?)

So, with that new information, has the discussion changed? Now that they actually have the deal, is it more likely that they will at the very least launch their first mission?

Very unlikely still in my opinion. Although an actual television deal is huge news for Mars One, it just means they get a publicity boost, and won't have to rely on indigogo campaigns and t-shirt sales to stay in operation. An actual mission to mars, even an unmanned one, would cost more than $100 million. I'd be very surprised to learn that Mars One has, or ever will, raise that kind of money.

btw, Darlow is owned by Endemol, which has some big titles under its belt including Big Brother, so I think they are at least reputable and popular.

[Nibb31]

Although this thread hasn't been posted in for over a month, I think it will do well to restart the discussion in light of the most recent news.

According to space.com (which many on this forum already read avidly, to my knowledge), Mars One has whittled down the potential astronaut selection pool to 705 and has signed a deal with Darlow Smithson Productions to host their TV show (although I've not been able to find much about them from a quick search; are they reputable? Popular?)

So, with that new information, has the discussion changed? Now that they actually have the deal, is it more likely that they will at the very least launch their first mission?

Even if they partnered with Endemol and half the TV channels in the World, they wouldn't be able to raise the money for an unmanned probe, let alone a manned trip. The obstacles are financial, technical, and ethical. People have got to let it go, it's not going to happen.

[Seret]

an actual television deal is huge news for Mars One

I always considered this the part they'd be most likely to get sorted. Mars One is highly likely to result in a TV programme, but highly unlikely to result in anything going to Mars IMO. They're long on hype and short on spaceflight experience, but the hype part works just fine for making TV.

[Dedjal]

Weee... We get to see a bunch of people get radiation sickness and die on live TV.

I think I got more important things to do instead of watching that.

[SargeRho]

Exept they aren't going to get radiation sickness.

[Aghanim]

A one-way trip, excluding the cost of maintaining four astronauts on Mars until they die

What!? Do they just leave the astronauts there until they die? What happen if there is a technical problem in the life support system? What about food and water? Landing site? ISRU?

[christok]

What happen if there is a technical problem in the life support system?

That's the easiest question to answer about the entire plan. They fix it themselves, quickly, or die. Same thing applies to any manned space mission. Reading their website in detail, Mars One seems hell-bent on sending a crew of doctors and psychologists without any electricians, plumbers, etc. And Bas stated directly that he thinks engineers have inferior personalities for this sort of thing.

Mars One needs to lose its founder.

Edited June 8, 2014 by christok
s/their/its/

[Dedjal]

Exept they aren't going to get radiation sickness.

Oh? How so?

As far as I know, Mars got no active magnetosphere to shield the ground from radiation.

I have not seen a plausible way of protecting the astronauts before receiving a high dose of radiation.

Built a shelter, using sand and rocks to use as cement and block radiation that way?

Good, but while it is being built, you got radiation.

Inhabitats that is shielded? Too heavy to land on Mars, so that is a no go.

fact is that they will be exposed, and then die of radiation sickness.

But that is what I see with my limited knowledge.

So how are they going to solve it?

[SargeRho]

But the magnetosphere isn't what shields a planet from Radiation. It's the atmosphere. The radiation on the surface of Mars is comparable to the radiation inside the ISS. Put some regolith over your head or put the sleeping quaters under the water tanks, problem solves.

[Lohan2008]

^ insert dismissive comment * (about Mars One).

[DunaRocketeer]

This podcast pretty accurately describes the *ahem* calibre of your typical Mars One groupie. I don't know if the people behind Mars are deluded or scammers, but either way, they ain't going to Mars.

http://thefpl.us/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=215:episode-140-is-there-anyone-with-a-life-on-mars&catid=1:podcasts

[Mazon Del]

But the magnetosphere isn't what shields a planet from Radiation. It's the atmosphere. The radiation on the surface of Mars is comparable to the radiation inside the ISS. Put some regolith over your head or put the sleeping quaters under the water tanks, problem solves.

Sorry SargeRho, but the magnetosphere IS what shields a planet from radiation. The atmosphere is just shielding you from what manages to break through THAT. Without the magnetosphere, solar winds and other radiation basically sandblasts our atmosphere away, but before you suffocate you get to die of all manner of bad things from the radiation that hits you.

[SargeRho]

But the Radiation DOESN'T hit you. At sea level, the atmosphere is roughly the equivalent of 10 meters of water. Radiation doesn't break through that.

Venus' atmosphere seems to be doing allright without a magnetosphere.

[Rus-Evo]

So (not having read all 50 pages)....... wouldn't it be a good idea for a Mars One to be robotic and prove that water can be mined and prove that crops can be grown and prove that shelters will be radiation proof? And also store up emergency stores of these in advance of humans going anywhere near?

The first manned mission could be a very short one to set up the above and other people follow when its successful.