[space] Is Mars-one a scam?

[czokletmuss]

The difference with sending prisoners to Mars is that you are going to need people who are highly qualified, highly motivated, mentally stable and disciplined. That sort of profile is quite rare in the prison population.

Exactly.

Besides, think about it for a moment. In this vision first people to walk on the surface of the other world would be murderes, rapists and psychopats (that is, the most dangerous ones). How could anyone think it should happen? Prison or capital punishment will always be cheaper on Earth.

[SargeRho]

The problem with Inspiration Mars will be food. We already know how to reutilize air and water, been doing it on the ISS since pretty much the beginning.

[lajoswinkler]

Actually we do. What Kerbart was expounding is some of the principles of good, conservative engineering that are already used in aerospace. Redundancy, good design, repairability, and preventative maintenace are just ideas used in any kind of reliability engineering. His point was that actually reiterating the point that a Mars base would need regular, reliable and extensive engineering support. That's the point others (including myself) have been making in this thread.

The issue of whether Mars One can get their act together to put some boots on Mars is only half the question. Once you put the people there they'll require a heroic amount of support. Does Mars One show the slightest indication of being able to assemble and sustain that level of support indefinitely? No, not at all. They don't even look terribly likely to make a single launch, let alone a dozen of them a year for the next 50 years. What Mars One are suggesting they can do is produce and output far greater than all previous space programmes. That seems pretty outlandish.

But you can't expect long term sustainability, and I really doubt money will be spent indefinetely to keep those people alive. This opens a whole another problem. Political. It might sound cruel, but I honestly believe the governments would decide to stop the funding and let them all die. It will cause a huge problem here on Earth. Maybe even attacks, wars. Travellers would be of different nationalities. We aren't socially evolved enough to let that aside.

Engineering as a whole far exceeds the problems with flight, orbiting, repairing stuff, etc.

We do not have any method of life support that would guarantee even a lousy lifetime on Mars, even with constant expensive support from Earth.

I think most people on this forum are technically oriented. I myself understand that, but come from the sector of life sciences so I have a deeper insight with the level of problems. I assure you Mars One would be sending people to their agonizing deaths. People aren't germs that require nutrients and heat only.

(not to mention the psychological problems which are an equally important issue, yet rarely anyone tackled that even on this thread)

The only benefit I see from this project are the inspiration, new contacts and opportunities for other projects. As for the actual spaceflight, they might lift some experiments in our orbit, with the generous help of NASA and others, and that's it.

My personal opinion is that, in ten years, this will be one of those pipedreams similar to the ones we look at with nostalgia, like a permanent Moon base, Stanford torus, etc.

I'd rather fund Inspiration Mars. Let's first make a flyby. Even better, let's first establish a sustainable colony on the worst and the coldest dump on Earth, somewhere on Antartica.

[PakledHostage]

We do not have any method of life support that would guarantee even a lousy lifetime on Mars, even with constant expensive support from Earth.

I think most people on this forum are technically oriented. I myself understand that, but come from the sector of life sciences so I have a deeper insight with the level of problems. I assure you Mars One would be sending people to their agonizing deaths. People aren't germs that require nutrients and heat only.

This reminds me of the Biosphere-2 experiments in the 1990's. The Wikipedia Biosphere-2 article has a bit of a summary of the "missions", and the problems that they encountered.

[Diche Bach]

This reminds me of the Biosphere-2 experiments in the 1990's. The Wikipedia Biosphere-2 article has a bit of a summary of the "missions", and the problems that they encountered.

Not surprising . . .

Before the first closure mission was half over, the group had split into two factions and people who had been intimate friends had become implacable enemies, barely on speaking terms. Potential conflict had been pointed to as a possibility since this was the first experiment ever in closed, confined, system, over such a "long" period of time. . . . Undoubtedly the lack of oxygen and the calorie restricted nutrient dense diet[49] contributed to low morale. The Alling faction feared that the Poynter group were prepared to go so far as to import food, if it meant making them fitter to carry out research projects. They considered that would be a project failure by definition.

In November[when?], the hungry Biospherians began eating emergency food supplies that had not been grown inside the bubble.[50] Poynter made Chris Helms, PR Director for the enterprise, aware of this. She was promptly dismissed by Margret Augustine, CEO of Space Biospheres Ventures, and told to come out of the biosphere. This order was, however, never carried out. Poynter writes that she simply decided to stay put, correctly reasoning that the order could not be enforced without effectively terminating the closure

Thankfully nobody died, the facility has been spared destruction, and a University is making good use of it. Hopefully the real lessons of the experiments can be edifying to all: closed self-sustaining artifical life support systems are still just a reasonable theory, not the sort of rock-solid, time-tested technological and operational system(s) that could form the basis for developing extraterrestrial colonies.

