[space] Is Mars-one a scam?

[hugix]

I think most of you on this forum heard of Mars-one, a project developed by the Dutch Bas Lansdorp who is being sponsored by nobel prize winner Gerard 't Hooft and a few other brainiacs.

their goal is to send humans to Mars without returning starting with the first human settlement in 2023. Mars-one thinks that they can fund their missions by donations from people and by selling Merchandise. And when the crew has arrived they sell the rights to a production company to prduce a big brother kinda show.

When I first heard of the idea I was exited, it had a solid idea and not only was there tech talk but also financial talk (something most space exploration lovers forget). But now, one and a half year later I got my doubts.

First of all. The astronaut selection program consists of signing up on a website and making a video about why you should go to Mars... We've sure come a long way since the Mercury 7.... This seems rather odd.

second. Mars one still has no solid plans on the technology, there are currently no suitable spacecraft in development for such a mission. There are no blueprints on how such a spacecraft should work. Not only would it be needed to serve the crew during the trip... But after landing it has to function as a base for at least till the next launch window+9 months.

third. There is no launcher. Since nothing is known about the craft there is no knowing how much the launcher should be capable of lifting. Mars-one says on the website that they will use the Falcon nine Heavy. that launcher is capable (when it is finished) of transporting 13 tons to Mars. The Apollo spacecraft was about 30 tons. and that could only serve a crew of 3 for about a week!

And forth. The finances. According to MArs-one, a single launch will cost about 6 and a half billion dollars. At the moment they got : $ 132,575 . That si about 1/5000th of what they need for simply the first mission (an unmanned mission that will bring the first supplies). I do not see how they can get 20 billion dollars (The plan is to send 2 unmanned missions for supplies and a rover) before 2022.

[Drunkrobot]

Yes. I really cannot stress it enough that Mars One is a PowerPoint presentation. They talk about what they're going to do on Mars, but not how they plan to get there.

When any one piece of equipment in this picture exists, Mars One is worth talking about.

[Nibb31]

Yes it's just media hype. There are so many things wrong with the idea that nobody in the space industry is taking it seriously.

[SargeRho]

Eh, did you look on their site? It's laid out how they plan to get there.

[Albert VDS]

Yes. I really cannot stress it enough that Mars One is a PowerPoint presentation. They talk about what they're going to do on Mars, but not how they plan to get there.

*snip*

When any one piece of equipment in this picture exists, Mars One is worth talking about.

Yes it's just media hype. There are so many things wrong with the idea that nobody in the space industry is taking it seriously.

So you guys think that Bas Lansdorp sold his company, started a non-profit organization, got a team, advisors and ambassadors together, opened applications and paid money to paragon to develop the space suit and life support just for the media hype?

And then there's the suppliers, partners, sponsors and contributors. You think those people would stick out there necks if the knew it was just media hype?

Mars One has only 2 problems; Money and time, and the time part isn't that big of a problem if you can reschedule.

So basically their only problem is getting enough money so they can get the ball rolling.

[miracmert]

Well they actually have the launcher: Falcon Heavy. You should check the website for their plans as said above. But I agree with the astronaut selection part, I'm curious how they will manage to find reasonable candidates out of that website.

[directorsnap]

its laid out and stuff on there site like someone already said...the only reason why they are doing it and not some big space agency is because the they doesn't want to send and a astronuat into space that WILL die and never come back. or at least i think that's why

[Borklund]

So you guys think that Bas Lansdorp sold his company, started a non-profit organization, got a team, advisors and ambassadors together, opened applications and paid money to paragon to develop the space suit and life support just for the media hype?

And then there's the suppliers, partners, sponsors and contributors. You think those people would stick out there necks if the knew it was just media hype?

Mars One has only 2 problems; Money and time, and the time part isn't that big of a problem if you can reschedule.

So basically their only problem is getting enough money so they can get the ball rolling.

Mars One does not have hardware contracts, neither for launch vehicles or spacecraft. They can sign all the we'll-agree-to-have-our-logo-on-your-website agreements they want, Mars One are not going to go to Mars in 2033 or ever.

Well they actually have the launcher: Falcon Heavy. You should check the website for their plans as said above. But I agree with the astronaut selection part, I'm curious how they will manage to find reasonable candidates out of that website.

They don't have a launcher, SpaceX has a launcher. Mars One has not bought a single launch from SpaceX or anyone else for that matter.

Mars One is a scam, stop giving them attention so that they'll go away.

[Person012345]

"scam" I don't know, but I don't think it'll go anywhere, and if it does get anywhere (eg. mars) it'll be a disaster.

[SargeRho]

It's not a scam at all. I'm skeptical, but hopeful, that they'll succeed however.

