[space] Is Mars-one a scam?

[Mazon Del]

Just a thought. Why is it people hate on the idea that MarsOne has no intention of designing its own gear? It is a perfectly valid model to have someone else do the work and you pay for it. NASA and others are starting to turn to this in certain respects. Almost every satellite ever (excluding for systems that employ copies of the exact same sat) was 100% reengineered from the ground up, this adds massively to the R&D costs. These days they are coming to the conclusion that using a pre-engineered frame that meets your needs, but has extra waste (say extra mass/volume) will save you money and time. In effect trading R&D costs for launch costs.

[Sky_walker]

Just a thought. Why is it people hate on the idea that MarsOne has no intention of designing its own gear?

Cause they don't have money for someone else to design and develop all of the hardware needed for them.

Almost every satellite ever (excluding for systems that employ copies of the exact same sat) was 100% reengineered from the ground up, this adds massively to the R&D costs. These days they are coming to the conclusion that using a pre-engineered frame that meets your needs, but has extra waste (say extra mass/volume) will save you money and time. In effect trading R&D costs for launch costs.

Not even remotely close to truth.

There are whole companies living just from selling components and platforms for the satellites. Want some examples? There's a whole category on wikipedia with various satellite platforms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Communications_satellite_models - some were made in '80s, so don't think that it's something new.

[Mazon Del]

Cause they don't have money for someone else to design and develop all of the hardware needed for them.

Not even remotely close to truth.

There are whole companies living just from selling components and platforms for the satellites. Want some examples? There's a whole category on wikipedia with various satellite platforms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Communications_satellite_models - some were made in '80s, so don't think that it's something new.

Fascinating, well I will concede the second part. But with the first, from the original plan I saw, they were hoping to get away with repurposing completed systems with as little modification as they required to get the job done. I remember them saying something about contracting a company that had participated in making an ISS module to produce the transit stage living area as an example.

[SuperFastJellyfish]

I can't believe this thread still exists and is this long!

Unless they find a big pot of metallic hydrogen, they aren't going anywhere near Mars with the funding they can/have receive/d. There is a reason no man has been to Mars yet. It is ridiculously expensive. It's that simple.

[Sky_walker]

Fascinating, well I will concede the second part. But with the first, from the original plan I saw, they were hoping to get away with repurposing completed systems with as little modification as they required to get the job done. I remember them saying something about contracting a company that had participated in making an ISS module to produce the transit stage living area as an example.

Oh yea, Thales Alenia.

Good luck with that - Mars One got $500k - that's not enough to order any of the ISS modules they made (excluding all of the scientific equipment ISS modules had). That's not enough even for a modified ATV - which was produced in larger numbers than any other possibly-suitable module they ever made.

And we're talking here about spending an entire Mars One budget on that one thing alone.

That's the problem - they don't have any budget to buy a professional equipment. Even if we'd assume that by some miracle Mars One would suddenly multiply it's budget times 10 - it's still not enough even to cover launches themselves (FIY: Most of the modules they want to send require at least heavy launch vehicles (if not super-heavy) which means significant expenses).

[TheReaper]

i checked the idea back in the days, their equipment and funds were viable, so is their public relations, but its a complete disaster on personel,flightplanning,astronotics. i am compleatly ignoring any faults and BS in the lore, flight, readyness, everything.. just look at the idea: they choose who goes on their mission from the ....ing internet.. where it is decided by vote that is given by also other people on the internet,its a straigh up laughabble efford to think that fooling 14-15 year old boys to give them their resume,and make them hope that writing down "ksp" as a hobby would get them any higher chance.. its a god damn sitcom guys, pretty good one indeed, i spent several hours looking at the possible canditates that i was alllowed to vote and just laughed my lungs out. the reason why i choose not to mention other stuff aside from personel is taht when i add it to discussion, it turns from a hilarious sitcom to a tragic work of desperation to beg for funds.

edit: i am a well known grammar criminal, please dont call the grammar cops.

[peadar1987]

I think it's more of a delusion than a scam. Hopefully the reputation of the space industry isn't tarnished too badly when the whole thing goes tits-up.

[Brucey]

Anyone still follow this? A group from MIT has done an analysis on the Mars One concept, and then followed that up with a reddit AMA. Interesting stuff. I don't think Mr Lansdorp is very happy about it though.

[Nibb31]

It seriously took them this long to debunk it. The smart people on this forum debunked Mars One over a year ago.

[Brethern]

It seriously took them this long to debunk it. The smart people on this forum debunked Mars One over a year ago.

I think most intelligent people knew it was fake, but it's nice to have the proof to back it up.

[SpaceLaunchSystem]

Personally, I think it's not a "scam" but rather an organization that will ultimately fail. They are getting to much media hype.

[Coga19000]

I wouldn't call it exactly scam. The time part was not exactly wrong, for every project of this scale has a weird mathematical equation: the schelduled time for the project shows that at that time, and all times before that, and all times around 5-7 years after that, the project is not going to happen. Mars One won't be the first to do that.

