[space] Is Mars-one a scam?

[DaMichel]

Well, I suppose apathy is better than active distrust...

Well, we are here in a KSP forum so naturally we care about space stuff more or less. I think common sense tells us that Mars One cannot be taken seriously. I never heard anything else. However, it would be really bad (obviously) if Mars One somehow miraculously got funding, launched the mission under great media attention, and lost the crew after 6 months or so. Fortunately it looks like it's not going to happen

The Mars Sample Return reference mission uses two robots. The first is the Mars 2020 rover (based on Curiosity), which will pick up samples and package them in a capsule.

Awesome. That gives the rover plenty of time to seek out interesting places. Way to go

[monstah]

The only problem I find with robotic geologists is that they are painfully slow and inefficient. Put a guy up there and he'll do everything Curiosity did in a few days.

[tater]

The only problem I find with robotic geologists is that they are painfully slow and inefficient. Put a guy up there and he'll do everything Curiosity did in a few days.

Yeah, but you could send a bunch of robotic rovers for the same cost/mass as the ~4 humans that would likely go.

I'd like to see NASA talk to google about a future rover. If you can avoid cyclists, pedestrians, and people in wheelchairs chasing a duck in the street, you can probably manage to drive on Mars pretty well, only having to worry about static objects.

[Albert VDS]

Yeah, but you could send a bunch of robotic rovers for the same cost/mass as the ~4 humans that would likely go.

I'd like to see NASA talk to google about a future rover. If you can avoid cyclists, pedestrians, and people in wheelchairs chasing a duck in the street, you can probably manage to drive on Mars pretty well, only having to worry about static objects.

https://lostfocus.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/chasing-a-duck.gif

Curiosity already has a self driving capability. The reason why rovers are slow is that they don't want something to happen to it; fall over, hit a rock too hard, getting stuck, etc., plus going slower means it can scale rocks bigger than it's own wheels.

Rovers will be like that for the foreseeable future, not because they can't go fast, but because you can't flip it over if it landed upside down.

There are only so many instruments you can put on a rover, it needs constant debating what the next step is and it will most likely never return to a previous visited site because of safety.

Also every rover needs a dedicated team.

[Secuas]

Funny thing is, the only thing I heard that they were settled in my exact city (Amersfoort) xD, never knew I might be a scam D:

[tater]

Curiosity already has a self driving capability. The reason why rovers are slow is that they don't want something to happen to it; fall over, hit a rock too hard, getting stuck, etc., plus going slower means it can scale rocks bigger than it's own wheels.

Rovers will be like that for the foreseeable future, not because they can't go fast, but because you can't flip it over if it landed upside down.

There are only so many instruments you can put on a rover, it needs constant debating what the next step is and it will most likely never return to a previous visited site because of safety.

Also every rover needs a dedicated team.

All of those things are true of self-driving cars, plus vast numbers of moving obstacles, plus weather, plus any failure is not a car tipping, it's possible deaths... and they still move faster. Guarantee the self-driving capability of Curiosity is grossly less sophisticated than driverless cars. Curiosity was first started in 2004, and launched in 2011. Had autonomous driving been added the morning it was launched, it would still be woefully behind in capability compared to self-driving cars. Pre-2010 tech for that? Yeah, it has some capability, but it's not the same at all.

It need not drive "fast" to drive substantially faster than it does now (cm or m per hour).

- - - Updated - - -

Funny thing is, the only thing I heard that they were settled in my exact city (Amersfoort) xD, never knew I might be a scam D:

I'm not sure it's a "scam" in the nigerian email sense as much as it is a very poorly considered idea. I think that doubling down on feasibility in the face of facts to the contrary is starting to head into scam territory (though the only ones possibly scammed are any billionaires dumb enough to throw truckloads of money at them.

[Albert VDS]

Curiosity top speed is 0.14 km/h (0.09 mph), it's very capable of going fast.

Also, I think you are underestimating AutoNav and how much risk it would bring to have rover which goes fast.

Besides that it's unsafe, what's the use of a fast driving rover if you can't observe the surroundings in a feasible way?

Faster driving means more data to transfer, more energy consumed and a higher risk at getting into unrecoverable problem.

[Rocketscience101]

I don't believe its a scam, although I don't like all the media attention its getting for one reason, it is seen as a joke.

Some things I find wrong with their plan.

1. Its to big of a leap. I know coming from a massive space enthusiast, and someone who almost applied himself, and still may in the future if some success is seen, it is still to ambitious. I agree that NASA, with its government funding has been going to slow with this mission, but jumping straight to a colonial mission from the get go, sending people to never return, is a little out there. They could just as easily develop a Mars Direct style mission to go along with their current goals.

