[space] Is Mars-one a scam?

[K^2]

I'm not talking about spacex, I'm talking about Mars One. M1 plans to buy falcon launches. When they run out of money (under the insane assumption they ever actually have any in the first place), the likely very public colonists will have to convince someone to resupply them or die. The obvious choice would be to beg Musk to throw some launches their way and bail them out.

The most plausible situation is that they won't be able to launch anyone in the first place. If they somehow manage, the next most plausible thing is that they'll suffer a fatal accident somewhere between trying to get to Mars, and trying not to get to it in quite such a hurry. Now, if they actually manage to land safely and establish some sort of a colony, which is a huge stretch of imagination right now, then we can start discussing alternatives. And honestly if they actually make it, I think we should all pitch in and keep the supplies going. It'd be a shame to waste such an outcome.

[Godot]

The most plausible situation is that they won't be able to launch anyone in the first place. If they somehow manage, the next most plausible thing is that they'll suffer a fatal accident somewhere between trying to get to Mars, and trying not to get to it in quite such a hurry. Now, if they actually manage to land safely and establish some sort of a colony, which is a huge stretch of imagination right now, then we can start discussing alternatives. And honestly if they actually make it, I think we should all pitch in and keep the supplies going. It'd be a shame to waste such an outcome.

I for my part think the chances are high that, even if they get to Mars, they will die there a short time afterwards.

There are so many things that can fail in the colony ... plants not growing (endangering the colonists food and O2 supply and Co2 removal) ...

diseases ... maybe even some of the health problems arising from the lower gravity and the fainter solar radiation input (less Vitamine D).

I also wonder what they want to do with the human waste of the colony ...

just bury it outside (and thereby biologically contaminate Mars)?

[Nibb31]

Elon Musk is a businessman first. I don't see a reason not to sell the rockets as he is not responsible for what happens after they reach orbit.

You guys are amazing. Depending on what suits you, Elon is either an altruist willing to give up his fortune for his dream or a businessman who would sell his mother. Talk about double standards.

As a businessman, he knows what's good for his business. Associating with Mars One would be toxic.

Mars One is laughing stock in the space scene. Being part of it would hurt his credibility with pretty much every investor, institution, or future millionaire colonist he would want to get on board down the line.

What fraud? That makes no sense. Do automobile companies face investigation for fraud after a person uses a car to drive to place he then robs at gunpoint?

Well, making money out of gullible people like the poster above for example. Thanks to the "support" from people like him, the Mars One team are able to pay themselves a decent salary in return for... well... telling people what they want to hear.

It might not be illegal, but it sure is inethical.

People die and get forgotten. Remember Challenger accident? The shuttle was grounded for a few years and then everybody moved on.

In what way are they forgotten? The Columbia accident was the main driver to retire the Shuttle and to "hopefully" be done with side-mounted winges reentry vehicles for good.

I have no idea what the Shuttle accidents have to do with Mars One, but the victims of Challenger and Columbia are all but forgotten.

- - - Updated - - -

not to be rude, but have you even SEEN SpaceX's plan for Mars?

Not to be rude, but have you?

To my knowledge, nobody has seen their plan. For all we know, it might just be a cynical HR plot to motivate their young work force into working crazy hours without benefits...

Musk has a dream, not a plan, and Mars One is not part of it.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Nibb31

[tater]

The most plausible situation is that they won't be able to launch anyone in the first place. If they somehow manage, the next most plausible thing is that they'll suffer a fatal accident somewhere between trying to get to Mars, and trying not to get to it in quite such a hurry. Now, if they actually manage to land safely and establish some sort of a colony, which is a huge stretch of imagination right now, then we can start discussing alternatives. And honestly if they actually make it, I think we should all pitch in and keep the supplies going. It'd be a shame to waste such an outcome.

Like I said, I think it's insane to imagine that they ever have any money to buy hardware with in the first place, so I was granting them "colony" status for argument just to show the problems even if that managed to happen via some sorcery.

