[space] Is Mars-one a scam?

[NASAFanboy]

And even if you can get the Dragon to Mars.. doesn't mean anyone can sit in there that whole trip.

Would you like to spend 6 months in your car?

I would ....

[theattackcorgi]

I say its a scam. It seems like their all talk and no do.

[theattackcorgi]

I think its a partial scam, Their just all talk and no trying to get it done.

And YouTube vids as a selection program? WTF these people are dumb. No one who posts a video will have the training. I bet whoever they pic will die cause they dont have the proper education and stuff.

[Kryten]

It's actually do a youtube vid and pay them to apply. When the real purpose of the program is to get money out of rubes, putting the bar for entry particularly high just defeats the point.

[Goldham]

Well they're timeframe is way way too small, unless you invent some kind of Radioactive EM shielding.

[NASAFanboy]

Well they're timeframe is way way too small, unless you invent some kind of Radioactive EM shielding.

The issue is not radiation, nor technological limits, but the willpower.

We have the technology to colonize Mars. Don't listen to those who say we "don't". We do, and we've had such capability since the late 1990's. All we need is the infrastructure (Such as the SLS), and the political support.

Saying that we "don't"....it's just NASA's way of delaying something, because it's much better then coming out and saying "No Mars mission because Obama cut our spending, and so, we cannot afford it".

[hugix]

The issue is not radiation, nor technological limits, but the willpower.

We have the technology to colonize Mars. Don't listen to those who say we "don't". We do, and we've had such capability since the late 1990's. All we need is the infrastructure (Such as the SLS), and the political support.

Saying that we "don't"....it's just NASA's way of delaying something, because it's much better then coming out and saying "No Mars mission because Obama cut our spending, and so, we cannot afford it".

Errr wrong.

We (probably) have the knowledge to send humans to Mars. We know the problems and know how to tackle them. What we don't have is the technology. Currently the only human rated spacecraft is the Soyuz TMA.

What also lacks is the financial support. Mars-one has quite a bit of money from the applicants and donations. But still nowhere near the amount needed for missions to Mars (and the management and support for such missions).

[Seret]

We have the technology to colonize Mars.

There's a big difference between "visit" and "colonise".

We potentially could visit Mars, although the technology to do so is either untested or simply hasn't been developed yet. Remember that we've never done long-duration manned spaceflight outside LEO. Learning how to do so safely would take a lot of small iterative steps, similar to how we learned to do manned flight in orbit.

We certainly don't have the technology to colonise Mars, if by that you mean a permanent presence. Not even close. We haven't managed to establish a permanent presence in space anywhere yet. Doing so at that kind of distance would be very difficult. We'd have to have established a permanent outpost closer to home (LEO, the moon, etc) before we could be confident sending one to Mars.

[NASAFanboy]

There's a big difference between "visit" and "colonise".

We potentially could visit Mars, although the technology to do so is either untested or simply hasn't been developed yet. Remember that we've never done long-duration manned spaceflight outside LEO. Learning how to do so safely would take a lot of small iterative steps, similar to how we learned to do manned flight in orbit.

We certainly don't have the technology to colonise Mars, if by that you mean a permanent presence. Not even close. We haven't managed to establish a permanent presence in space anywhere yet. Doing so at that kind of distance would be very difficult. We'd have to have established a permanent outpost closer to home (LEO, the moon, etc) before we could be confident sending one to Mars.

I guarantee you, we have the technology. We have the infrastructure.

But what do we need?

To colonize Mars would cost money. Lots of money.

Does Congress want that? No, they'd rather pay corporate welfare and send marines to random oil rich Arab countries. The reason we haven't done long-term LEO spaceflight is because we don't have the political willpower.

Vehicles are not technology. They are transportation. We cannot get to Mars with the vehicles of today, but we have the technology to build vehicles that can get us to Mars.

If we want, the United States could land on Mars in five years...but we don't have the funds. We need the money. Without money, there will be no Mars landing.

Blame Congress, as usual.

That's why we can't have nice things

[lajoswinkler]

We have the technology to go to Proxima Centauri. The fact it would take an absurdly large ship effectivelly replacing Earth is just... lack of money.

[NASAFanboy]

We have the technology to go to Proxima Centauri. The fact it would take an absurdly large ship effectivelly replacing Earth is just... lack of money.

I wonder why no one even THINKS of a Valkeryie Starship.