In ten or twenty years time, when a half-dozen or more experiments like this have been successfully carried out, and shown conclusively that it is possible for a small group of humans to survive if not thrive in such an enclosed ecosystem (and without external supplementation or assistance), then discussions of Martian colonies won't be quite so absurd.

[Mr Shifty]

Even better, let's first establish a sustainable colony on the worst and the coldest dump on Earth, somewhere on Antartica.

This! When we have a self-sustaining (or minimally supported) "colony" surviving under 100 feet of water off the coast of Florida, I'll start to believe we could send people to Mars for any length of time. There aren't very many places on Earth that are as inhospitable as the surface of Mars: wild diurnal temperature variations, global dust storms, no breathable air, no arable soil, exposure to cosmic radiation and solar proton events, etc

[SargeRho]

There aren't any locations on Earth that are like Mars, because there aren't any locations on Earth with .38G gravity. And no natural dust on Earth is as fine as Martian dust. Lastly, the psychological effect of being on Earth and being on Mars is vastly different. On Earth you can call for help. On Mars it would be futile. Frankly, there is no way to properly test this on Earth, we have to do it on Mars.

[Diche Bach]

There aren't any locations on Earth that are like Mars, because there aren't any locations on Earth with .38G gravity. And no natural dust on Earth is as fine as Martian dust. Lastly, the psychological effect of being on Earth and being on Mars is vastly different. On Earth you can call for help. On Mars it would be futile. Frankly, there is no way to properly test this on Earth, we have to do it on Mars.

You're not an engineer are you Sarge?

[Anton P. Nym]

There aren't any locations on Earth that are like Mars, because there aren't any locations on Earth with .38G gravity. And no natural dust on Earth is as fine as Martian dust. Lastly, the psychological effect of being on Earth and being on Mars is vastly different. On Earth you can call for help. On Mars it would be futile. Frankly, there is no way to properly test this on Earth, we have to do it on Mars.

Naturally, because the only real test is to put peoples' lives on the line without knowing the possible consequences... I think you want to reconsider the phrasing here, as that can't possibly be what you intended to say.

I agree with the others that all these designs need to be tested here on Earth to see if they can stand up on their own here. If they can't manage it under the more favourable terrestrial conditions (remember Biosphere 2?) then they certainly won't manage it when millions of kilometers away from rescue.

-- Steve

[jwenting]

Fun fact: most prisoners transported to places like Australia in colonial days were in fact brought home when their sentences ended. So yes, people did care. The Victorians were very interested in moral issues like prison reform, and human dignity in general.

fun fact: most people managed to get their sentences extended indefinitely so they never ended...

10 years extension for missing roll call, things like that.

[andrewas]

There aren't any locations on Earth that are like Mars, because there aren't any locations on Earth with .38G gravity. And no natural dust on Earth is as fine as Martian dust. Lastly, the psychological effect of being on Earth and being on Mars is vastly different. On Earth you can call for help. On Mars it would be futile. Frankly, there is no way to properly test this on Earth, we have to do it on Mars.

True, we can't completely duplicate the martian environment on Earth, but we can at least build a contained colony on Earth, allowing it only resources that could be found on Mars, and seeing how the equipment and personnel cope over a few years. The costs are trivial compared to a martian colony. Also, the last time we tried this, it was a major failure. Granted, we learned from biosphere 2's mistakes, and a lot of the problems were down to the people running it rather than any technological failure, but still, we can't yet build a contained ecosystem that will remain stable for a few years, even with humans there to manage it.

And while this is going on, a rotating habitat in LEO would allow us to examine the long-term effects of martian gravity. Or perhaps long-stay missions on the moon are a better option, we could get some research done while monitoring the health of the crew.

Short version - martian colonisation is a long term goal, attempting to do it right now will end catastrophically, but there are steps towards it we should be taking.

[magnemoe]

fun fact: most people managed to get their sentences extended indefinitely so they never ended...

10 years extension for missing roll call, things like that.

Pretty obviously, in practice they was slaves, you don't want to release slaves as they are useful unlike prisoners. The real hard cases at that time was hanged leaving petty criminals who was easy to manage.

As for Mars one, I see it as to unrealistic to be an actual scam, more like an publicity stunt.

[SpaceHole]

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.

Did you actualyl look up thos comapnies?

Most of them are rather small and will probably also profit from the media-hype.

It is pretty obvious that this is probably some hoax-hype-show like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Grote_Donorshow

Funding is completely unrealistic. Laws are a great problem - you cant send people without an option to get back. If somethign goes wrong all the money would be gone and i doubt anyone would want to watch people desperately fighting to survive somewhere where no one can help them.

