[space] Is Mars-one a scam?

[Moar Boosters]

The main and only real obstacle is money. I don't know how a reality TV show is going to generate enough money even for a single falcon heavy. Even if they manage to send the first group there and everything works as planned..... people will get bored of the show after a few years.

[Technical Ben]

Hmmm... just where did that post say that it launched rockets? Or that it guaranteed anything to work? Or that we should "scattershot"?

In any case none of it had anything to do with the point the post was making. Which was that "low risk" seems a bit of overvalued argument, in the overall debate, since humans can be quite prepared to accept somewhat high risks for things they believe in. Heck, look far enough and you'll find humans accepting a 100 percent risk of death for something. Apollo astronauts sometimes guestimated their own chance as 1/3 or 50/50 and still went.

But why? If we wait, we will get there in time. If we rush, it will "hurt" more. Do we want that? For what? More risk so we get there quicker? I've been in cars with drivers with attitudes like that... it does not last long.

[Brethern]

The main and only real obstacle is money. I don't know how a reality TV show is going to generate enough money even for a single falcon heavy. Even if they manage to send the first group there and everything works as planned..... people will get bored of the show after a few years.

Um...

Have you turned the TV on lately?

There's nothing but "reality" tv on. So yes people would watch.

Though in terms of generating money. There's a few reality TV shows where I'd pay money to send them to mars.

[rkman]

Definitely, but the question was whether it's appropriate to spend time identifying risks for a prospective future mission. My point was that there was good stuff to be discovered by doing it early.

Sure that's appropriate. But there will be more identifying of risks (related but more specific than previously identified risks) once the actual mission program gets started.

We're just talking about different phases of the whole process.

The problem i have with Mars One is that it presents itself as though it is already at the point of an actual "mission", as opposed to preliminary study for a "prospective future mission".

The main and only real obstacle is money.

I'm pretty sure that if money would be no obstacle, people would find that development time is an obstacle.

[Rokker]

Um...

Have you turned the TV on lately?

There's nothing but "reality" tv on. So yes people would watch.

Though in terms of generating money. There's a few reality TV shows where I'd pay money to send them to mars.

Just because they are all on TV doesn't mean they are going to make money. There are a few reasons the common "reality" show is popular. It takes people who have extreme personalities and are therefore entertaining, something which would be extremely ill advised for any space mission. A good portion of reality shows have scripted events that make it more entertaining. Oh and the reason the networks love reality shows is because they are extremely cheap to produce, whereas space missions are not. Also, a large number of reality shows "change it up" over time, which is something fairly hard to do in this case. There can be no competition, which is one of the more popular additions to the common reality show. Literally the entire reality show would be people interacting with each other in everyday life with almost no possible outside variables. It will be a terrible show, ratings will drop, and then we have 4 people stranded on Mars, unable to afford sending them supplies as they slowly die on the surface.

[Rokker]

Also, there is absolutely NO reason they shouldn't be able to get off of Mars in the event of an emergency. They could literally launch an empty Delta Cryogenic Second Stage to Mars (should take a single launch, given the Falcon 9 Heavy's MTO capabilities), fuel it with Hydrogen and Oxygen using water extracted from the soil. It may possibly need some boosters, easily made out of modern day sounding rockets or perhaps some boosters using ALICE fuel which could be made on Mars. If you do that, you now have a vehicle capable of at least 10000 kg to LMO. If they would then also allow the Mars Transit Vehicle remain in orbit around Mars, rather than just discarding it into a heliocentric orbit, the crew could dock with and remain on the MTV until either help/backup parts arrive, or could possibly even return home on the MTV if the fuel margins are large enough. There is absolutely no reason for the Mars One astronauts to be forced to remain there in the event of the martian habitat failing.

[Seret]

You're expecting a team of amateurs to build a launch complex, prepare a rocket for flight using pioneering tech like ISRU, and carry out docking?

As for reality TV shows: how long do they generally stay profitable? Because assuming you send relatively young astronauts you're looking at committing to fund the outpost for several decades. It would take the most successful reality show ever made to even come close to success. I'm highly sceptical that Mars One's actual business plan relies on such a wildly improbable event. As I said earlier I don't think they've got any real intention of going to Mars, I think that's just the hook for a very terrestrial reality TV show.

[Nibb31]

Also, there is absolutely NO reason they shouldn't be able to get off of Mars in the event of an emergency. They could literally launch an empty Delta Cryogenic Second Stage to Mars (should take a single launch, given the Falcon 9 Heavy's MTO capabilities), fuel it with Hydrogen and Oxygen using water extracted from the soil. It may possibly need some boosters, easily made out of modern day sounding rockets or perhaps some boosters using ALICE fuel which could be made on Mars. If you do that, you now have a vehicle capable of at least 10000 kg to LMO. If they would then also allow the Mars Transit Vehicle remain in orbit around Mars, rather than just discarding it into a heliocentric orbit, the crew could dock with and remain on the MTV until either help/backup parts arrive, or could possibly even return home on the MTV if the fuel margins are large enough. There is absolutely no reason for the Mars One astronauts to be forced to remain there in the event of the martian habitat failing.