If we are going interstellar affordably (Below 500 Billion), that's the answer.

If America abolished the military for a year and gave it to NASA stockpile we would have enough funds to send a probe to Alpha Centuari....maybe even a manned ship.

[Nibb31]

Listen, we've already gone through this discussion dozens of times, including in this thread. There really is no point in repeating the same arguments over and over again. Just read the 30 pages again.

We have never experimented closed-loop life support on Earth, let alone in space.

We have never experimented in-situ resource utilization.

We have never experimented long-term biological effects of cosmic radiation or partial gravity.

We have never experimented long-term psychological effects of deep-space missions.

We have never experimented landing large payloads on another planet.

We have (partial) knowledge of those fields, as well as theories and hypothetical designs, but we are far from having answers to all of the engineering and biological problems. To get those answers will takes decades of iterative experiments on Earth and in Space as well as a lot of money. The day will come when we will have the technology, but it is still too early.

Having the technology means having operational implementations of that technology. It also means having the money to build those implementations. If you have neither the experience, the design, or the money, then you simply don't have the technology. All you have are theoretical ideas.

[J.Random]

I guarantee you, we have the technology. We have the infrastructure.

What technology are you talking about? Is that the same technology which requires regular cargo launches to ISS? Do you understand that Mars is far away? Like, 6 to 9 months away? We don't have self-sustained environment on LEO. AFAIK, we don't even have it here, on Earth. What "colonization" are you even talking about?

We have never experimented long-term psychological effects of deep-space missions.

On this one (and only on this one) I have to disagree. Both US and Russia have conducted and, to my knowledge, are still conducting long-term isolation experiments. Unless you mean that being alone in deep space is somehow different from simply being alone in space.

Edited October 29, 2013 by J.Random

[Seret]

I guarantee you, we have the technology. We have the infrastructure.

See, now this is what's called an assertion. To make it qualify as a little more plausible you'd need to provide some evidence to back it up with. Can you do that? Convince us that the technology is tested, available, and rated for manned flight.

[NASAFanboy]

See, now this is what's called an assertion. To make it qualify as a little more plausible you'd need to provide some evidence to back it up with. Can you do that? Convince us that the technology is tested, available, and rated for manned flight.

And you, my dear sir, show me that the technology is not ready for use.

[shand]

Hmmm, NASAFanboy, fraid the burden of proof is on you, as you are the one making the assertation.

I do kinda agree though, we have the technology, but we dont have the experience. without the experience we wont be able to fully utilize the technology and as a result it is not feasible.

Seret: having the technology and having it tested, available and rated for manned flight are two completely different things.

For example mankind has the technology to have an unmanned car drive safely on the road. the technology is partially (well, very really, but still not enough) tested, avalible but not rated for automated unsupervised action on public roads.

Equally we have the technology to make cars. however i havent tested it, dont have the parts to hand, and it wouldnt be rated for use on public roads because a moron (me) would've made it.

[SargeRho]

They didn't have the experience either when they landed on the Moon. A fly-by and descent-abort like Apollo 8 and 10 is not an option for a Mars mission though. We'll have to build a lander with multiply-redundant systems, that works on the first attempt. We might be able to test the ascent-descent vehicle on Earth though.

Edited October 29, 2013 by SargeRho

[Kryten]

And you, my dear sir, show me that the technology is not ready for use.

The ISS needs constant shipments of supplies-including oxygen (in the form of water that's split through electrolysis). If we had the technology to recycle oxygen with the efficiency necessary for a Mars voyage, we'd use it on the ISS and not need to send up the extra mass of water, or deal with the rather unreliable electrolysis equipment. Same reasoning applies to food and drinking water.

[NASAFanboy]

I'll state my point.

What I said was we have the technology, but not the experience. Sure , we could probably even go to Mars with 1995 technology, but it would be a rather more expensive type of journey.

Also, regardless of what you say, the ISS is nowhere near cutting-edge of mankind's technology today. It was designed in the 1990's, and is a spacestation in the 1990's, and possibly early 2000's.

What I support is the development of a heavy-lift vehicle, such as the SLS to launch habs and supplies to Mars BEFORE the astronauts even come. I believe a typical Mars mission, if done, will most likely look like the crew riding the hab to a predetermined site on Mars. After landing, they rendezvous with their return vehicle and their supplies, and stay on Mars for up to a year before boarding the return vehicle, lifting off to a orbiting habitat, which brings them home.