[ZedNova]

It'll blow up on the launch pad and there will be a huge investigation as to why they thought this was a good idea.

[hugix]

I think that the only one who is going to fly is Bas Lansdorp himself. Far away from the rainy Netherlands to a sunny beach and with him his toothbrush and a suitcase filled with the donated money.

[SargeRho]

The Falcon 9 has yet to have a loss of vehicle. The one time an engine failed, its multi-engine-out capability was demonstrated, and with it its inherently higher safety than other rockets. Also no highly explosive LH2, and no SRBs.

There is something known about the launcher and transfer vehicle. IIRC the transfer vehicle will be on a free return trajectory, and end up back at Earth, or just orbit the Sun forever, while the people will land with the RedDragon capsule docked to each transfer vehicle. Also it will be launched using the Falcon Heavy.

[Albert VDS]

Mars One does not have hardware contracts, neither for launch vehicles or spacecraft. They can sign all the we'll-agree-to-have-our-logo-on-your-website agreements they want, Mars One are not going to go to Mars in 2033 or ever.

They have a contract with Paragon for life support and space suits.

They don't have a launcher, SpaceX has a launcher. Mars One has not bought a single launch from SpaceX or anyone else for that matter.

Mars One is a scam, stop giving them attention so that they'll go away.

Thats right, they don't have a launcher or have any contract with SpaceX. They did have talks with SpaceX about purchasing a rocket.

Calling it a scam doesn't make it a scam. Seriously, where is your proof that it's a scam?

Even better; why would it be a scam? What would they gain? Really, I'd like to hear why it's a scam.

[The Jedi Master]

Scam? Maybe, maybe not. Pipe dream? Most definitely.

[metaphor]

I don't think it's a scam, as in there's no purposeful evil intentions at play. But it is very poorly thought out. I think Bas Lansdorp had an idea one day, and it looked good to him so he decided to follow it. But he didn't consider all the ramifications. The directors and producers he found to sponsor it didn't know anything about space travel so they went along with it. Now he's just going along with it too, maybe not yet realizing how unpractical it is.

I think Mars One might end up being a reality show about the astronaut selection/training process, but with no actual spacecraft being launched.

For a much more realistic Mars mission that might actually happen in 2018, check out Inspiration Mars.

[SargeRho]

I am sold the most on Elon Musk's plan to build a huge colony on Mars with tens of thousands of inhabitants, if only because there appears to be no limit to what the man can pull off.

[Diche Bach]

I don't think it's a scam, as in there's no purposeful evil intentions at play. But it is very poorly thought out. I think Bas Lansdorp had an idea one day, and it looked good to him so he decided to follow it. But he didn't consider all the ramifications. The directors and producers he found to sponsor it didn't know anything about space travel so they went along with it. Now he's just going along with it too, maybe not yet realizing how unpractical it is.

I think Mars One might end up being a reality show about the astronaut selection/training process, but with no actual spacecraft being launched.

For a much more realistic Mars mission that might actually happen in 2018, check out Inspiration Mars.

Interesting.

Husband and wife inside an airtight can on a non-stop mission with "no shortcut's home" . . . sure, nothing could go wrong with this arrangement.

Critics, including the science correspondent of The Economist, have questioned the viability of the plan given the problems of dealing with radiation exposure, and ensuring the safe return of the astronauts given the high re-entry speed required by the flight profile.[14] Robert Zubrin, president of the Mars Society, said that although he thought the mission was "doable" with today's technologies, the funding necessary to complete the mission was unlikely to be forthcoming: "I give them a 1-in-3 chance, but not for the technical reasons. It's a question of can they raise the money".[12]

Seriously though, what is the point? Why put two people up there in space for a couple years? Apart from being a test of human endurance, what exactly does it accomplish?

I suppose that it would break many records and from a human standpoint it would provide insights into the rigors of long space journeys. But I would think that we already have plenty of insight into that from all the thousands of person hours in Mir, ISS, etc.

Furthremore, what is the point of manned mission to Mars (particularly one way!!? THATS INSANE!) in the first place!?

Its a barren, highly radiated, nearly vacuum of a dirt ball. I can see very little real reason humans would ever want to go there . . . or at least, very little reason to go there on a shoestring-budget/half-baked mission plan with no obvious objective other than to "get there." Probes? Sure! Send hundreds of the little buggers up there and gather all the data you can gather.

In the meantime, developing the technology to economically put stuff into space in the first place, followed by development of a true SPACE STATION that will set the foundation for in-space construction and full-fledged research labs in space, followed by some sort of presence on or near the moon, seem to me to be far more useful, reasonable and practical motives than sending humans to Mars.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Diche Bach

[SargeRho]

Furthremore, what is the point of manned mission to Mars (particularly one way!!? THATS INSANE!) in the first place!?