The whole point of Mars One is that there is no MTV. It uses a Falcon Heavy because it's the only thing available (Soonâ„¢) and (maybe) affordable. The Falcon's upper stage is empty by the time it gets to Mars and it doesn't have enough delta-v for orbit insertion. It's on a collision trajectory, so that the Dragon only has to burn for landing. You'd need a much larger vehicle to be able to perform that burn and have enough dV to return to Earth. There is no such vehicle and there won't be before several decades.

Also, landing a DCPS on Mars surface is far from a trivial task. The biggest thing we have ever landed there is a 900kg rover, and that was launched on an Atlas V.

Besides, ISRU is TRL-3 at this point, so no way can you rely on ISRU technology for vital functions.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Nibb31

[Albert VDS]

As for reality TV shows: how long do they generally stay profitable? Because assuming you send relatively young astronauts you're looking at committing to fund the outpost for several decades. It would take the most successful reality show ever made to even come close to success. I'm highly sceptical that Mars One's actual business plan relies on such a wildly improbable event.

It's not going to be like the other shock reality shows, I think they are planning it to be more like how the media covered the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo Astronauts.

Think about how the Moon landings capture the imaginations of more than 500 million people around the word, which was a lot for that time.

Now think about how much bigger the media industry is and how many ways you can connect with it.

The problem is they need to spark the imagination of large enough audience to keep the ball rolling.

As I said earlier I don't think they've got any real intention of going to Mars, I think that's just the hook for a very terrestrial reality TV show.

How do you get to that conclusion?

To me Bas Lansdorp is someone who wants his dream to become a reality. He sold his share in Ampyx Power and with that started up Mars One in 2011 and funded it up to 2013 with his own money.

So basically he put all his money into his dream to make a settlement on Mars a reality.

Like I said before, the only reason why Mars One is using the reality TV show concept is because our society doesn't offer other ways of funding such a mission.

[Seret]

The problem is they need to spark the imagination of large enough audience to keep the ball rolling.

That, indeed, is my point. I don't think it's at all feasible to sustain the level of investment required through that business model. It's certainly extremely risky, you're basically betting the lives of a group of people on the whims of the TV-watching public. How would you feel about a show where they promised to shoot the participants in the head if you changed channel? Because that's essentially what Mars One are proposing.

How do you get to that conclusion?

It's just a hunch. A TV show about Mars One volunteers going through their training is very much achievable, and IIRC Mars One are in fact planning on producing one. Doing so would be well within their technical and financial capabilities. An actual Mars mission comes somewhat later in their timeline and would cost vastly more, therefore it would only get green-lighted if they were projecting that they'd make enough money to cover it. Since I don't expect them to be earning enough money, I would expect them to wind things up before then. The cynical part of me judges that they expect the same thing to happen. It's a pretty flaky business model, after all. I'd be more worried about their sanity if they really thought they'd get anybody to Mars that way.

[Mazon Del]

Well, there is also the additional fact that if things do go south for the show itself, Mars One can always say "Well hey, we cannot afford to keep them going anymore." and at that point it is pushed onto a government like the US to pay for rescue. I can fairly well guarentee that if there was 4-32 Americans up there, that the public would riot if the government refused to bring them home when they got in trouble. The trouble in this instance being cut off from further supply from Earth rather than something more immediately lethal.

[Ikaneko]

It be foolish: use Mars Direct instead. At least have some sort of abort system rather than just leaving them there.

[kiwi1960]

@Albert

You ask ME if I seriously think they would send a bunch of psychopaths to Mars....

Let me answer that question with as few words as possible...

"One way trip"...

Anyone applying MUST be a psychopath in some small way, its obvious they all have a death wish.

[Rokker]

The whole point of Mars One is that there is no MTV. It uses a Falcon Heavy because it's the only thing available (Soonâ„¢) and (maybe) affordable. The Falcon's upper stage is empty by the time it gets to Mars and it doesn't have enough delta-v for orbit insertion. It's on a collision trajectory, so that the Dragon only has to burn for landing. You'd need a much larger vehicle to be able to perform that burn and have enough dV to return to Earth. There is no such vehicle and there won't be before several decades.

Also, landing a DCPS on Mars surface is far from a trivial task. The biggest thing we have ever landed there is a 900kg rover, and that was launched on an Atlas V.

Besides, ISRU is TRL-3 at this point, so no way can you rely on ISRU technology for vital functions.