As for the monetary issue, it does seem like there's an issue there. However, who knows? Maybe NASA starts to provide some support after sufficient progress is shown -and actually, if the Falcon Heavy is used, they already are.

As for now, the equipment for Mars One seems quite advanced for a NPO. I never expected such a thing would go even this far without official govermental support. Well, it's quite possible that it will eventually collapse under its own weight, but I've seen enough projects like that succeed to not rest my case yet.

[Mazon Del]

I think most intelligent people knew it was fake, but it's nice to have the proof to back it up.

They didn't prove that it was fake, not at all.

All they did was show that with the system as it is currently designed there are problems. The plants suck in CO2 and H2O and expell O2. Assuming the water is coming from an outside source (mining the water on Mars), then slowly over time the O2 will build pressure within the habitat. The only way to prevent a problem from too much pressure would be to vent or store the excess atmosphere. The problem was, on the manifest provided, Mars One did not include any machinery for separating out the nitrogen from the O2 that would be vented/stored. So over time the habitat would dilute out its supply of nitrogen, causing the atmosphere to be primarily oxygen based leading to an extreme fire hazard. The first spark and boom!

Mars One fumbled the uptake on this and instead of saying they'd find a way to bring the machine, they said "We are looking at solutions and alternatives to the greenhouse issue." which people have interpreted to mean that they are giving up on the greenhouses.

MIT didn't disprove or debunk Mars One, they just pointed out a problem that was overlooked. It is no different then if/when someone pointed out a flaw to NASA in its early days. They overlooked something they were not familiar with and needed to find a solution.

[Nibb31]

When your business model is to make powerpoints and studies to attract venture capital to keep the company afloat to make more powerpoints and studies, and you know damn well that the advertised goal is ludicrously out of reach, well, that's a scam.

[Seret]

I think most intelligent people knew it was fake, but it's nice to have the proof to back it up.

The MIT team's points don't necessarily prove that it's a fake, just that their plans aren't realistic. The difference is in the intentions of the people behind Mars One. Personally I think it's a reasonable proposition that a genuine Mars mission isn't their primary goal (more of a startup-esque "stretch goal"), but the lack of a workable Mars plan doesn't specifically prove that.

[Mazon Del]

When your business model is to make powerpoints and studies to attract venture capital to keep the company afloat to make more powerpoints and studies, and you know damn well that the advertised goal is ludicrously out of reach, well, that's a scam.

Not really. That is also being naively hopeful. That said, I'm going to choose to believe they are a real effort until someone succesfully sues them for being a scam. Yet again I say, I'd rather support something that turns out to be a scam, than to have derided and not support something that was an honest effort.

[m4v]

'Mars One' finalist breaks silence, claims organization is a total scam

[Bill Phil]

I would say so, even without an insider claim.

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

www.techspot.com/news/60071-mars-one-finalist-breaks-silence-claims-organization-total.html?google_editors_picks=true

It's not like I'm surprised or anything, the whole thing was doomed from the beginning, had unreachable goals, and was trying to send unqualified people on a one way trip to Mars, and pay for it by filming a reality show. What are your thoughts on this? Are you disappointed? Did you see it coming? Discuss.

Edited March 17, 2015 by RobotsAndSpaceships

[xXIndestructibleEVAXx]

Nope. Not surprised one bit.

[Frozen_Heart]

Knew it was from the start.

[Deddly]

Well I've been sceptical of that one from the begining, but having said that, this is just one person saying it's a scam and although he was one of the finalists and has some good arguments, it is still only his word, so we probably shouldn't be too quick to point the finger. This kind of thing happens occasionally when someone leaves an organisation and spreads negative rumours about it and conjecture that gets circulated by the media in a very one-sided manner. Notice that the writers of the article make no attempt to get a quote from Mars One, which is actually rather unjournalistic of them.

[Bill Phil]

Well, if they had a more accessible plan....

If you want to go to Mars and have no experience, you should get that experience. Even (relatively) small space stations (20 mTs) are a great start. Especially if you can continuously operate it for years. But I doubt they would do such a thing. It makes too much sense... and a lot of things with space don't make sense.

I expected this to happen eventually. You just can't get to Mars on a few billion dollars. It's going to take NASA about 14 to 21 billion to do it with SLS. Granted, other launchers could probably do it cheaper, but most of the cost is the payload and the development. At least amortize the development cost if you do something in space, or essentially, use the equipment you developed for a very long time. Apollo didn't do that, and each mission cost about 10 billion in today's money. For the MOON. Mars is going to take a lot more than that.

*Note: All money is in US Dollars

[Mach_XXII]

Not surprised

Edited March 17, 2015 by Mach_XXII
Forgot how to word

[GoSlash27]

The headline of this thread isn't supported by the link in the OP. I'm personally inclined to believe that it's hokey at best and a scam at worst, but the article doesn't prove that it is.

Best,

-Slashy