They said that about every major expedition in history. Mostly advancing science, expanding into space, securing our survival well into the future, opening up new economic opportunities, for the hell of it, you name it. To go there and back is insane ane makes no sense. We need to colonise, not just visit Mars. I'd rather live on Mars than in a space station.

Your suggestion is equivalent to going to the canaries, building a shipyard there, then building a ship to go the azores, to build a shipyard, building a new ship, and only then going to explore America. It makes no sense. The only thing the moon makes sense for is energy production and a giant radiotelescope on the dark side.

Edited August 21, 2013 by SargeRho

[Diche Bach]

I am sold the most on Elon Musk's plan to build a huge colony on Mars with tens of thousands of inhabitants, if only because there appears to be no limit to what the man can pull off.

Uhhh . . . that sounds absolutely insane. Somebody has been reading too much Kim Stanley Robinson. First of all, there is the issue of the radiation. Forgive me for not remembering the exact figures, but if memory serves, anyone spending any long duration on the surface of Mars would be rendered sterile and at higher risk for various cancers. Not the type of place for tens of thousands of people to setup residence.

The standard Sci Fi response to this is to setup vast underground residences to protect from the radiation. Couple of responses to this: anyone who has not lived in such a residence for an extended period has no business postulating it. In sum, if you want to propose building an underground base on Mars to house 10,000 people, first thing you ought to do is simply demonstrate that a community of even just 100 people can survive and thrive in an analogous underground structure in a harsh setting on Earth. Someplace in the remote Mongolian highlands might suffice, or else someplace like Novaya Zemlya. Even this would be a poor comparison because the 'colonists' in simulated Mars colony in a harsh environment on Earth would always know (as do Antarctic research teams) that their tour of duty is soon to be over and that it is possible to get help in the event of an emergency. Not to mention the gravity, air, radation, circadian cycles all being different.

Apart from the radiation, what else is a problem with humans living for even a short period of time on Mars?

Well, lack of large quantities of water or at minimum obstacles and problems with acquiring water. Yes I know that there is water there, but the mere presence of water, even large quantities of it, does not mean that it will be easy to acquire and use.

Breathable air is another major issue, though that is probably more readily addressed given the abundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Obviously any long-term human presence on Mars is likely to require establishment of some sort of agriculture which I'm sure is doable even with current technology, but obviously much MUCH more constrained and risky than it might seem. One minor technical glitch ala Challenger disaster O-ring and you could very easily have starvation to deal with.

Lastly is the issue of gravity. I shudder to imagine the harm that will be caused to people living in that sort of low gravity for prolonged periods.

Eventually, we may conclusively have the technology to address each and all of these issues without question or concern. However, even then, what exactly is the point of people living on Mars? If the technology were rock solid, the economics were favorable and the obvious scientific missions were the focus, I can definitely see how some research outposts on Mars would be quite useful for myriad reasons. But 10,000 "colonists!?" That is quite simply insane. I have my doubts that we will _ever_ colonize Mars, but if we do it is likely to be 10,000 years in the future.

They said that about every major expedition in history. Mostly advancing science, expanding into space, securing our survival well into the future, opening up new economic opportunities, for the hell of it, you name it. To go there and back is insane ane makes no sense. We need to colonise, not just visit Mars. I'd rather live on Mars than in a space station.

Your suggestion is equivalent to going to the canaries, building a shipyard there, then building a ship to go the azores, to build a shipyard, building a new ship, and only then going to explore America. It makes no sense. The only thing the moon makes sense for is energy production and a giant radiotelescope on the dark side.

Drawing an analogy between the Age of Discovery and European colonization of the New World, Africa and Asia (or any major migratory even in human history) with the idea of humans colonizing extraterrestrial environments is faulty for a number of reasons.

1. Space and every other celestial body in the solar system cannot sustain human life without extensive artificial means, which are both technically complex, risky and costly.

2. The costs of building a caravel or noa and sending a boat load of dirty peasants with a couple of bourgeois ex-soldiers / adventurers as officers off for a long ocean voyage for a Monarch of the early 1500s is no where near the ballpark of sending even a small crew of highly trained astronauts and scientists into orbit, much less to other planets, and to say nothing of colonies.

3. Even accepting the limited utilty of the analogy: You've got to walk before you run. Long before the voyages of Magellanes around the Cape, long before Columbus' voyage to the West Indies, there were literally thousands of years of development of nautical technology. There had been steady progressive evolution in nautical technology for hundreds of years in the late middle ages and progressively more and more exploration and trade.