That is a complete lie. See 2024 http://www.mars-one.com/mission/roadmap

As for the DCSS, you ignore the fact that it fits within the Falcon 9 Heavy launch capabilities and as for ISRU, its not complicated, its simple chemistry using solar power.

Now stop trying to ignore a simple, easily accomplishable goal, along with ignoring entire facts about Mars One so that you can justify a suicide mission with no backup/escape plan.

Edited April 26, 2014 by Rokker

[Moar Boosters]

Also, there is absolutely NO reason they shouldn't be able to get off of Mars in the event of an emergency.......... There is absolutely no reason for the Mars One astronauts to be forced to remain there in the event of the martian habitat failing.

Even if you could launch an elaborate rescue mission, they probably wouldn't last long if your brought them back to earth. Living in a low gravity environment causes all sorts of damage to the body. Massive loss of muscle mass, bone density and weakening if the heart are pretty big issues. If they've spend long enough living on Mars, just bringing them back to earth is likely to kill them.

[Rokker]

Even if you could launch an elaborate rescue mission, they probably wouldn't last long if your brought them back to earth. Living in a low gravity environment causes all sorts of damage to the body. Massive loss of muscle mass, bone density and weakening if the heart are pretty big issues. If they've spend long enough living on Mars, just bringing them back to earth is likely to kill them.

That is true... if they don't exercise, how do you think NASA is planning to do it?

[Albert VDS]

@Albert

You ask ME if I seriously think they would send a bunch of psychopaths to Mars....

Let me answer that question with as few words as possible...

"One way trip"...

Anyone applying MUST be a psychopath in some small way, its obvious they all have a death wish.

A psychopath isn't a person who wants to die, in fact they are egocentric. They don't have any moral and commit antisocial and/or violent acts without feeling guilty about it.

[78stonewobble]

Maybe if they reversed the idea a bit: "Pay to put people on mars... And we'll also remove reality shows and reality contestants from tv onward" ?!?!

[Rokker]

Maybe if they reversed the idea a bit: "Pay to put people on mars... And we'll also remove reality shows and reality contestants from tv onward" ?!?!

I would get behind this, start with snooki.

[Moar Boosters]

Exercise reduces the effect a certain amount, but it can't stop the decay. People that spend just a few months on the ISS take years for their bodies to fully recover, and the longer you're exposed to that environment, the worse the effects are.

NASA already know that keeping the astronauts alive and safe is most difficult unknown about a mars mission. They wanted to put a rotating section on the ISS so they could see how that effects long-term space travel. One of the things that is supposed to make it "easier" for Mars One is that they don't have to worry about keeping these colonists in any kind of shape to return to earth. Theoretically the loss of bone density and muscle mass shouldn't matter so much if they're staying there.

[xenomorph555]

Exercise reduces the effect a certain amount, but it can't stop the decay. People that spend just a few months on the ISS take years for their bodies to fully recover, and the longer you're exposed to that environment, the worse the effects are.

NASA already know that keeping the astronauts alive and safe is most difficult unknown about a mars mission. They wanted to put a rotating section on the ISS so they could see how that effects long-term space travel. One of the things that is supposed to make it "easier" for Mars One is that they don't have to worry about keeping these colonists in any kind of shape to return to earth. Theoretically the loss of bone density and muscle mass shouldn't matter so much if they're staying there.

Well there was Valeri Polyakov who was on mir for 14 months straight, after landing he was able to walk with no help.

[andrewas]

We don't know how bad partial gravity would be, it may be that the crew would be out of shape by earth standards but with no permanent damage. Or it might be almost as bad as long-term exposure to microgravity. We need to test this, preferably in a rotating habitat in LEO just to examine the effects of partial gravity.

[xenomorph555]

We don't know how bad partial gravity would be, it may be that the crew would be out of shape by earth standards but with no permanent damage. Or it might be almost as bad as long-term exposure to microgravity. We need to test this, preferably in a rotating habitat in LEO just to examine the effects of partial gravity.

Probably easier to use a small moon base.

[andrewas]

True, but then you could only study lunar gravity, a rotating habitat would let us study lunar or martian gravity.

[Xenotheos]

Even if you could launch an elaborate rescue mission, they probably wouldn't last long if your brought them back to earth. Living in a low gravity environment causes all sorts of damage to the body. Massive loss of muscle mass, bone density and weakening if the heart are pretty big issues. If they've spend long enough living on Mars, just bringing them back to earth is likely to kill them.

It sounds like you are equating the effects of micro gravity with those of Martian gravity. Living with essentially no gravity vs living with partial gravity that is over a third of earths gravity is a very different thing. We don't know how Martian gravity will affect a human body. The trips to Mars and back, without any artificial gravity will be damaging to be sure but life threatening sounds unreasonable.