Regarding supply to them in the case of business failure, it would depend, I suppose. We (presumably the taxpayers) would be on the hook for billions every couple years with nothing positive on the balance sheet. I don't think it would be worth it assuming the numbers from the MIT guys are correct, even if NASA in return got them to do some science there as part of the deal since the resupply costs start looking like a large chunk of the NASA budget.

If such a venture wanted a way to actually monetize the project, they'd incorporate a way to do in-situ construction. I know guys at Los Alamos who worked on lunar concretes using simulants, I can't recall if they made any martian regolith simulant to try it for Mars. If a private entity could create a place to go to, then there would be a reason to go to mars with crew, vs robots. Then NASA need only send a MAV and lander, plus supplies, and then they buy time at the local facilities as we buy launches now. That doesn't seem to be their business model, however (it's more like a reality Show with martians, right?).

[Grumman]

Elon Musk is a businessman first. I don't see a reason not to sell the rockets as he is not responsible for what happens after they reach orbit.

Musk wants to convince a million people to go live on Mars. Allowing Mars One to try and fail squanders a reason for people to say yes (the opportunity to be one of the first Martians) and adds a new reason to say no (because your predecessors all died horribly).

And honestly if they actually make it, I think we should all pitch in and keep the supplies going. It'd be a shame to waste such an outcome.

I think we've all had quite enough of that too-big-to-fail nonsense, thank you very much. If Mars One does succeed in doing something pointless, expensive and suicidally stupid, that does not constitute a reason for the rest of us to drop everything and rush to stop it failing catastrophically.

[Albert VDS]

You guys are amazing. Depending on what suits you, Elon is either an altruist willing to give up his fortune for his dream or a businessman who would sell his mother. Talk about double standards.

As a businessman, he knows what's good for his business. Associating with Mars One would be toxic.

Mars One is laughing stock in the space scene. Being part of it would hurt his credibility with pretty much every investor, institution, or future millionaire colonist he would want to get on board down the line.

If SpaceX didn't want to sell rockets to Mars One then they wouldn't have the talks they had in a few years back.

[K^2]

Regarding supply to them in the case of business failure, it would depend, I suppose. We (presumably the taxpayers) would be on the hook for billions every couple years with nothing positive on the balance sheet. I don't think it would be worth it assuming the numbers from the MIT guys are correct, even if NASA in return got them to do some science there as part of the deal since the resupply costs start looking like a large chunk of the NASA budget.

I think we've all had quite enough of that too-big-to-fail nonsense, thank you very much. If Mars One does succeed in doing something pointless, expensive and suicidally stupid, that does not constitute a reason for the rest of us to drop everything and rush to stop it failing catastrophically.

And that's why we haven't been to the moon since the 70s. It's this precise attitude. "Why should we as tax payers?.."

Because if we don't, then all of our achievements, all of our technology, all of our literature, all that is us - means absolutely zilch. We will perish. Of the Seven Billion people living on this planet right now, every single one is going to die and rot on this world. And leave practically nothing of themselves to be remembered. And if we only consider immediate gains, that is all we will ever be, until a giant solar flare, or a stray asteroid, or a global war ends us. Barely a footnote on Planet's history. Not even a dot on Galaxy's.

Whoever ends up being the first people to actually land on Mars and try to make it there, we owe them our support. They will surely perish. Just like the first colonies to the New World perished. But how much of an effort they put into staying alive, and how much support we all give them, that will determine when the next group will try and what sort of resources will be invested into it. And we can keep trying until we get it right. Until we have permanent, self-sufficient outposts off-world. And then - then it will all mean something.

If a bunch of lunatics take a one-way ride to Mars, we don't owe them the help. We owe it to ourselves. For our future.

[Scotius]

Well said ^. But we need to do it the smart way. Building private space stations and making first steps towards asteroid mining is a good move. It shows Joe Publics that there are money to be made in space. But things like Mars One? Meant as a publicity and cash grab, without sensible plan and secure funding are going only to hurt space exploration.

[DaMichel]

Saw an interview on YT where Elon said that he would sell Rockets to Mars One, but he doubted that Mars One would ever get the funding for even one Falcon Heavy

I know nothing, but i think we are fine for now just sending probes everywhere, including Mars. A rover is just as good at collecting rocks as a human being. A human is limited in his ability to improvise by the availability of tools and materials.

