[space] Is Mars-one a scam?

[78stonewobble]

We are only lacking one thing: will and money!

Er... We are only lacking two things: will and money... and technology!

...and ruthless efficiency...

Um... Among the things we are lacking are will, money, technology, ruthless efficiency, and a near fanatical devotion to the Pope!

Alright, I'll come in again...

NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!

But seriously... Establishing a permanent martian settlement does not require "impossible technologies" and we have enough people to build a rocket and all the materials needed to fuel one or 10.000 rockets full of supplies and building materials. With that it's possible. I just don't know how many i-pads and designer kitchens we're prepared to give up to do that and I'm not certain I want to give up too many myself.

Allmost anything is possible with enough money and lives thrown at it.

[Holo]

Allmost anything is possible with enough money and lives thrown at it.

Or, if you're the SCP foundation, D-class

[makinyashikino]

Until the Sun craps out something, as it does sometimes.

Mars has no dynamo effect of its core and its atmosphere is pathetic. There's a difference between staying on ISS for a few months and living your whole life on Mars.

What about psychological effects? Does anyone here realize those people would kill each other like animals? It's just a matter of time.

Imagine you're sentenced to a life in few capsules, with rare EVAs. No more trees. No more blue sky. No more rain, no more animals, grass, clouds, birds.

Most of your food is boring, mushy stuff you get from grown algae. Every year, perhaps, you get to eat cookies sent from Earth. You can't even live chat with people on Earth, because the signal travels a significant amount of time.

And there's no one to force you to stop doing anything you want (like in prison). No more ***? Why not ****? Who would punish you?

With no hope of ever returning back, we'd witness a horrific decline of human minds. Reality TV? How about ****ing illegal live snuff, because that's what it is.

The whole concept of a permanent settlement requires law enforcement, at least.

Legal issues aside, with all these problems, I don't see how anyone would invest in such a stupid idea.

As much as I agree that Mars One is a pipe dream, you are exaggerating the effects. Humanity is much stronger willed than you think. If people have the will to endure the horrors of **** death camps and North Korean prisons, I believe people have the endurance to survive in poor, cramped conditions. People live in submarines for months at a time, I DO realise that they will eventually reach the surface eventually, but it's for quite a while. Also keep in mind that before we had trains and planes, people had relatively plain diets; for example, during WWII, people had restricted diets, especially in occupied countries. They could occasionally smuggle something with more flavour, but it was rare. If we were going to mars, we would bring more than one food source. We would have different crops as well as some occasional sweets or delicacies. Obviously there ARE weaker willed people who would not be able to survive the harshness of space. But people have had worse, and if we can make it through that, we can sure as hell make it to mars.

[Seret]

But seriously... Establishing a permanent martian settlement does not require "impossible technologies"

It does require untested technologies, and with or current tech level it would require constant resupply missions. It's a significant engineering and logistic challenge, and a permanent settlement would be very risky.

[Nibb31]

But seriously... Establishing a permanent martian settlement does not require "impossible technologies"

There is a huge difference between theoretical design and operational hardware. It involves this pesky thing called "engineering". Things that may seem trivial take years or decades to actually implement. Each latch, hinge, hose, interface, takes years to design in the real world. Components have to be sourced, materials have to be tested, suppliers have to be selected, fabrication procedures have to be written, personnel has to be trained...

There is this measure that NASA uses that is called Technology Readiness Levels.

Many of the technologies that are needed for a manned Mars expedition (let's not even talk about colonies or bases) are around TRL 3 or 4. You need to reach TRL 8 or 9 to start building vital mission hardware out of it, and it takes years, and sometimes decades, to move from one level to the next.

Things like closed-loop life support (or even a reliable 3-year ECLSS), ISRU, shielding, simply do not exist... The infrastructure for launching and constructing a Mars vehicle simply do not exist and there is no budget to develop them.

[78stonewobble]

There is a huge difference between theoretical design and operational hardware. It involves this pesky thing called "engineering". Things that may seem trivial take years or decades to actually implement. Each latch, hinge, hose, interface, takes years to design in the real world. Components have to be sourced, materials have to be tested, suppliers have to be selected, fabrication procedures have to be written, personnel has to be trained...

There is this measure that NASA uses that is called Technology Readiness Levels.

