[space] Is Mars-one a scam?

[Bill Phil]

Six billion? That's, that's... Insane. Maybe if all the hardware was available, but this hardware needs to be developed. Built. Everything like that. A Mars mission would cost much more than 18 billion, which was the cost of a single Apollo mission to the Moon. For all manned missions, it's about 10 billion. Let alone a Mars Colony​...

[GreenWolf]

It might be possible to go back to the Moon for only six billion (actually, I'm almost positive you could do it for less than 1 billion, if you were very clever about it). But Mars? No way. From looking at their plans, it seems like they want to just use all of SpaceX's toys. Even if they could get the Falcon Heavy launches they need (of which I am doubtful), and even if Red Dragon is ready within the next ten years (also doubtful), and even if Musk lets them play with it (again, doubtful), there's still the costs of developing all of the other hardware they need, and then testing it.

[PB666]

Their plan is not optimistic. Optimistic is when you have a decent chance of success and you hope you'll succeed.

This is pure lunacy. Even if money is somehow magically gathered (it won't), it will end in death. 100% certainly.

IM beginning to think this thread is Lunacy.

[Brethern]

Make of this what you will, he's one of the 100 finalist and in contact with Bas.

I'm still not exactly convinced, there are far many more issues, but there were alot of inaccuracies in the article everyone's been citing.

On the plus side he's professional and seems to know his information. IMO Mars one probably isn't a scam just a group who underestimated what they need to get to mars.

[cpast]

No, NASA started out as a 'public' agency. I'm old enough to remember that.

"Public agency" is a synonym of "government agency." NASA is, and always has been, government-run. So is every organization referred to as a "public agency." In fact, the fact that it's government run is the reason FOIA applies, and you can generally get NASA information (except when limited by arms-control regulation).

NASA was created by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (PDF), specifically section 202 ("There is hereby established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.") From its beginning, it has been a government agency. It is the successor to NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics), which was also a government agency (created by the Naval Appropriations Act of 1916, "An Advisory Committee for Aeronautics is hereby established.") There has been no point in NASA's history in which it was not an agency of the United States government. Being referred to as a "public agency" doesn't contradict that, because the terms are synonymous.

[Mighty1]

Their plan is not optimistic. Optimistic is when you have a decent chance of success and you hope you'll succeed.

This is pure lunacy. Even if money is somehow magically gathered (it won't), it will end in death. 100% certainly.

All life will end with death. The place where you die is not so important. And the people who voluentieered are just that - volunteers. They know the risks. And history will judge them as the greatest pioneers or greatest fools.

[InterCity]

I don't think it's a straight scam, but something that is EXTREMELY unlikely to succeed. It would take much, much more than 10 tons that the falcon heavy is capable of to do something meaningful on Mars.

[rkman]

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

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

[Bill Phil]

I don't think it's a straight scam, but something that is EXTREMELY unlikely to succeed. It would take much, much more than 10 tons that the falcon heavy is capable of to do something meaningful on Mars.

That's the normal F9. FH is about 30 to 50 tonnes.

Unless you mean payload to Mars...

[B787_300]

Bill i think he means payload to mars, and to be successful they would need a LOT more than 10 tons or they would have to do multiple launches like the plan described the in the book The Martian by Andy Weir. Even then it would be very hard and dangerous

[lajoswinkler]

All life will end with death. The place where you die is not so important. And the people who voluentieered are just that - volunteers. They know the risks. And history will judge them as the greatest pioneers or greatest fools.

No they don't know the risks. The mission would be 100% certain suicide. No sane man wants to kill himself over this. Therefore either Mars One is using insane people to make money or it's influencing sane people into killing themselves.

Both things are illegal in most if not all countries in the world. Certainly in USA. If you use words or actions to push a person into committing suicide, you're a criminal. That's why this whole thing is absurd. It would be stopped by the law very soon after any remotely serious actions begin.

[LordFerret]

"Public agency" is a synonym of "government agency." NASA is, and always has been, government-run. So is every organization referred to as a "public agency." In fact, the fact that it's government run is the reason FOIA applies, and you can generally get NASA information (except when limited by arms-control regulation).

NASA was created by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (PDF), specifically section 202 ("There is hereby established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.") From its beginning, it has been a government agency. It is the successor to NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics), which was also a government agency (created by the Naval Appropriations Act of 1916, "An Advisory Committee for Aeronautics is hereby established.") There has been no point in NASA's history in which it was not an agency of the United States government. Being referred to as a "public agency" doesn't contradict that, because the terms are synonymous.

If you wish to nit-pick with that, fine - they're one in the same. My point still being, the general public was in essence shut out in the midst of the Apollo program, call it the militarization of NASA. Like I said, I'm old enough to remember this ... unless of course it's suggested I'm hallucinating.

As Bill Phil points out, it's only by recent law that NASA has been doling out the fruits of the tax dollars spent... and that could change at any time, at the stroke of someone's pen.