The small innovations that had occurred in the decades preceding these watershed events were tiny by comparison to the huge amount of evolution in seaborne exploration and trade during the preceding centuries. Moreover, there were already extensive trade networks that extended substantial distances in every direction. Thousands of military and trade ships had been plying the waterways of Europe, the Meditteranean the coast of Africa and even around the African Cape of Good Hope for quite some distance. If memory serves, Portugese explorers had already managed to get to India via the African cape when Magellanes set out to find a shortcut (oh the irony!).

In sum, by the time the era of European colonization to which you are drawing an analogy took place, the social and technological institutions that made this possible had already been firmly in place for centuries.

To make the analogy more valid. With the discovery of flight we put our first boat in the water. The Apollo missions were the equivalent of the first oar driven single mast galley. The space shuttle a failed attempt to use a more efficient sail design. SpaceX's delivery of a load of cargo to the ISS the first merchant vessel to safely finish an ocean-going trade journey (say the equivalent of going from Athens to Alexandria).

Arguing that we are ready to colonize other planets because we are at a watershed in history equivalent to the "Age of Discovery" is misleading I believe. Rather, we are in the early phases of the very first oceangoing exploration and trade and suggesting that we are ready to colonize other planets is like suggesting that the ancient Carthaginians could easily have colonized the New World had thus just been a bit more intrepid.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Diche Bach

[SargeRho]

1: No, it doesn't. It's insane not to colonise space and other planets. The radiation level on the surface of Mars is comparable to Low Earth Orbit inside the ISS. Add to that the shielding from the compounds, and it's fairly save. The sleeping areas and radiation shelters for the case of a solar flare hitting Mars could be under ground.

2: The habitats will be on the surface, not under ground. Mars has a 25 hour day.

3: Mars is full of underground water, just need to melt it and possibly sterelize it. It's not deep under ground either.

4: Green houses, also separating water into hydrogen and oxygen, or CO2 into O2 and Carbon.

5: The gravity is high enough so that people can adapt, a bit of exercise that everyone should be doing anyway solves that.

We have all the technology needed to pull this of. And we need to pull something like this off, or go extinct.

We can already walk, and run too. It's time to make use of it.

Edited August 21, 2013 by SargeRho

[lajoswinkler]

I don't think it's a scam. It's just an incredibly naive, foolish idea. You might as well place a bet they aren't going anywhere, ever.

[Diche Bach]

Yes, the radiation on Mars is so mild that the MARIE experiment broke after a couple of powerful solar flares in 2003

Ironically, in the Autumn of 2003 after a series of particularly strong solar flares MARIE started malfunctioning, probably as a result of being exposed to the solar flare's intense blast of particle radiation. The instrument was never restored to working order . . .

The diagram indicates a main radiation exposure of 20mrad/d = 1.7 Gy/a. JPL reported that MARIE-measured radiation levels were two to three times greater than at the International Space Station (which is 100-200mSv/a).[2] Levels at the Martian surface might be closer to the level at the ISS due to atmospheric shielding -- ignoring the effect of thermal neutrons induced by GCR. Average in-orbit doses were about 400-500mSv/a. However occasional solar proton events (SPEs) produce a hundred and more times higher doses, see diagram above. SPEs were observed by MARIE that were not observed by sensors near Earth, confirming that SPEs are directional.

Humanity is unlikely to ever go extinct, under any circumstances short of the ultimate fate of Earth being consumed by the Sun, some billion years hence.

Nuclear war, asteroid impact, plagues, wars; as someone who has studied the evolutionary and cultural history of humans in all our diversity for over 30 years, I have no fear that any of such cataclysms have any reasonable prospect of driving humanity into "extinction."

There is a strangely contradictory logic in arguing that (a) we have the ability, resourcefulness, and adaptability to colonize an inhospitable hellhole like Mars; yet ( we are simultaneously vulnerable to extinction because some fearful cataclysmic event might make Earth difficult to live on.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Diche Bach

[Technical Ben]

It's not a scam at all. I'm skeptical, but hopeful, that they'll succeed however.

For the sake of the life of the volunteer, I hope they do not attempt to succeed or fail, as in both instances it results in death.

I keep a firm belief in the idea that we don't leave any Kerbals behind! (Or humans!)

[SargeRho]

Oh, and do you know where that instrument was? In space. So your claim is equivalent to saying Earth is too hot for humans to live because the thermometer you just threw into a fire melted. The atmosphere does almost all of the radiation absorption, not a magnetic field.

There are too many things that can befall life on one planet, and life is to precious to put all eggs in one basket. A single civilisation-killer asteroid will do. Also the fact that we have enough nuclear weapons to make Earth uninhabitable. Or how about a good old Spanish Flu-style pandemic? Maybe not drive us into extinction, but set us back by anywhere from 50 to 2000 years.

@Technical Ben: The ultimate consequence of life is always death. May as well do something meaningful in the time we have.