Many of the technologies that are needed for a manned Mars expedition (let's not even talk about colonies or bases) are around TRL 3 or 4. You need to reach TRL 8 or 9 to start building vital mission hardware out of it, and it takes years, and sometimes decades, to move from one level to the next.

Things like closed-loop life support (or even a reliable 3-year ECLSS), ISRU, shielding, simply do not exist... The infrastructure for launching and constructing a Mars vehicle simply do not exist and there is no budget to develop them.

Which would be relevant, if I had said we should ship people out when just a rocket is ready. I didn't.

I meant that with adequate allocation of ressources, we could research, develop and implement the necessary technologies to go to mars and stay there. How long it would take is hard to guess and again very dependent on how much money and personel thrown at the problem. The apollo program and manhattan project are examples of what you can do with "crash programmes".

[Holo]

And there's no one to force you to stop doing anything you want (like in prison). No more ***? Why not ****? Who would punish you?

[...]

The whole concept of a permanent settlement requires law enforcement, at least.

Other people would. If you do something like that regularly on a Mars colony where everyone knows everyone else, I wager that you'd soon end up sleeping outside. Suitless.

Anyway, law enforcement isn't some magical nonhuman force that you can store in a tank. Law enforcement is, in fact, composed of other humans. Guess what's coming along on the colony?

Edited April 17, 2014 by Holo

[Sillychris]

I don't think Mars1 is a scam... but I do think their expectations don't line up with reality.

It's true that media events are lucrative, but I don't think they're "fund a martian colony" lucrative.

I would have applied to Mars1 myself if I wasn't totally unconvinced they had a viable plan.

[Seret]

How long it would take is hard to guess and again very dependent on how much money and personel thrown at the problem. The apollo program and manhattan project are examples of what you can do with "crash programmes".

Sure but there's a limit to what you can achieve by throwing money and resources at a project. You get diminishing returns for every extra person you add, and past a certain point it has no benefit. Granted something like a Mars mission is so big that you're able to atomise it down into lots of little projects, but there's a limit to how much you can do that too, or the interfaces will come back to bite you.

Apollo accepted a fairly large amount of risk as the trade off for speed, they were lucky things went as well as they did. Ditto the Manhattan Project, but in that case it was wartime so elevated tolerance of risk was more the norm.

[Seret]

It's true that media events are lucrative, but I don't think they're "fund a martian colony" lucrative.

x1000

AIUI their projections are based on viewer numbers equivalent to an Olympic event. The trouble is that the Olympics is two weeks, there's no way you'd sustain that level of interest permanently, when all the folks would be doing is sitting around cooped up in a Dragon and occasionally going for a walk in a big red carpark.

The sceptical part of me thinks they're not really intending seriously to send anyone to Mars. They just want to drum up buzz and sell a reality TV programme about the trainee astronauts. Hopefully not anything like Space Cadets...

[78stonewobble]

Sure but there's a limit to what you can achieve by throwing money and resources at a project. You get diminishing returns for every extra person you add, and past a certain point it has no benefit. Granted something like a Mars mission is so big that you're able to atomise it down into lots of little projects, but there's a limit to how much you can do that too, or the interfaces will come back to bite you.

Apollo accepted a fairly large amount of risk as the trade off for speed, they were lucky things went as well as they did. Ditto the Manhattan Project, but in that case it was wartime so elevated tolerance of risk was more the norm.

I agree, but I think we could do alot more to get there, if we wanted to. And I think that most of us want to get to mars, we're just disagreeing on how much should be spent on it.

Maybe it would be prudent to do some planning as to see what the minimum cost would be to get there in a reasonable timeframe and then to think hard about whether we can't... internationally... sacrifice to make it happen in that reasonable timeframe.

A no rush project of sorts, but still a firm commitment to slowly start laying the ground work to get the required technologies done.

As a european I wouldn't want the entire economical responsibility to lie on ie. nasa and the US taxpayer, if it could be a partnership where ESA takes part. With options for participation from other nations.

[rkman]

I agree, but I think we could do alot more to get there, if we wanted to. And I think that most of us want to get to mars, we're just disagreeing on how much should be spent on it.

Maybe it would be prudent to do some planning as to see what the minimum cost would be to get there in a reasonable timeframe

How would one determine the cost of development of technologies that we don't yet have? And what would be a reasonable amount of time for that?