I will continue to ask: where are the open channels to data and findings; why the need for special communications bands/frequencies and encryption; why does all imagery get screened first before being released to the public; etc etc etc. What's the excuse? That's not what I consider a 'public' agency.

And I'd still like to know why the transmissions from JAXA's moon mission where disallowed broadcast in the US. I have a lot of questions, none of which you will be able answer definitively.

[FishInferno]

No they don't know the risks. The mission would be 100% certain suicide. No sane man wants to kill himself over this. Therefore either Mars One is using insane people to make money or it's influencing sane people into killing themselves.

Both things are illegal in most if not all countries in the world. Certainly in USA. If you use words or actions to push a person into committing suicide, you're a criminal. That's why this whole thing is absurd. It would be stopped by the law very soon after any remotely serious actions begin.

Basically you are saying that we could never colonize Mars because people would die there eventually.

I don't mind people claiming that Mars One is a scam, but saying that it is a murderous organization is just absurd. They have VOLUNTEERS and the astronauts would die on Earth anyway. Is dying of old age (or even an accident) suicide?

[Nibb31]

If you wish to nit-pick with that, fine - they're one in the same. My point still being, the general public was in essence shut out in the midst of the Apollo program, call it the militarization of NASA. Like I said, I'm old enough to remember this ... unless of course it's suggested I'm hallucinating.

I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to. Just about everything about Apollo has been published and is available from NASA, including all the pictures, communication transcripts, diagrams and drawings of the vehicles. The idea that NASA is concealing some information in strong in certain (ahem) misinformed circles, but it's simply not true. It's all out there if you know where to look.

I'd also add that there is MUCH more data available today covering Apollo than the Mercury and Gemini programs.

Apollo was a Cold War program, with a lot at stake. It's only normal that as the stakes got higher, so did the security regarding proprietary information and anything that could put the program at risk. But just about everything about the actual Apollo missions was public and could be monitored by third parties with the appropriate equipment, including communications.

As Bill Phil points out, it's only by recent law that NASA has been doling out the fruits of the tax dollars spent... and that could change at any time, at the stroke of someone's pen.

All government programs are funded by tax dollars, including USAF programs, NACA, and NASA during all periods of its existence. I don't get your point here.

Are you saying that there was a time when NASA wasn't funded by taxpayers ?

I will continue to ask: where are the open channels to data and findings; why the need for special communications bands/frequencies and encryption; why does all imagery get screened first before being released to the public; etc etc etc. What's the excuse?

Of course there is security involved. Nobody wants hackers logging into Curiosity for the lulz and ruiing a billion dollar mission. That might not have mattered in the days of Mercury when nobody had a computer, but don't you expect that your taxpayer's investment should be properly protected against North Korean hackers or script kiddies?

The screening is because the science teams that participate in the project typically get the first pick on the data. If there is a paper to publish, they want to have exclusive data. If JPL pays for a mission, it's only fair that JPL gets to publish the science papers related to the mission before Chinese or Russian scientists get their hands on the data. Again, as an American taxpayer, this is something that you should support.

Also, raw data is just raw data. Space probes don't just upload JPGs. It's binary data from proprietary sensors and has to be processed with all sorts of algorithms and filters before you can make any sense of it. Then it's reviewed by the scientists, and in some cases retained. Most of the raw pictures don't make it to the general public servers, simply because they are not very interesting, but they are still available. For example:

http://curiosityrover.com/

The bulk of the data is released, tons of it. You just have to know where to look. For example:

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/find/documents.htm

http://curiosityrover.com/

Some of it is available on CD:

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/clemcd.html

That's not what I consider a 'public' agency.

That word. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

And I'd still like to know why the transmissions from JAXA's moon mission where disallowed broadcast in the US

[Citation needed]

Are these sites censored in the USA?

http://l2db.selene.darts.isas.jaxa.jp/cgi-bin/search.cgi

http://jda.jaxa.jp/category_v.php?lang=e&page=&category1=352&category2=377&category3=378&page_pics=100

I have a lot of questions, none of which you will be able answer definitively.

That's because you think you already have all the answers.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Nibb31

[Vanamonde]

If you want to discuss the nature and behavior of NASA, that's fine. But it would belong in its own thread, as this one is about Mars One.

[Mazon Del]

All government programs are funded by tax dollars, including USAF programs, NACA, and NASA during all periods of its existence. I don't get your point here.

Are you saying that there was a time when NASA wasn't funded by taxpayers ?

I think more the point there is that while yes all the military programs and whatnot could suffer the same fate at a moments notice, NASA is seen as less critical. NASA provides a lot of useful things so it could never really be done away with, but a lot of its random projects can be slashed with the line "Why are we doing this when we have starving people on the streets?" simply because of the idea that exploring the backside of the moon or Mars or wherever, doesn't in any immediate way help people on Earth.

Meanwhile you get things like the JSF (which personally I approve of) that will never actually be shut down because of its 'imminent and critical necessity'.

