[space] Is Mars-one a scam?

[Seret]

Are they really that less likely to fail?

Yes, and no, depends what you're talking about. They're less likely to experience failures, because they're smaller and simpler. But they're also allowed to fail, so you can make less conservative decisions about technology and reduce the levels of redundancy you're packing. Manned missions are overall less likely to fail because they're much more paranoid about failures. They have to be. But the costs of that are extremely high.

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

Of course, sometimes risks only become apparent during development. However, you always want to try your damndest to identify them as early as possible. New risks that are identified during development will inevitably throw a major spanner into your programme. Ideally you want to think about your risks as early as possible.

Your example of cancer risks actually proves my point. You've already identified that risk. You've also identified that that risk presents another risk, in that we are short on data that would enable us to quantify the significance of the first risk. This is a really good example of why identifying risks well in advance is useful, as in this case it has identified the fact we need to do some work before we can think about mitigating the first risk. That's exactly what I meant when I said that identifying risks early defines the way forward.

This is not rocket science though. Read any book or watch any lecture on project management. Risk analysis is started during the planning phase of any project, whether it's a mission to Mars, or replacing the cash registers in a chain of stores.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Seret

[Mr Shifty]

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.

Titan has a permanent, opaque cloud cover. You can't see Saturn from the surface.

[rkman]

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.

If it is assumed that a manned Moon mission has as many pitfalls as a manned Mars mission. Which is not the case, if only because of the difference in how much time those missions take.

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)

It's not like we have a whole bunch of options and all we have to do is decide which to use - rather we have not actually developed any of those options.

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.

Which means it is to early to do any actual planning (including risk analysis).

First it needs to be identified what sort of capabilities the technology needs to have (done, more or less), then we see how far we get in actually developing that technology (partly in progress), when that's done we can start planning.

[hugix]

parameciumkid: I have existed in the before time when there was no docking except for fascinating collisions. I am also lazy enough to not bother changing my account info.

hugix: Application fee was about $40, it was something like 20-25 Euros, which at the time resulted in about $40.

You are also somewhat mixing up the point of the plot. You are mixing the scam/try. These are separate things. I am not scamming, I am the one trying. Singularly all of my effort amounts to the $40 and the 10 minutes it took me to get the application set up. The burden is on MarsOne to be a scam or not be a scam, nothing I do can affect that. Based on the presentations I watched and the information at my disposal at the time, there was no definite way of determining if MarsOne was a scam or not. In my opinion, there still isn't. Since there was no clearcut way of determining the scam-level of the company, there existed two possibilities for them, and two for me. Again, since nothing I can do would change that system, it made sense to buy in. Absolute worst case, I lost $40 and 10 minutes. Why should I care? It is less of a risk than kickstarter for a reward that I win either way (I get there or I don't, but either way I still have the happy feeling of knowing I did what I could).

The information I had stated that the way they intended to reduce costs was that they (for the most part) were NOT going to be developing anything. Their plan was (and to my knowledge, still is) buy things from people that are footing the dev cost themselves. For example, using the Falcon Heavy. They only need to pay the $50-100M cost of its use YEARS from now instead of the billions for dev costs. Considering the Falcon Heavy won't be launching any tests until August (unless that has changed since last I heard), you can't use the lack of any purchased launch vehicles against them. They have the option of going 'now' and paying the United Launch Alliance a billion dollars for the launch or they can wait a couple years and pay SpaceX a tenth or better what they would pay the ULA. Depending on exactly what they are doing with the rovers, its possible the same logic applies, they may still be in the discussion stage for exactly what they want the rovers to do (just be an examination bot like Curiosity for landing site judging? Or perhaps it is a construction bot?). These things take TIME in the real world.

My job is a Systems Engineer, and for important systems the process involved in just choosing a color for an LED indicator takes several meetings, trade studies, and research power points. And that is just for an indicator light! Not something that actually does anything at all, no computation, no movement, etc. That may sound absurd, and to a point it is, but this is how a system gets made where everything is thought of, because almost literally every person on the project got to have a say in every aspect of the project. One person can make a massive mistake (ignoring red green colorblindness), one hundred people has a good chance of catching even the slightest of problems (at just the right orbit above mars, with the right orientation of the craft and the solar panel arrays, some light will bounce off the solar panels and shine through the window to land on the console, making it impossible to see that a warning light has started glowing the specific amber color you chose). And at ANY stage you can be forced to go back and start over.