I's like asking Jules Verne to do a cost estimate of developing an actual manned Moon program in a reasonable amount of time.

[Seret]

I agree, but I think we could do alot more to get there, if we wanted to.

Of course, because right now we're doing almost nothing. That's because there aren't a lot of really compelling reasons to go there beyond flag planting. Robotic exploration has proved to be highly effective, relatively cheap, low risk and very much within our capabilities.

How would one determine the cost of development of technologies that we don't yet have? And what would be a reasonable amount of time for that?

I's like asking Jules Verne to do a cost estimate of developing an actual manned Moon program in a reasonable amount of time.

There are techniques that can be used to estimate that kind of thing that have proven surprisingly accurate. An example is Delphi, which I believe was used for the Apollo Program.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Seret

[rkman]

There are techniques that can be used to estimate that kind of thing that have proven surprisingly accurate. An example is Delphi, which I believe was used for the Apollo Program.

That was at a time when the technology needed was within reach. I don't think Delphi would have helped the Apollo program if it would have been started at the time of Jules Verne.

There is not much of a point in planning and cost analysis when so much about the program is uncertain because it involves problems for which we don't yet have solutions.

First research - which is being done, though not specifically for a manned Mars mission, just as generally much research has been done without a specific application in mind.

[Syphus]

Of course, because right now we're doing almost nothing. That's because there aren't a lot of really compelling reasons to go there beyond flag planting. Robotic exploration has proved to be highly effective, relatively cheap, low risk and very much within our capabilities.

This is one of the main things that bugs me about Mars One. Unless you really want to learn about how quickly humans will die or go blind on Mars, there isn't much of a compelling reason to go there. If you want ease, something that is within our grasp, and a lot cheaper, a Lunar program would make far more sense. If you want something that would give a larger benefit to having humans on the surface, there are numerous other candidates. Hell, I could totally get beyond a Titan colony. I don't even care about dying Horrible if I could look up and see Saturn hanging in the sky just once.

[78stonewobble]

Of course, because right now we're doing almost nothing. That's because there aren't a lot of really compelling reasons to go there beyond flag planting. Robotic exploration has proved to be highly effective, relatively cheap, low risk and very much within our capabilities.

Agreed in that we are doing very little. Though I'd also point the finger at shifting priorities from different administrations... A lack of focus so to speak.

As a little side-note... I've allways found the "low risk" argument somewhat overrated. As far as I know most astronauts and potential volunteers are prepared to take risks.

[mellojoe]

Has anyone read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert Heinlein? You should. First off, its a good book. But secondly, it exactly illstrates what a colony like this could look like. It is written in sort of a communication slang, but once you get into it, it tells a wonderful story. About a colony on the Moon (Luna) and the people who now live there (Loonies). A theme central to the plot is law enforcement amongst the people, as well as between the colony on Luna (who consider themselves fairly independent) and Earth (which considers the Moon as a colony to be governed). It also talks about relationships, and how those relationships develop in a nearly-cut-off place like the Moon.

Go to the library and check it out. Its from 1966, but very little of anything is outdated, the darn thing is so well written. Mannie, Wyoh, Prof, and Mike all have discussions very similar to those happening in this thread.

[Technical Ben]

Agreed in that we are doing very little. Though I'd also point the finger at shifting priorities from different administrations... A lack of focus so to speak.

As a little side-note... I've allways found the "low risk" argument somewhat overrated. As far as I know most astronauts and potential volunteers are prepared to take risks.

You can be prepared to take all the risks you want. Sadly, that does not launch rockets though. That's even before you reach a destination. It's a reality, there needs to be something we can "guarantee" will work for there to be any progress. We cannot just scatter shot and hope for a result.

[78stonewobble]

You can be prepared to take all the risks you want. Sadly, that does not launch rockets though. That's even before you reach a destination. It's a reality, there needs to be something we can "guarantee" will work for there to be any progress. We cannot just scatter shot and hope for a result.

Hmmm... just where did that post say that it launched rockets? Or that it guaranteed anything to work? Or that we should "scattershot"?

In any case none of it had anything to do with the point the post was making. Which was that "low risk" seems a bit of overvalued argument, in the overall debate, since humans can be quite prepared to accept somewhat high risks for things they believe in. Heck, look far enough and you'll find humans accepting a 100 percent risk of death for something. Apollo astronauts sometimes guestimated their own chance as 1/3 or 50/50 and still went.