(Apologies to Mod, I wrote this before your post existed.)

I believe that something LIKE Mars One can succeed. Mars One is looking a little shaky, but we'll see where it goes.

[lajoswinkler]

Basically you are saying that we could never colonize Mars because people would die there eventually.

I don't mind people claiming that Mars One is a scam, but saying that it is a murderous organization is just absurd. They have VOLUNTEERS and the astronauts would die on Earth anyway. Is dying of old age (or even an accident) suicide?

That would be true if Mars One was an endeavour that could give a decent guarantee of crew survivability. Thing is - they would die very shortly there.

I don't think you have a grasp on the whole seriousness of this thing. We aren't capable of sustaining a simple biosphere. Not in a lab, not on Antarctica, and certainly not on Mars. Going there with the intent of never returning means you will die in few months. It is a 100% certain thing. You could bet on it.

You would not live to old age. You would die shortly in front of global Earth audience.

[FishInferno]

That would be true if Mars One was an endeavour that could give a decent guarantee of crew survivability. Thing is - they would die very shortly there.

I don't think you have a grasp on the whole seriousness of this thing. We aren't capable of sustaining a simple biosphere. Not in a lab, not on Antarctica, and certainly not on Mars. Going there with the intent of never returning means you will die in few months. It is a 100% certain thing. You could bet on it.

You would not live to old age. You would die shortly in front of global Earth audience.

I have heard both sides of the argument, yeah I saw that MIT study, but I am trying to avoid this from becoming one-sided. I am not convinced either way (impossible vs MO will succeed)

The MIT study left out the ISRU of the proposed base. Now, I know that ISRU is not something we have currently, but they have a few years.

Personally, I favor SpaceX more than Mars One, but

I am not going to squash Mars One until they push the date back again on their timeline:P

[GreenWolf]

That would be true if Mars One was an endeavour that could give a decent guarantee of crew survivability. Thing is - they would die very shortly there.

I don't think you have a grasp on the whole seriousness of this thing. We aren't capable of sustaining a simple biosphere. Not in a lab, not on Antarctica, and certainly not on Mars. Going there with the intent of never returning means you will die in few months. It is a 100% certain thing. You could bet on it.

You would not live to old age. You would die shortly in front of global Earth audience.

If you're referring to Biodome 2, that's not really proof we can't sustain a closed ecological system. It's just proof that we don't know enough about the incredibly complex interactions within Earth's biosphere to be able to reliably replicate the whole thing. But growing algae in a tank for oxygen and food is pretty simple. Relatively speaking.

Of course, I completely agree with you that anyone Mars One manages to send to Mars will probably be dead within a few months. Not because closed ecological systems are impossible with current tech, but because Mars One is trying to do too much, too fast, too cheaply.

[Technical Ben]

On the plus side he's professional and seems to know his information. IMO Mars one probably isn't a scam just a group who underestimated what they need to get to mars.

Bernard Madoff was a professional.

But yes, they underestimate what reality really means.

[Brethern]

Bernard Madoff was a professional.

But yes, they underestimate what reality really means.

x did x strikes again.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

[whiterafter]

This was an idea some guy thought up late at night and didn't consider well.

There are 8 years until their planned launch date, yet there is no equipment, not even 1 million dollars. It is just not going to happen. Maybe they will launch in 30 years, but by then I hope they will be old news as they would be on the same timeframe as NASA.

I can see this causing a big scandal if it blows up (not literally).

[Bill Phil]

I can see this causing a big scandal if it blows up (not literally).

Would literally fit just as well?

Flights to the moon were more expensive than 6 billion ( I assume that's total cost for Mars One) in today's dollars. I have no idea why they think it's possible at all. Money is the key here. And there just isn't enough of it.

Edited March 19, 2015 by Bill Phil

[Brethern]

This was an idea some guy thought up late at night and didn't consider well.

There are 8 years until their planned launch date, yet there is no equipment, not even 1 million dollars. It is just not going to happen. Maybe they will launch in 30 years, but by then I hope they will be old news as they would be on the same timeframe as NASA.

I can see this causing a big scandal if it blows up (not literally).

"we choose to go to the Moon in this decade not because it is easy but because it is hard." Those words were spoken in 1962 which as I recall was shortly after John Glenn orbited the earth. In eight years NASA developed an EVA suit, a method to dock two spacecrafts and a rocket with the deltaV needed to get to the moon.

Mars One does have a chance, at least they are operating knowing that most of the tech they need already exists.

[Bill Phil]

"we choose to go to the Moon in this decade not because it is easy but because it is hard." Those words were spoken in 1962 which as I recall was shortly after John Glenn orbited the earth. In eight years NASA developed an EVA suit, a method to dock two spacecrafts and a rocket with the deltaV needed to get to the moon.

Mars One does have a chance, at least they are operating knowing that most of the tech they need already exists.

After Shephard's suborbital flight.

Plus, Apollo was already in the works, it just didn't get serious funding until Kennedy's speech.