Mars To Stay

[GJames]

So, I just had a look at the Mars One website... It looks interesting, and would be amazing if it all went to plan.

I'm still a bit skeptical though, so do you think it should go ahead or not? And do you think it would actually work if it went ahead?

For those who haven't a clue what I'm talking about, Mars One plans to land four astronauts on Mars and have them stay there and conduct research/build a base etc.

http://mars-one.com/en/mission/mission-and-vision

EDIT: Mars One is a tad unlikely, I'll admit, so I'm expanding the thread topic to include anything about any manned Mars mission that plans to stay on the surface and not return to Earth.

Edited June 4, 2013 by GJames

[astropapi1]

Meh... There are many bits missing on their plan.

And they need money, big loads of money that only the gobernment can give them. Going to Mars isn't cheap!

Edited June 4, 2013 by astropapi1
I made a typo because I'm using my phone :P

[NASAFanboy]

Meh, Mars One is just a bunch of PowerPoint and videos.

[Nibb31]

Do we really need another thread about Mars One? It's been talked about to death, and no, there's no way they are are ever going to book a flight, let alone put people on Mars.

If they did, it would be a slow and boring suicide mission, and the failure would probably prevent anyone else from attempting a proper manned exploration mission.

[Canopus]

They will make a TV show about some guys who think they are going to mars. Nothing else will happen.

[Harpoon]

IMHO there are several reasons why this is not so good idea.

First problem is the cost. And I'm not talking about the cost of sending them to Mars, I'm talking about keeping them alive. AFAIK they would require constant supplies from Earth. Also this would have to be huge amounts of supplies, enough to survive for approx 2 Earth years. So, if the project for some reason looses it's money source they're doomed.

Second, it could end in a catastrophic disaster simply because those ppl would have to spend the rest of their lives with just themselves and some of them just may not endure this mentally.

Third, assuming this mission will not fail, sooner or later they will have to regulate their population somehow, which also can lead to conflicts and further problems.

IMHO, I think we should wait for the ability to return home before launching such missions.

[Karriz]

I know they won't succeed, but I hope they do succeed.

They plan to send a bunch of unmanned missions at first, at least that's something.

They shouldn't send anyone to Mars until they've proven that the colony can be 100% self-sufficient. (or has a return capability)

[GJames]

Do we really need another thread about Mars One? It's been talked about to death, and no, there's no way they are are ever going to book a flight, let alone put people on Mars.

Okay, how about extending the discussion to include any Mars landing that doesn't plan on coming back. I'm interested in hearing if people think this is ethical/a good idea/just completely stupid...

[The Stinger]

Any mission with no return, one where the settlement can provide for itself, is one step closer for us to become an interplanetary species.

And besides, any mission or plan to any destination should be applauded because we already have enough people complaining about space.

[Flixxbeatz]

"Any landing is a good landing!" Said any Kerbal Space Program player ever.

[Borklund]

No, because MarsOne is never ever going to get off the ground. I wish you people would stop giving them so much attention.

[Jokurr]

I would very much like to see Mars One succeed, though I don’t think it is going to happen.

[lobsterbark]

I don't think Mars One is a good idea, mainly because its too small to be self-sustaining. If a self-sustaining mission could be launched, then it would be nice. But relying on expensive to send supplies from earth is a bad idea.

[tavert]

The Mars to Stay idea is interesting, since the Mars Ascent and Earth Return vehicles contribute pretty substantially to the cost and complexity of most manned Mars mission architectures, even those that lean heavily on ISRU for return propellant. It's easier to deliver people and cargo on a one-way trip than there and back. But enough easier to drive the cost down to realistically achievable numbers? Maybe not.

[Rickenbacker]

I think a one-way mission is feasible, but even that is too expensive to finance it through private means. Especially advertising - they'd need the entire global advertising buy for several years in a row to be able to put people on Mars! Hopefully they'll at least send a couple of rovers up, but I doubt they'll raise the money to even do that.

The old NASA idea of the "one man, one way" mission is also fascinating. Basically, send one guy to Mars, with supplies to last a few years, and go get him when (and if) you can. The basic idea was to get there before the Russians, so I don't think it's going to happen now. Don't think there would be any shortage of volunteers, though .

[Person012345]

How about no because it'll be a giant failure and waste of money?

[firerider521]

So.

If Mars One is just going to be a ridiculous waste of money and time, what are your guys' ideas for getting to Mars?

Anything else?

So you're just going to shoot it down?

I'd like to hear your ideas.

[Kerbface]

When a Mars landing actually happens, I'd bet it would be an international space agency cooperation using a lot of commercial hardware, like stuff from SpaceX. Maybe a few Astronauts from the US, a few from Russia, and some others. An international cooperation major research mission. And maybe some crowd funding could be involved.

Edited June 16, 2013 by Kerbface

[Warshawski]

IMHO there are several reasons why this is not so good idea.