2. A non return mission. I hit a little bit of this on my first point. But I feel that the most important part of having a mars mission, is the return, not for the glory, or fame, but for science, and for those doing the mission. Although as we have seen that there are several people willing to spend the rest of their lives on Mars, I do not see them lasting as long as they hope to under the current mission plan.

3. Not having secured a launcher+date. This is a big one. There are only so many launch vehicles capable of sending their payloads to Mars, and you can only Launch at a certain time to get there. Not having either pre set up before selecting crew is a risking move. And as anyone who plays KSP knows, risks are apparent in space travel, but never should you risk it on a launch vehicle, or date before you select your crew.

4. The kind of people this attracts. Specifically for the astronaut selection. Two kinds of people have come out of the woodwork. Failed astronauts, or people who dreamed of space travel, but due to physical, mental, or psychological reasons, where unable to. To clarify, when I say mental reasons, I mean they didn't have the grades. It also brings out fame seekers. Those who just want it for the glory of having their name remembered. Now, based on this list, who is most likely to get selected. Fame seekers are. They are not gonna be the people, who really want to die on Mars. It was a in the moment decision to sign up, and if selected, they have until that rocket leaves the ground to change their mind. Which they won't do because of all the media attention. They are going to be proud, gloating and seem all ready to go, but under the pressure of the real thing, will break the easiest.

5. Self Sustainability. An important part of developing a colony is having self sustainable life support, food, water and electricity. Most of which are not possible on a large enough scale that Mars one is proposing. It may seem small. but once again, they have no launch vehicle and no launch date. I remember nasa had announced the launch of Orion on an orbital mission over one year ahead of the launch. I now the launch date for curiosity was selected long before construction even began. So since it is obvious the crew has to have supply, not only does the mission not have how they are going to deliver supplies to the crew, but they have no time plan from when certain supplies are going. Now they may say they are going to use the Falcon heavy. If they are, than they need to begin developing the supply drops at the same time as they are developing the manned missions.

Overall right now the plan seems to have been developed based on the SpaceX dragon promotional video showing the Dragon as capable of landing on Mars with it's draco engines. Then the rest of the mission designed around it. While it is a good plan, it is incomplete, especially with the time frame they have set up. So in conclusion. No I don't think its a scam. I just don't have absolute confidence in them.

[baggers]

Curiosity already has a self driving capability. The reason why rovers are slow is that they don't want something to happen to it; fall over, hit a rock too hard, getting stuck, etc., plus going slower means it can scale rocks bigger than it's own wheels.

Rovers will be like that for the foreseeable future, not because they can't go fast, but because you can't flip it over if it landed upside down.

There are only so many instruments you can put on a rover, it needs constant debating what the next step is and it will most likely never return to a previous visited site because of safety.

Also every rover needs a dedicated team.

We need a big change in rover wheels design:

[Albert VDS]

We need a big change in rover wheels design:

OK, so then flipping wont be a problem, but wouldn't change anything else.

[Nibb31]

The only problem I find with robotic geologists is that they are painfully slow and inefficient. Put a guy up there and he'll do everything Curiosity did in a few days.

Yes, but a geologist can only stay there for a few weeks. A robot can explore for weeks.

Speed isn't important here, the rocks aren't going anywhere. A human, who also has to concentrate on staying alive, navigating, and monitoring his reserves, and has to interrupt his EVA every couple of hours. He has to remain within walking distance of the ascent vehicle or the rover. He's also more likely to be distracted and to walk/drive past an interesting rock whereas a rover that crawls around can actually examine every inch of terrain.

[Albert VDS]

Yes, but a geologist can only stay there for a few weeks. A robot can explore for weeks.

Speed isn't important here, the rocks aren't going anywhere. A human, who also has to concentrate on staying alive, navigating, and monitoring his reserves, and has to interrupt his EVA every couple of hours. He has to remain within walking distance of the ascent vehicle or the rover. He's also more likely to be distracted and to walk/drive past an interesting rock whereas a rover that crawls around can actually examine every inch of terrain.

Even if they only had 1 hours of EVA a day, they would still do more work than a rover could.

[YNM]

I think that Curiosity is actually pretty huge (and quite sturdy), for that it weighs a ton (most small cars today weighs about the same). Going fast (say, 4 km/h, approx. 1 m/s) isn't a huge deal at that size - problem is energy generation, launch mass constraint and lack of repair capability. If you flat your car tire on Earth you can go out and fix it - not so on Mars (not even on Earth for self-driving rover). Energy density is quite scarce as well, 125 W just for 0.1 km/h means fourty times of that for 4 km/h. The mass of rover would goes more along double of that.