Not to mention the technology is not there. Just look at the global NASA plan for space exploration:

http://www.space.com/22443-nasa-global-space-exploration-roadmap.html

Mars is planned for later than 2030 - in cooperation with european space-programs.

It should be obvious that no private company has either the knowledge nor the funding to do it at this point.

I heard about this quite some time ago and it was pretty clear to me that it was not real.

3 Years to go until the first unmanned launch and not a single piece of hardware was seen ...

Not to mention basic things like - a few people on mars - videotaped 24/7 in small rooms with very limited contactd home and actually no way home.

You cant select those people with videotapes you need excessive testing and psychologists etc. (on the other hand people going nuts or become suicidal probably is what people would enjoy to see this days ...)

BTW: at the moment they have got 132.000 Dollars - which have already been spent

Also what will happen when viewer-quotes drop - will they be left there to die since no one will pay the money to send them the equipment they need? (obviously there is nothing invented yet that will work for that long)

What will probably happen:

- turns out their were naive and fail

- turns out it was a big scam

- turns out it was a marketing-stunt

- turns out there will be a show about people who only think they will go to mars

I wonder what will happen.

Edited August 23, 2013 by SpaceHole

[lajoswinkler]

They could make a reality show where the whole thing is just simulated, like in that recent Russian experiment. People would love to see the participants slowly going insane. It would not be legal, though.

[Nibb31]

It reminds me of the British reality show Space Cadets, where they picked the most clueless idiots they could find and tricked them into believing they were flying on a new Russian space shuttle. You can find it on YouTube. Quite entertaining really...

[Legendary Emu]

Screw Mars; The Moon is the way to go. Only 2-3 days away from Earth and construction materials. Going from visiting the Moon and to living on Mars is ridiculous. We need to set up permanent installations close to home.

[LaydeeDem]

Screw Mars; The Moon is the way to go. Only 2-3 days away from Earth and construction materials. Going from visiting the Moon and to living on Mars is ridiculous. We need to set up permanent installations close to home.

Agree. We are simply not ready for Mars. We haven't walked on the surface of another planet in 41 years. Mars is going to be a helluva lot easier and cost much less if we test and/or develop better life support, manufacturing, and EVA technologies on the Moon first.

Edited August 24, 2013 by Nutt007

[Longsok]

Screw Mars; The Moon is the way to go. Only 2-3 days away from Earth and construction materials. Going from visiting the Moon and to living on Mars is ridiculous. We need to set up permanent installations close to home.

Exactly, plus if we do want to colonize Mars, it would help to build a base on the closest celestial body to earth in order to learn how to set up a base in space, and how to send resupply ships and everything. That way, if something goes wrong, you don't end up with colonists at best 3 months away from help.

[SargeRho]

Going to the Moon before going to Mars is like mounting a huge operation to colonise the Caribean Islands, instead of colonising America. The radiation alone on the Moon is pretty much the same as everywhere else in deep space, while on Mars it's much lower.

[Pingonaut]

It doesn't seem like a scam, just a plan thought out by businessmen who have no idea what it takes to get to Mars. You WILL NOT get to Mars off the back of a reality TV show.

There have been many badly planned "missions" in the past just like Mars-One. It'll pass and a new one will appear. I mean, have you seen the people they plan to send? How do you expect them to fly a spacecraft and land, let alone survive on Mars.

[Nibb31]

Going to the Moon before going to Mars is like mounting a huge operation to colonise the Caribean Islands, instead of colonising America. The radiation alone on the Moon is pretty much the same as everywhere else in deep space, while on Mars it's much lower.

You need to get into your head that colonization is off the cards for at least the next century, probably more. Comparison with 17th and 18th Century colonization on Earth is meaningless because there is no comparison.

The best you can hope for is a round trip with a long duration outpost on the surface for a small crew.

[SargeRho]

No. If everyone thought like you, we'd still be craping in the streets, and probably still be at a level like medieval europe. The comparisons are not meaningless, unless you intentionally ignore the point I'm trying to make: The moon might be a good source of metals, power, and be a good place to build a radio telescope...but not really a place to live. You couldn't terraform the Moon, and the surface radiation is much much higher than Mars. A round trip is the worst thing I'm hoping for. The best thing I can hope for is a fully functional colony on Mars by the end of this century, perhaps even more than one. I don't think you realise how much can change in 87 years.

Edited August 24, 2013 by SargeRho

[SpaceHole]

It reminds me of the British reality show Space Cadets, where they picked the most clueless idiots they could find and tricked them into believing they were flying on a new Russian space shuttle. You can find it on YouTube. Quite entertaining really...

