Jump to content

[space] Is Mars-one a scam?

hugix

By hugix
in Science & Spaceflight

 Share

Recommended Posts

Galane

Galane

Posted
Posted (edited)

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

A couple of humans with spaceboots on the ground could do everything one of the Mars rovers took years to do, in a week or two.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/PIA16934-RoverDistances-20130515.jpg

Looks like Opportunity will soon surpass the non-Earth surface travel record of 37 kilometers held by Lunokhod 2 since 1973. Who knows how long Curiosity will last and how far it can go?

Compare to how far a couple of guys on a moon buggy traveled in a much shorter time. Even with the much shorter lag at lunar distance, a human behind the wheel on the scene can cover more ground faster and more easily spot things that people operating remote rovers would miss.

Wait...

do the mars-one volunteers expect to work on Mars until 55 years old and then take a retirement with mars-nurses taking care of them and playing mars-bingo on Tuesdays?

No bingo on Mars. They'll have to play Jetan.

Every Mars proposal since Von Braun's Das Marsprojekt proposed launching thirty-seven-thousand-two-hundred metric tons of stuff into LEO has been a pittance in comparison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_manned_Mars_mission_plans_in_the_20th_century

Edited by Galane
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nibb31

Nibb31

Posted
Posted
A couple of humans with spaceboots on the ground could do everything one of the Mars rovers took years to do, in a week or two.

This might be true to some extent, but can you be sure that this will still hold true in 20 or 30 years with more complex and autonomous robots?

An important point is the duration of the mission. A manned mission would have to leave after a few months to return to Earth, whereas a robot can keep on going until it breaks down, potentially for years. In effect, you might be getting several years worth of science from a robot, but only 6 months from a human expedition. The advantage of the robot in this case, is to be able to observe seasonal changes and to obtain sismological or meteorological data over longer periods.

Another advantage of robots is that they are cheaper, so it's easy to land a whole fleet of them in order to cover a wider and more diverse territory. A manned mission will be constrained to a limited radius around the base.

In general, a manned mission would involve hours of driving to interesting sites, taking rock samples, returning to the base/lab to study those samples, eating, sleeping, and sending the results back to Earth. In effect, I'm not sure that you would want to range much further than 10 or 20 km from your base/return vehicle, in case your vehicle breaks down or if you need to return in an emergency.

In fact, with all the driving, EVA activity, and time spent catering to life support functions such as eating, sleeping, hygiene, recreation, cleaning, maintaining your equipement, and so on... as well as the shorter mission duration and the much higher cost, complexity and risk, I'm not sure that you will get a better science return than a bunch of simple robots designed for the job.

Looks like Opportunity will soon surpass the non-Earth surface travel record of 37 kilometers held by Lunokhod 2 since 1973. Who knows how long Curiosity will last and how far it can go?

Compare to how far a couple of guys on a moon buggy traveled in a much shorter time. Even with the much shorter lag at lunar distance, a human behind the wheel on the scene can cover more ground faster and more easily spot things that people operating remote rovers would miss.

Actually, they didn't drive that far. The mission requirements intended for them to be able to walk back to the LM in case the LRV broke down. They were never more than 8 km away from the LM. A robot can actually go much further away without worrying about getting too far from the base.

A manned mission would actually have quite a limited horizon compared to a fleet of robotic probes.

Also, it's not a matter of distance. Opportunity travels at such a slow rate because it stops every few meters to do science along the way. A manned expedition would probably travel further and concentrate on specific locations. The short range of current robotic rovers is more a constraint of size, cost, and risk. There's no technical reason we couldn't design a larger long-range robotic rover that could travel over similar distances to a manned rover. It would still cost a fraction of a manned mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kulebron

Kulebron

Posted
Posted
A couple of humans with spaceboots on the ground could do everything one of the Mars rovers took years to do, in a week or two.

Compare to how far a couple of guys on a moon buggy traveled in a much shorter time. Even with the much shorter lag at lunar distance, a human behind the wheel on the scene can cover more ground faster and more easily spot things that people operating remote rovers would miss.

I heard this argument from Schmitt in his 2009 speech. This is true, but the problem is costs. Apollo program cost 109G$ in 2010 money, and MER (Spirit & Opportunity) roughly 1G$, which is 109 times less. Even if you discount the amount spent on pioneering research and development that had to be done for Apollo, the cost is still incomparably high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Seret

Seret

Posted
Posted
I heard this argument from Schmitt in his 2009 speech. This is true, but the problem is costs. Apollo program cost 109G$ in 2010 money, and MER (Spirit & Opportunity) roughly 1G$, which is 109 times less. Even if you discount the amount spent on pioneering research and development that had to be done for Apollo, the cost is still incomparably high.

Which is precisely why robots have taken the lead in all our exploration efforts for several decades now. Risk is lower, which means missions can be cheaper and sent more often. It doesn't particularly matter if a probe is lost, but the prospect of losing a human crew means every aspect of the mission takes longer to plan, design and execute, and costs immensely more.