For mars one itself - it's clearly a scam, if not a bad decision. You don't land on a planet without large resources - even launching a few (like two) small car is already the limit for our current launch vehicles.

[Nefrums]

never mind...

[Albert VDS]

Some things that people are getting wrong about Mars One in my opinion:

It can't be a scam;

scam

noun

1. a confidence game or other fraudulent scheme, especially for making a quick profit; swindle.

verb (used with object), scammed, scamming.

2.to cheat or defraud with a scam.

They've spend their money on the Paragon ECLSS design, concept study Lockheed Martin and Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd. for the first unmanned mission, medical exams for the 100 potential astronauts and probably other things.

"Their plan wont work" isn't a fair assessment;

The thing that's set in stone is sending people to Mars and acquiring money through TV and media rights.

All other plans on their site are highly subject to change, it's only on their site to give an idea to investors.

If want people to invest you can't answer "I don't know" if they ask about the plan.

[RuBisCO]

While I have little hope mars will will get the financing to actually fly (though I believe that is what they are trying to do, not simply collect money and run). I do think the idea of one way trips to mars are in fact something we should consider. Britain for example sent one way colonies to the Americas, many of which failed. Back then the value of human life was cheap and people had little concern with losing whole colonies of dozens of people for conquest/progress. If we only had 16th century morality in space travel we would have colonies on mars already... probably with slaves as wells.

[peadar1987]

While I have little hope mars will will get the financing to actually fly (though I believe that is what they are trying to do, not simply collect money and run). I do think the idea of one way trips to mars are in fact something we should consider. Britain for example sent one way colonies to the Americas, many of which failed. Back then the value of human life was cheap and people had little concern with losing whole colonies of dozens of people for conquest/progress. If we only had 16th century morality in space travel we would have colonies on mars already... probably with slaves as wells.

I'm not sure that's a good thing. Space travel is great and all, but not worth seeing the return of slavery for.

[RuBisCO]

I'm not sure that's a good thing. Space travel is great and all, but not worth seeing the return of slavery for.

... that was a joke.

But on a serious note it would be cool if we kept sending people regardless if they died right away or not, frankly many of these people would be willing to go to mars even if they didn't expect to live very long their anyways. It is time for the rest of us to stop imposing our morality of wanting a very long (but dull) life for everyone, some people want to live for something, even if that life is short, why not space exploration and colonization? benefits all of us!

[Kryten]

How does sending some chump to die on Mars benefit all of us? Or any of us?

[megatiger78]

How does sending some chump to die on Mars benefit all of us? Or any of us?

eventually we get to the stage where there is spaceport on mars, and a city.

[Scotius]

... that was a joke.

But on a serious note it would be cool if we kept sending people regardless if they died right away or not, frankly many of these people would be willing to go to mars even if they didn't expect to live very long their anyways. It is time for the rest of us to stop imposing our morality of wanting a very long (but dull) life for everyone, some people want to live for something, even if that life is short, why not space exploration and colonization? benefits all of us!

[Nibb31]

And then there is the moral responsibility. Who would be behind this colonization effort, and for what goal? Is it "cool" that a corporation or a government sends people off to die for financial or political gain? You can decide for yourself if you want to die for a cause. Organizations helping masses of people to die for a cause is certainly not ethical or cool.

[Findthepin1]

no it is not a scam

[ChrisSpace]

Is it "cool" that a corporation or a government sends people off to die for financial or political gain?

Umm, that's been happening all over the world for thousands of years now.

[RuBisCO]

How does sending some chump to die on Mars benefit all of us? Or any of us?

Think 500 years ago: "How does sending some chump to the Americas benefit all of us, or any of us?"

No. That would definitely not be cool. Maybe first dozen or two would be volunteers willing to throw their life away for "Great Adventure". But how many more volunteers would you get after people learned how first ones died?

The previous failed colonies did not scare off the pilgrims did it?

Who would you send then to keep your "colony" running? Prisoners?

Worked for Australia! Alot of them died too starting that colony. Don't seem them complaining now!

People press-ganged from the streets? Didn't our long and bloody history taught us anything? Haven't we learned to know better? I'm all for space exploration and colonisation - but not like that.

Sure the past sucked, but they got things done, our generation on the other hand are so lazy and slothful, fattening up on the standard of living that previous generations slaved and bled to achieve that we will likely make future generations do the slaving and bleeding all over again because of what we squander. History very well may repeat its self because we did not learn from it, if history is to teach us anything it is to seize the day.

Edited October 5, 2015 by RuBisCO