Well it might be funny but in case of Mars-One it could actually destroy the lives of those. Just think about them getting rid of everything they have on this planet - breaking up with their wives etc.

Maybe even going insane depending on how far it goes. I wouldnt want to see that since its pretty cruel.

Also i read about the experiment - are there any documentaries or good written reports on it?

[Nibb31]

No. If everyone thought like you, we'd still be craping in the streets, and probably still be at a level like medieval europe.

What you and I think has absolutely no pending on what will actually happen. I want to see NASA build the USS Enterprise as much as any space geek, but that doesn't mean that it will happen, for all sorts of technical and economical reasons.

The comparisons are not meaningless, unless you intentionally ignore the point I'm trying to make: The moon might be a good source of metals, power, and be a good place to build a radio telescope...but not really a place to live. You couldn't terraform the Moon, and the surface radiation is much much higher than Mars.

Terraforming is science fiction, se we can evacuate that. Mars is as much a sterile desert as the Moon. As for the radiation and gravity issues, we simply don't know what effects they have or what is needed to mitigate those effects.

The surface radiation might be higher, but because the Moon is closer, it is easier to ship material to alleviate the problem. You start by building a base that lives on supplies, something like Scott-Amundsen base in Antarctica, or the ISS, and gradually you ship equipment that makes the base more autonomous... A Moon base is still a much easier place to construct our knowledge about living on another planet. If we can live on the Moon, then we can live anywhere.

The whole point is irrelevant though, because there is no money for either a Moon or a Mars landing any time soon, let alone a semi-permanent outpost.

A round trip is the worst thing I'm hoping for. The best thing I can hope for is a fully functional colony on Mars by the end of this century, perhaps even more than one. I don't think you realise how much can change in 87 years.

I don't think you realise how little we know about Mars and human biology or how complex space engineering projects actually are. We might get some technological breakthroughs, but the laws of physics aren't likely to change, and it will always be expensive and complicated to safely send payloads into space.

We've already showed you that a self sustaining closed-loop "fully functional colony" hasn't even been demonstrated on Earth yet. It's a capability that we simply don't have yet. Even if it was a proven capability (and if there was actually a point in colonizing other worlds instead of our local deserts and seabeds which are much more hospitable and easier to reach) it would require massive migration of hundreds of highly trained people and thousands of tons of equipment, which is simply not possible with any current or near future technology. That is a goal that MarsOne simply doesn't work towards.

A round trip will have to happen before you can even start suggesting something as stupid as a permanent colony. We simply don't know enough about Mars to determine if humans can live durably there or not. All we can and should do, is to send small crews and bring them back, so that we can learn how to live on another planet. This is also a something that MarsOne doesn't help.

What MarsOne would do (if it succeeded in ever flying) is to end tragically and turn the general public against any hopes of returning to Mars under more favorable conditions.

[SargeRho]

Terraforming is science fact. We're doing exactly what we need to do on Mars, on Earth right now. Don't tell me you deny anthropogenic climate change?

We definitely have the technological capability to build a Mars Cycler - thanks to the abandoned NERVA program. Sending nuclear reactors into space probably has all sorts of political issues though. Further development of the Fusion Driven Rocket might make such a thing even easier. Reusable rockets will make it even cheaper, and they are to start flying soon-ish.

So what if the Moon is closer? You need to bury quite deep into the ground, or cover your habitat with metric craptons of regolith. Don't have to cover it nearly as much material on Mars, because the radiation is roughly equivalent to Low Earth Orbit. Establishing a permanent human presence is thus more practical on Mars. And you underestimate how Much we actually know about the effects of space on the human body. While we probably should do a Mars roundtrip first, no argument there, we shouldn't colonise the Moon first or maybe we should colonise both? The advent of commercial space companies might make that possible. The moon will be the perfect power plant for Earth in the future, thanks to beamed solar power, and Helium 3 for Fusion. Perhaps even be where we will build larger spaceships since all the neccesary materials are in the ground.

Recently research found that Polycarbonate (or polyethylene?) and other light and hydrogen-rich materials are very good at shielding against particle radiation(s). Build domes out of that, and safety glass (can be produced on-site on Mars) and you can make living a whole lot more bearable. 3d printing can actually help here, you can build a constellation of automated machines that harvest material, produce glass and polycarbonate, and 3d print those into the shapes you need. Might want to bring light-weight girders from Earth to speed the whole process up.

We don't have any such bases on Earth because there was so far no incentive to. There have been a few isolated test stations, I don't know how isolated they were however.

The "we can't do it now, so we shouldn't even try" mindset doesn't get us anywhere.

Edited August 24, 2013 by SargeRho