Simply put, we get more science done for less cost and risk with machines. It doesn't matter if humans can outperform a single machine ten to one if we can afford to send a hundred machines instead of one human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
loknar

loknar

Posted
Posted
Which is precisely why robots have taken the lead in all our exploration efforts for several decades now. Risk is lower, which means missions can be cheaper and sent more often.[....]

You're just jealous because you're not handsome enough to be chosen for Mars-One!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Moar Boosters

Moar Boosters

Posted
Posted

Well I expect they'll go through with it if somehow they get enough money together for a launch vehicle. The problem is about 50% of the stuff we've sent to mars has ended in complete failure. This will obviously be the most complicated mission yet, performed by people that don't have anywhere near the experience of NASA or the Russians. Even if they get their rocket on the launch pad, the chances of them going there and successfully living in their tin cans even for a few years is incredibly low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Exposure

Exposure

Posted
Posted

Ah yes, ahyes.gifMars Oneahyes.gif, the idea that one could successfully fund a one-way mars colony for a long time (unless there's a phase I'm unaware of that consists of: "Build a craft to bring them back because the funding's starting to dry out because as it turns out, the sort of people who can handle astronaut tasks well don't tend to be that entertaining to the general public") by making the entire thing a reality show.

We have dismissed that claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
loknar

loknar

Posted
Posted (edited)

I tried to find details on the mars-one mission on how they will resupply. Maybe some of you have read all the program details and inform me?

They only say that they will have to generate their own oxygen, water and food. That would be impressive to accomplish for 3-5 years. Beyond that, I estimate the mission will gradually fail, unless the equipment is maintained. They might be using solar panels and radioisotope generators and batteries, all of which age and have reduced efficiency over the years. Producing oxygen, water and food will take so much of their time will they have the energy, time and materials to also maintain their equipment?

I always assume the volunteers are going to die or suicide after the mission is over. Or the funders promise them they will continue raising fund to hopefully have resupply and added crew sent on regular intervals.

Either way, beyond 10 years, what happens when someone gets sick; Gets old? I assume voluntary suicide is in the protocol books, and I accept this - but I don't accept pretend nothing will happen.

Edit: Here is the roadmap I just read that answers some of my questions, but raise others

http://www.mars-one.com/en/mission/summary-of-the-plan

I know they have an expensive plan now.. 2024 a new crew will be added to the ageing/tired crew. One may argue it is like a pyramid scheme, they keep adding modules and crew, which needs to be increased more and more to support what is already landed there.

Funding: Will they be selecting volunteers based on how endearing their puppy face is? Just how much research they can make in 10+ years?

Edited by loknar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
JebidiahsBigSister

JebidiahsBigSister

Posted
Posted

Of course Mars One is a scam. Care to bet that the guy running it isn't drawing a nice (as in hefty) salary for his "efforts" . And he won't actually launch the colony for another decade. Nice work if you can get it.

Sending a bunch of untrained people to another planet without the proven technology, infrastructure or cash reserves: What could possibly go wrong? :sealed: Look up Moller Aircraft: that guy has been successfully marketing a non-existent flying car for over thirty years now , all the while drawing a nice salary as CEO of the company while rubes give him money waiting for their flying car fortunes to materialize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NASAFanboy

NASAFanboy

Posted
Posted (edited)
Of course Mars One is a scam. Care to bet that the guy running it isn't drawing a nice (as in hefty) salary for his "efforts" . And he won't actually launch the colony for another decade. Nice work if you can get it.

Sending a bunch of untrained people to another planet without the proven technology, infrastructure or cash reserves: What could possibly go wrong? :sealed: Look up Moller Aircraft: that guy has been successfully marketing a non-existent flying car for over thirty years now , all the while drawing a nice salary as CEO of the company while rubes give him money waiting for their flying car fortunes to materialize.

Flying Cars have been "invented" more than thirty times now. They just are...

- Police Department's worst nightmare

- Not practical. At all.

And if Mars One gets off the ground (Which I doubt it will), the most likely scenario would be the new NASA Adminstration in 2016 taking a interest in the concept and encouraging international partners to follow in, while funding and building components. That would mean literally a "goverment takeover" of the venture...

Inspiration Mars is more likely, and even it will be likely delayed to 2024-if it does make it

Edited by NASAFanboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nibb31

Nibb31

Posted
Posted
It isn't a scam. If you look clearly, this are just dragon capsules by SpaceX. And the SpaceX Falcon Heavy is able to get a Dragon to Mars. The real problem is: where should the money come from?

Erm... It's not like nobody knew this already. Mars One has stated pretty much from the start that they intended to use SpaceX hardware. The fact that Dragon and Falcon exist doesn't make the project any more feasible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hugix

hugix

Posted
  • Author
Posted
It isn't a scam. If you look clearly, this are just dragon capsules by SpaceX. And the SpaceX Falcon Heavy is able to get a Dragon to Mars. The real problem is: where should the money come from?

both of which do not exist yet. And the Falcon heavy is capable of sending a payload of 13tonnes to Mars. Which is about half the weight of the Apollo spacecraft...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...