Again, it doesn't make much sense to purchase a crew cap or the transit stage craft until such a time as you actually know what your desired launch system can actually do. On that note, their plan for the transit stage was to basically pay one of the major contractors that had produced habitat modules for the ISS to build a near carbon copy of their module, just with redone internals to more suit their needs. The development costs are almost zero, they just need the tooling costs, labor, and materials for the most part.

The fact that they are waiting means they are not actually idiots. They are waiting to see if technologies that can drastically reduce the cost will pan out this year. During that time they continue to go through the selection process for their astronauts. This gives them plenty of time to make sure they make the 'right' decisions (clearly they have already failed though, as they booted me > ) and to begin the training. From the information I have come across, they are doing tasks exactly as they said they were (with a little slippage in the time frame, but they made their schedule during the hope filled early years, so I don't blame them) and in an order that makes sense for what it is they can do with the money they currently have.

It might be my broken English that made you misunderstand me. I meant that Mars one isn't trying but plain scamming. Your not a scammer, you're the scammee (I found a new word!).

I understand the difference between creating your own system or use a proven one. The problem is that none of the systems Mars one wants to utilize has been proven to work. Or isn't up for the work it has to do. The Falcon heavy can (on paper) lift about 13 tonnes to Mars... That is half the weight of the Apollo spacecraft.

Then the capsule, what capsule is Mars one going to use? Not only does it have to support a crew of 4 during the trip & the landing... It also has to serve the astronauts TILL THEY DIE. Not even the ISS is capable of doing that.

And as a system engineer, you know that certain systems get old and get replaced. Are incompatible with new systems (I work in IT, think Windows XP expiring). Is MArs one sure that the first capsule is compatible with the new load 10 years later? Mars one hasn't payed for any launch vehicles, capsules and other tech that will be needed (Space suits, rovers and such). It will NEVER get the budget it needs for such an endeavour.

[Seret]

Which means it is to early to do any actual planning (including risk analysis).

First it needs to be identified what sort of capabilities the technology needs to have (done, more or less), then we see how far we get in actually developing that technology (partly in progress), when that's done we can start planning.

Nope, you've got that one backwards. You need to do the planning and identify the risks first so that you know what technology to develop. If you look you'll find space agencies have indeed done loads of studies into what a Mars mission might look like.

Obviously as you progress you go back and re-plan, so it's a continuous process too. But you need to do the thinking before you start the doing, or you might just head off in completely the wrong direction.

[78stonewobble]

Yes, and no, depends what you're talking about. They're less likely to experience failures, because they're smaller and simpler. But they're also allowed to fail, so you can make less conservative decisions about technology and reduce the levels of redundancy you're packing. Manned missions are overall less likely to fail because they're much more paranoid about failures. They have to be. But the costs of that are extremely high.

Of course, sometimes risks only become apparent during development. However, you always want to try your damndest to identify them as early as possible. New risks that are identified during development will inevitably throw a major spanner into your programme. Ideally you want to think about your risks as early as possible.

Your example of cancer risks actually proves my point. You've already identified that risk. You've also identified that that risk presents another risk, in that we are short on data that would enable us to quantify the significance of the first risk. This is a really good example of why identifying risks well in advance is useful, as in this case it has identified the fact we need to do some work before we can think about mitigating the first risk. That's exactly what I meant when I said that identifying risks early defines the way forward.

This is not rocket science though. Read any book or watch any lecture on project management. Risk analysis is started during the planning phase of any project, whether it's a mission to Mars, or replacing the cash registers in a chain of stores.

You're missing the point. The fact that you can identify some of the risks involved early, but not quantify them is tantamount to making decisions based on guess work and not even educated guesses.

[Seret]

You're missing the point. The fact that you can identify some of the risks involved early, but not quantify them is tantamount to making decisions based on guess work and not even educated guesses.

Yes, there is a certain amount of (hopefully educated!) guesswork that has to go on. That's why it's also important at that stage to also identify your assumptions. These are then re-checked as you progress.

Realising that you don't have good enough data to quantify the risks is a good thing. It's the whole reason you do things like feasibility studies and talk about risk as early as possible. If you didn't do it, you'd never know you needed to do the work required to quantify the risks, and that would be baaaaaad.

Look, I don't know what you do but engineering projects are bread and butter for me. This is my day job, I know the process.

[78stonewobble]

Yes, there is a certain amount of (hopefully educated!) guesswork that has to go on. That's why it's also important at that stage to also identify your assumptions. These are then re-checked as you progress.

Realising that you don't have good enough data to quantify the risks is a good thing. It's the whole reason you do things like feasibility studies and talk about risk as early as possible. If you didn't do it, you'd never know you needed to do the work required to quantify the risks, and that would be baaaaaad.