[Syphus]

Hmmm... just where did that post say that it launched rockets? Or that it guaranteed anything to work? Or that we should "scattershot"?

In any case none of it had anything to do with the point the post was making. Which was that "low risk" seems a bit of overvalued argument, in the overall debate, since humans can be quite prepared to accept somewhat high risks for things they believe in. Heck, look far enough and you'll find humans accepting a 100 percent risk of death for something. Apollo astronauts sometimes guestimated their own chance as 1/3 or 50/50 and still went.

However, this is risk in what is relatively to be accomplished. First, I'd like to see a citation for the Apollo astronauts, with that said, even 33% is astronomically high compared to the sub-1% chance we're talking about here.

[78stonewobble]

However, this is risk in what is relatively to be accomplished. First, I'd like to see a citation for the Apollo astronauts, with that said, even 33% is astronomically high compared to the sub-1% chance we're talking about here.

It's mentioned in a nasa series "when we left the earth". One of the astronauts mention that he believed there was a 1/3 chance the mission would go completely successfull. In another scene one of the wives of the astronauts mention how gene crantz (spelling?) assures her by saying he thinks there's a good 50/50 chance of them coming home. Not objective evaluations offcourse, but perceived risk...

In any case... I still think talking about risk to human lives is irrelevant this early in a debate about a manned trip to mars. We have no idea how the mission would work out yet, other than plans. Little to no technology demonstration hardware have been built and so on. Might as well be talking auto safety "stars" on a concept car that only exists as drawings and a claymodel.

Edited April 18, 2014 by 78stonewobble

[Seret]

As a little side-note... I've allways found the "low risk" argument somewhat overrated. As far as I know most astronauts and potential volunteers are prepared to take risks.

I meant risk in a general sense. Death of an astronaut is only one of many risks. Others include loss of science output, financial losses, impact on other projects, etc.

In general risks are assessed in terms of their likelihood and their impact. Unmanned missions are both less likely to fail and have a lower impact when they do. This makes them far cheaper and quicker, as failure can actually be tolerated. And that's why we don't send humans on exploration missions.

[Seret]

In any case... I still think talking about risk to human lives is irrelevant this early in a debate about a manned trip to mars. We have no idea how the mission would work out yet, other than plans. Little to no technology demonstration hardware have been built and so on. Might as well be talking auto safety "stars" on a concept car that only exists as drawings and a claymodel.

That's the perfect time to identify risks, since they define how to proceed (or if it indeed it is possible to proceed). Taking about risk is a routine engineering activity.

[78stonewobble]

I meant risk in a general sense. Death of an astronaut is only one of many risks. Others include loss of science output, financial losses, impact on other projects, etc.

In general risks are assessed in terms of their likelihood and their impact. Unmanned missions are both less likely to fail and have a lower impact when they do. This makes them far cheaper and quicker, as failure can actually be tolerated. And that's why we don't send humans on exploration missions.

Are they really that less likely to fail? I think about 2/3rds of the unmanned missions to mars have failed. Compaired this the execution of the apolloprogram which had a, in it's objective of landing on the moon, 1/7 failure rate.

Which would seem to suggest that the effort to human rate the hardware combined with human flexibility during a mission increases the likelyhood of success quite a bit. Even if it's more expensive and adds a risk to human lives, which is semi irrelevant, if the people going are prepared to to take risks of a certain size.

[78stonewobble]

That's the perfect time to identify risks, since they define how to proceed (or if it indeed it is possible to proceed). Taking about risk is a routine engineering activity.

You cannot identify all risks or with any degree of accuracy calculate the risks from powerpoint presentations of paperprojects.

Ie. what is the risk of cancers for an astronaut flying to mars? Well that depends on how much radiation he's exposed to. Which is dependent on how much time is spent to fly there. Which is dependent on the type of propulsion. Also dependent on the makeup of the vehicle thats going to take him there.

We don't know what vehicle we want to use (because we haven't decided yet), or the type of propulsion (because we haven't decided yet) and thus we don't know how long it's gonna take to get there and thus we cannot, with any reasonably degree, calculate the risk.

Again... I say it's like trying to calculate the safety of a car thats nothing more than a concept drawing and a 100 things might be changed before it's going into production. And car safety is judged on production models (or their equivalent) afaik.