The hab could generate artificial gravity by spinning from a cable attached to a spent stage of the rocket. The cable is cut once it reach Mars orbit, where it could ride down to the surface.

Now, what information did I base my conclusion on?

The Case for Mars

The Plan to Settle the Red Planet, and Why we Must

Wikipedia

Various news site/articles

[Kryten]

If you can give any evidence of a real demonstration of oxygen regeneration at an efficiency which wouldn't kill all of the astronauts over that period of time, I'd love to see it.

[Mr Shifty]

I wonder why no one even THINKS of a Valkeryie Starship.

If we are going interstellar affordably (Below 500 Billion), that's the answer.

This is your example of feasibility? A ship that requires hundreds of tons of antimatter? Current cost of producing antimatter in, say particle accelerators like the LHC, puts the cost at something like $100 trillion per gram. It might be possible to re-purpose these facilities specifically for antimatter production (instead of as a byproduct) and get production down to $10 billion per gram. So for your $500 billion, you could, using technologies we haven't developed, hypothetically produce half a kilogram. And storing it -- well we've been very successful at storing antimatter so far: a few hundred atoms of anti-hydrogen stored for 17 minutes. That's basically the same as storing tons of antimatter for years, right? Keep in mind that a single ton of antimatter has the explosive capability of 21 gigatons of TNT, roughly 500 times more explosive than the biggest atom bomb ever built. Get a couple hundred tons of the stuff together and you're within an order of magnitude or so of the dinosaur killer impact.

[Rokker]

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.

Your comment shows a fairly decent amount of ignorance. First off, one engine failing does not prove its multi-engine-out capability, it proves its single-engine-out capabilities. The Falcon 9 has not had any losses because there have only been 6 launches, the Shuttle went 24 flights without incident before Challenger. Also, everyone is treating the Falcon Heavy like its the F9, which it isn't. I will admit they are very similar, however they are not the same, and until the Falcon Heavy has been proven, it is not to be treated as a proven launch platform. Hell, the FH was an idea created before they likely even finished design of the F9 seeing as they are still testing new engines to see if they will work better. As much as I love and even borderline worship SpaceX, but there is no such thing as a perfect rocket and until a concept is tested itself, it isn't proven

[Rokker]

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

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.

Not saying it is a scam but... "what would they gain?"... that part seems fairly obvious if it was a scam seeing as the entire purpose of any scam is to make money.

[NASAFanboy]

This is your example of feasibility? A ship that requires hundreds of tons of antimatter? Current cost of producing antimatter in, say particle accelerators like the LHC, puts the cost at something like $100 trillion per gram. It might be possible to re-purpose these facilities specifically for antimatter production (instead of as a byproduct) and get production down to $10 billion per gram. So for your $500 billion, you could, using technologies we haven't developed, hypothetically produce half a kilogram. And storing it -- well we've been very successful at storing antimatter so far: a few hundred atoms of anti-hydrogen stored for 17 minutes. That's basically the same as storing tons of antimatter for years, right? Keep in mind that a single ton of antimatter has the explosive capability of 21 gigatons of TNT, roughly 500 times more explosive than the biggest atom bomb ever built. Get a couple hundred tons of the stuff together and you're within an order of magnitude or so of the dinosaur killer impact.

Not antimatter.

I was hoping for a starship to have a photon sail, and to be assisted by fusion/VASMIR.

[lajoswinkler]

This is your example of feasibility? A ship that requires hundreds of tons of antimatter? Current cost of producing antimatter in, say particle accelerators like the LHC, puts the cost at something like $100 trillion per gram. It might be possible to re-purpose these facilities specifically for antimatter production (instead of as a byproduct) and get production down to $10 billion per gram. So for your $500 billion, you could, using technologies we haven't developed, hypothetically produce half a kilogram. And storing it -- well we've been very successful at storing antimatter so far: a few hundred atoms of anti-hydrogen stored for 17 minutes. That's basically the same as storing tons of antimatter for years, right? Keep in mind that a single ton of antimatter has the explosive capability of 21 gigatons of TNT, roughly 500 times more explosive than the biggest atom bomb ever built. Get a couple hundred tons of the stuff together and you're within an order of magnitude or so of the dinosaur killer impact.

That's why special tanks and dilitium crystals would be used.