Look, I don't know what you do but engineering projects are bread and butter for me. This is my day job, I know the process.

I haven't argued the process. I have argued against decision making based on woefully incomplete data or too early in the process. Like: Argument in favor of unmanned exploration of mars versus manned because it is "low risk". Because we don't have a complete picture yet of the risks involved in a manned mars mission with a given craft and mission profile, nor do we have a future unmanned mission, but of equivalent technological capability to compaire it with.

It is guesswork, sometimes educated, sometimes not, but guesswork nonetheless until we're further along in the process.

Needless to say risk assessment doesn't allways get it right before production starts or it's not awarded a high enough priority untill something happens. Ie. O rings on the SRB's of the shuttle, the foam insulation or the seawalls around nuclear powerplants (funnily enough they got it right at another nuclear powerplant).

EDIT: Also, working on something does not, inherently describe ones skill at something. Ie. theres alot of professional soccerplayers. Not all of them are wins the championship. Nor does anyone ever say: "I'm okay with a mediocre to poor surgeon operating on me."

Edited April 19, 2014 by 78stonewobble

[78stonewobble]

It might be my broken English that made you misunderstand me. I meant that Mars one isn't trying but plain scamming. Your not a scammer, you're the scammee (I found a new word!).

I understand the difference between creating your own system or use a proven one. The problem is that none of the systems Mars one wants to utilize has been proven to work. Or isn't up for the work it has to do. The Falcon heavy can (on paper) lift about 13 tonnes to Mars... That is half the weight of the Apollo spacecraft.

Then the capsule, what capsule is Mars one going to use? Not only does it have to support a crew of 4 during the trip & the landing... It also has to serve the astronauts TILL THEY DIE. Not even the ISS is capable of doing that.

And as a system engineer, you know that certain systems get old and get replaced. Are incompatible with new systems (I work in IT, think Windows XP expiring). Is MArs one sure that the first capsule is compatible with the new load 10 years later? Mars one hasn't payed for any launch vehicles, capsules and other tech that will be needed (Space suits, rovers and such). It will NEVER get the budget it needs for such an endeavour.

Well, you don't necessarily have to send anything to mars in one go. It's quite possible to assemble a bigger craft in orbit. Any part can then be the size of ie. the falcon heavy's payload to LEO and you can then make it allmost arbitrarily big.

[Javster]

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

Kind of like the Google Lunar X-prize...

[hugix]

Well, you don't necessarily have to send anything to mars in one go. It's quite possible to assemble a bigger craft in orbit. Any part can then be the size of ie. the falcon heavy's payload to LEO and you can then make it allmost arbitrarily big.

How many launches are needed per payload? And will this work, how does the Falcon 9 heavy deliver it's cargo into a trans martian orbit, does it stop when the craft is in LEO or does it burn into a TMO directly (like Curiosity did)?

Going to MArs isn't like playing KSP at all. The components needed are way more difficult than playing LEGO.

[Seret]

I haven't argued the process. I have argued against decision making based on woefully incomplete data or too early in the process.

I disagree, there's some very good decisions you can make once you've identified the fact that your data is woefully inadequate. Such as: let's not proceed.

[rkman]

But you need to do the thinking before you start the doing, or you might just head off in completely the wrong direction.

Agreed, but the level/deepness of thinking is different depending on how far removed we are from the required technology. There is no thinking about the risks involved with rocket fuels when all you have is gunpowder.

Doing "studies" of a manned Mars mission is rather different than starting a "program" to go to Mars. The latter involves a plan, the former not.

Studies come before programs and mission plans. The reason why there is no concrete plan for a manned Mars mission is that we don't yet have the technology.

It all starts with a desire; "we want to go to Mars" - but that's not much of plan nor program, and i think Mars One is closer to being an expression of desire than an actual plan or program.

[Sillychris]

We totally have the technology to go to mars. Staying there is a different question.

The ship to take people to mars and back could be done apollo style, and built modularly in leo. Obviously, humans need life support but we have lots of practice with that. Life support requirements would add mass, and require more dv, but this is more of a funding problem than a technological one. We have lots of practice landing robots on mars. With human supervision, I'm sure a manned landing is not beyond our reach.

We just need the American populous to be in fear of China getting there first and a Mars mission will become a top priority.

A close Mars flyby will obviously occur first, just like the Lunar missions.

[Transits]

Mars One will happen. It's not a scam, its a human mission to Mars and you should support it.