First problem is the cost. And I'm not talking about the cost of sending them to Mars, I'm talking about keeping them alive. AFAIK they would require constant supplies from Earth. Also this would have to be huge amounts of supplies, enough to survive for approx 2 Earth years. So, if the project for some reason looses it's money source they're doomed.

False assumption. If you read their website, they're actually sending greenhouse modules up before the colonists would get there, tended by robotic processes. There would be food.

Third, assuming this mission will not fail, sooner or later they will have to regulate their population somehow, which also can lead to conflicts and further problems.

IMHO, I think we should wait for the ability to return home before launching such missions.

Incorrect. They would simply, as planned in their mission plan, build more living space. There ARE resources on Mars to do such a thing with, especially if you find a lava tube of sufficient diameter.

I really do wish people would be less defeatist. Yes, it's unlikely, and will probably fail before it gets to the point of launching things, but it could work, too.

[The Stinger]

Throughout the history of mankind's pioneers have been ridiculed(or worse), in the end they changed mankind in a big way.

Mars One is subject to the same ridicule. No one knows if they will succeed, although some think they can predict the future.

"Don't judge a book by it's cover." fit's this discussion, if you look passed the introduction video(or the power point presentation), you'll

see a non-profit organization who is passionate about an adventure which has been put on hold for far too long.

We need to get people interested in Space, let them know it's not a waste of money.

[Person012345]

So.

If Mars One is just going to be a ridiculous waste of money and time, what are your guys' ideas for getting to Mars?

Anything else?

So you're just going to shoot it down?

I'd like to hear your ideas.

/facepalm

I'm not "shooting it down", it will fail all by itself. And I happen not to be a brilliant rocket scientist. That doesn't mean I can't see the painfully obvious flaws in sending a bunch of members of the public on a one-way trip to mars with our current technology.

[AndrewBCrisp]

I think this project is a mistake for now. It's too soon.

We have a LOT of questions that we need to answer before we can set up any permanent base on Mars, be it 4 people or 4 million. The technical questions (building the spacecraft, landing on Mars, building the base) are the easiest ones. Other people have mentioned the need for constant supplies from Earth, as well as the psychological problems of sending 4 people to another planet with no possibility of return. My personal thinking that this is also planned as a reality show is also a warning sign. Reality shows thrive on drama - a Martian colony needs as little drama as possible.

To found a colony in less than 10 years hints of hubris of the highest order. If and when it fails - leaving 4 or more people dead on the Martian surface - the backlash against private human spaceflight could be huge.

A more incremental program to put a colony on Mars would be safer. The Inspiration Mars flyby mission would help answer a number of questions about human interplanetary flight. With those answered, we could go to a Mars landing, then a temporary base, and then set up a permanent colony. It'll take longer but I think would have a better chance of success.

[jwenting]

/facepalm

I'm not "shooting it down", it will fail all by itself. And I happen not to be a brilliant rocket scientist. That doesn't mean I can't see the painfully obvious flaws in sending a bunch of members of the public on a one-way trip to mars with our current technology.

with current technology we can certainly send people on a one way trip to Mars and land them safely on the surface.

We can even do so reliably and repeatedly, IF we put in enough effort to send those repeat missions.

And there's the problem, we won't. After one, maybe two, missions get there the novelty will have gone, people lose interest, the media no longer pay to cover the cost (which is how they plan to finance it, Big Brother style "reality tv" coverage of the settlers taking a pee and arguing about who's going to have to don their space suit to walk out to the hydroponic farm to get lunch for everyone), and the program is abandoned.

IF/when someone dies, there might be a revival of interest but at the same time the investors will be torn between the drama media value of a "rescue mission" and the risk of being sued for damages by the next of kin (no number of disclaimers and other forms denying right to compensation can prevent that), and in the end the lawyers will win out, the Mars 1 company gets sued for every cent it's worth, and the settlers are left to die on Mars, finding their radio link with earth suddenly severed one day.

I'd LOVE for a program to settle Mars to go ahead, and private funding to be the way to do it, but it will just never work as long as the above remains true for our society.

[The Stinger]

That doesn't mean I can't see the painfully obvious flaws in sending a bunch of members of the public on a one-way trip to mars with our current technology.

So what are these painfully obvious flaws then?

[Cryocasm]

With a slight jump in battery and solar panel technology, Mars is self-sufficient:

All they need are excavators, cranes, dump trucks, and drilling rigs. In addition to that, Mars is very rich in Iron (which is why its red...), so local construction is not very difficult, given the few megawatts can be generated for an induction furnace. Construction would be mostly underground anyway, to provide passive radiation shielding.

Mars' atmosphere is even 95% CO2, with a bit of tinkering and biogenetic engineering, just simply PLANTING PLANTS would begin generating oxygen. Water is available locally (albeit frozen), meaning humans are good to go.