[Brucey]

I don't think Mars One is a scam. But I think thier goals, funding model and plan are completely unrealisitic. Also I'm not sure I can support it. If by some miracle they came up with the money needed, they'll just be condemning the "astronauts" to die on camera. (or suffer on camera, than die off camera.) I support the idea of exploring other planets, but it has to be done right. Also, btw, there aren't really 200,000 applicants. That's a lie. Only 2700 people made public application videos and paid the fee. When Bas Lansdorp says there are 200,000 applicants, he is including people who just entered thier name on his website but nothing more.

[Rokker]

I don't think Mars One is a scam. But I think thier goals, funding model and plan are completely unrealisitic. Also I'm not sure I can support it. If by some miracle they came up with the money needed, they'll just be condemning the "astronauts" to die on camera. (or suffer on camera, than die off camera.) I support the idea of exploring other planets, but it has to be done right. Also, btw, there aren't really 200,000 applicants. That's a lie. Only 2700 people made public application videos and paid the fee. When Bas Lansdorp says there are 200,000 applicants, he is including people who just entered thier name on his website but nothing more.

Indeed, to me Mars One almost feels like a really elaborate, really horrible form of darwinism, aimed at killing off people who would willingly spend their entire lives on a giant frozen desert rock being bombarded by radiation surrounded by almost no air, with no internet, limited communication, no truly serious plan for consistent resupply, no emergency plan, etc. Its like they honestly are asking to die.

[Rokker]

Kind of like the Google Lunar X-prize...

The Lunar X-Prize is actually easily feasible, especially when compared to Mars One.

Edited April 20, 2014 by Rokker

[78stonewobble]

I disagree, there's some very good decisions you can make once you've identified the fact that your data is woefully inadequate. Such as: let's not proceed.

It's a decision all right. Whether it's the right one or a good one... Well, we might never know, since that estimation is dependent on the data available, but sure... let's call it a good decision, sounds better than "I might as well have flipped a coin".

EDIT: If you want to go. It's pretty much universally a bad decision to not go. Unless going involves something you cannot accept.

I want to go, but I don't know if it's ie. safe enough. -> I'm not gonna dedicate ressources to find out if it's safe enough. -> So I won't ever go, because I'll never know if it's safe enough.

Edited April 20, 2014 by 78stonewobble

[78stonewobble]

How many launches are needed per payload? And will this work, how does the Falcon 9 heavy deliver it's cargo into a trans martian orbit, does it stop when the craft is in LEO or does it burn into a TMO directly (like Curiosity did)?

Going to MArs isn't like playing KSP at all. The components needed are way more difficult than playing LEGO.

Well obviously 1 launch is needed per falcon 9 heavy payload to orbit... But I think the ISS adequately demonstrated that it is possible to assemble in space.

There's no way in hell mars one is gonna be able to afford it, but it's technically possible.

[Rokker]

How many launches are needed per payload? And will this work, how does the Falcon 9 heavy deliver it's cargo into a trans martian orbit, does it stop when the craft is in LEO or does it burn into a TMO directly (like Curiosity did)?

Going to MArs isn't like playing KSP at all. The components needed are way more difficult than playing LEGO.

Direct to Trans-Martian Orbit. 1 launch per payload, with an additional 2 launches per payload to support the weight of all of the BS they are carrying along with them. But yeah, 1 launch per payload direct to GMO.

Edited April 20, 2014 by Rokker

[Rokker]

Annnnnnd its official, the first Falcon 9 Heavy launch, originally set for 2014 has been delayed until "early next year."

[Seret]

Agreed, but the level/deepness of thinking is different depending on how far removed we are from the required technology.

Definitely, but the question was whether it's appropriate to spend time identifying risks for a prospective future mission. My point was that there was good stuff to be discovered by doing it early.

[kiwi1960]

I think most nations will prevent the launch of this.... expedition.... if it got that far for the following reasons...

1) Safety (no nation will want to fund a rescue mission for its citizens if it turns to crap...)

2) Prevention (NASA would argue that "amateurs" might contaminate Mars and kill any thing that might live there.)

3) Political (I have for years called Earth just what it is: Prison Camp Earth! The worlds capitalist leaders won't want anyone leaving and possibly setting up an "independent" planet free of corruption and greed... any such independent planet might become a beacon of hope for those left on Earth who are slaves for the wealthy...)

4) Common sense.... I mean, what happens if one of the volunteers is murdered by another volunteer? Will they have laws in place? Where would they keep the prisoner? Would they execute him? Who would be in Charge? Would they have elections? Just how much power would this leader have? Would he be able to keep food for himself when it started running low?

This isn't just a commune we are talking about here in the backwoods of any Earth nation... but people imagine it will be, you know, arrive, build the homestead, plant gardens... what about oxygen? food in the mean time, who controls it, laws? rules? Punishment, Medicines? Power Generation? Waste disposal.... (although most of that would be converted into water I imagine) ...

Fact is, they are not building a commune... not even a community, nor a city... but a nation... on a new world.

If its a one way trip and the end result *WILL* be death... then I can see them being stopped before they leave.

[Albert VDS]

@kiwi:

1) There is no reason to think that safety isn't Mars One's top priority. After all they are contracting existing space companies where safety should be priority number one.

2) Just like point 1; there's no reason to think they are going to contaminate Mars.

3) Seriously? I have no further comment on this point.

4) So you think that they are going to send a bunch a psychopaths(or at least one) to Mars? There's a reason why every possible candidates is going to be a screened by a group of psychologists.

All your points are extremely pessimistic and I get the feeling that you think that they are a bunch of amateurs with disregard for common sense.

But the truth is that the Mars One's team and advisers are experienced and skilled people.

Bas Lansdorp - Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering

Arno Wielders - Master of Science in Physics

Norbert Kraft - has an M.D. from University of Vienna, Austria, and is a Fellow of the Aerospace Medical Association

Kristian von Bengtson - Masters of Architecture

Dr. Mason Peck - professor in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

Peter Smith - Professor Emeritus of Planetary Sciences

Dr. Peter Mani - CEO of tecrisk GmbH in Switzerland specialized on scientific technical risk analysis

Terry Gamber - has been involved in space exploration projects for over 50 years with primary emphasis on Mars science missions

Gautam Hariharan - is an entrepreneur involved in cutting edge technology projects in the area of Space, Aviation, Maritime applications, Satellite communication and Defense R&D

K.R. Sridhara Murthi - an expert in space law and policy. At international level, he serves International Institute of Space Law as one of its Vice Presidents.

Vladas Lašas - entrepreneur and science and technology enthusiast. Vladas was an Honouree of 2012 Oslo Business for Peace Awards, given by an independent committee of Nobel Laureates.

Esther Dyson - angel investor and chairman of EDventure Holdings. Her primary activity is investing in and nurturing start-ups, with a recent focus on aerospace, health care and human capital

James W. Rice - Astrogeologist with over 25 years of research experience specializing on the surface geology and history of water on Mars

Prof. Takeshi Naganuma - M.Sc. in Microbiology and PhD in Microbial Ecology

Prof. Leo F.M. Marcelis - professor in Crop Production in Low-Energy Greenhouses

Dennis Chamberland - has been a NASA engineer and aquanaut with experience in the design and application of advanced life support systems considered for Moon and Mars bases

Günther Reitz - head of the department of Radiation Biology of the Institute of Aerospace Medicine of the German Aerospace Center

Prof. Stefano Stramigioli - received both his M.Sc. degree (in 1992) and his PhD degree (in 1998) with honors (*** laude)

Jamie Guined - has been working in the field of human spaceflight for more than 30 years

Prof. John D. Rummel - Director of East Carolina University’s (ECU’s) Institute for Coastal Science and Policy

Prof. Thais Russomano - has over 20 years experience in Aerospace Medicine, Space Physiology and Medicine, Biomedical Engineering, and Telemedicine & Health research and development

Prof. Raye Kass - Professor of Applied Human Sciences

Gino Ormeno - is an Aviation Medical Examiner with a 10 years experience in aviation and occupational physiological researches and aeronautical medical examinations

Brian Enke - has researched Mars, lunar, and asteroid science as a Senior Space Research Analyst

Tanja Masson-Zwaan - Deputy Director of the International Institute of Air and Space Law at Leiden University

Dr. Robert Zubrin - President of Pioneer Astronautics, an aerospace R&D company. founder and President of the Mars Society. Formerly a Staff Engineer at Lockheed Martin Astronautics

Prof. Dr. Gerard ‘t Hooft - a Nobel Prize winning theoretical physicist with a long record of accomplishments and honors

Prof. Dr. Ir. Boudewijn Ambrosius - he chairman of Astrodynamics and Space Missions at the university’s aerospace faculty as well as the Space Engineering department’s chairman

Gerard Blaauw - Chairman of the Netherlands Space Society, he has previously also been Director of Space at TNO

Dr. Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor - a Fellow Researcher at Institute of Space Science National University of Malaysia UKM, orthopaedic surgeon, motivational speaker, and astronaut

They are even working together with Lockheed Martin on their first mission.

So I fail to see how you could even have that view about Mars One when looking at that list.