I think a Mars mission would be suicide for humans. Too much that could go wrong at this point. NASA should first test a deep space habitat on the Moon. Much easier to evacuate if something goes wrong.

We should spend more on space exploration though. K^2 is totally right, because of all the dangers mankind faces. We spent billions on rescuing "poor" bankers. Also the US spend insane sums on defense. If just a little bit of this money would be directed to space exploration, it would surely make a big difference!

Edited August 25, 2015 by DaMichel

[PB666]

And that's why we haven't been to the moon since the 70s. It's this precise attitude. "Why should we as tax payers?.."

Because if we don't, then all of our achievements, all of our technology, all of our literature, all that is us - means absolutely zilch. We will perish. Of the Seven Billion people living on this planet right now, every single one is going to die and rot on this world.

Introducing new business model for all those concerned about a Terra-corporeal fate. Before you die we place you on a launch that places you in orbit beyond the sun's future red giant radius. On the way up your unpressurized cabin will experience the rush of cool air, of course followed by Mach Shock, then in about 20 seconds will suck all the air out of your lungs however before you feel the effects of the ozone you will go into a perpetual sleep. Once you get into space you lyophilize (instead of the mundane ICU or hospice fate) and your will enjoy an existence free of the possible fate of rotting on this world. The product will be named Freeze-dried Sky.

Jokes aside the conservative resistance to space program and science in general is basically a ludite perspective, it generally goes no-where. In the course of human history, the most techno-savey cultures have tended to dominate. And the West is about to get its butt kicked. ESA, as far as I can tell does not even have a manned space program. lol.

- - - Updated - - -

I think we need some balance here.

First, every country needs to spend more on the Space program and I wish the US would Triple down on all their Science so . . . . . .

Second we do need a manned capability and we should safely be trying to extend our reach [cough] from the ISS. While I see no great value of revisiting the moon, its a good place

to start the colonization research.

BUT!

Third, Mars is not a good choice, it really isn't, it would be cheaper to bring water to a station at L1 or to land on an asteroid or even a martian moon than to land on Mars itself. The getting on Mars is a problem and the getting off is impossible at the moment. If you haven't noticed NASA last two chute tests for martian parachute has failed. The dV required to reach orbit around a martian moon is alot less than mars, to land and get off is much-much less.

Forth, Mars is not a tourist destination, it really isn't, you would have a very big problem when your average art-history major after 200 days of complete boredom and lack of social interaction 'tests' the viability of the Martian atmosphere. Scientist get into doing Sciency stuff, which would keep them occupied for a period long enough. You want engineers and scientist on the ground, not civilians. At least in reproductive age, man and wife teams, not a good idea. Elderly couple who have a long history of working together (no I am not volunteering) is a better choice. Selling tickets for a suicide mission four young people is basically a bad idea.

Of course its a joke.

[Grumman]

Jokes aside the conservative resistance to space program and science in general is basically a ludite perspective, it generally goes no-where.

The Luddite perspective is an opposition to productive technological advancement on the basis that the increased productivity reduces the need for resources - the resources you are trying to sell. A manned mission to Mars does not increase our productive efficiency and in fact would do the opposite, creating a large and useless project which would consume resources and give nothing back. So your accusation that we are being Luddites for not supporting this white elephant is the exact opposite of reality.

[PB666]

The Luddite perspective is an opposition to productive technological advancement on the basis that the increased productivity reduces the need for resources - the resources you are trying to sell. A manned mission to Mars does not increase our productive efficiency and in fact would do the opposite, creating a large and useless project which would consume resources and give nothing back. So your accusation that we are being Luddites for not supporting this white elephant is the exact opposite of reality.

Note that I said we are not yet ready to go to Mars, and I pointed out three better choice alternative. But a better perspective is to spend more money on Space as to prepare or have the capacity to successfully go to Mars at some future point. Our Manned space program is a Joke, a Joke on steroids since we lost the shuttle program, because we can't even repair or upgrade the hallmark of the manned space program, the hubble.

Secondarily. A scientific and engineering program to go to Mars, and actually never actually reach mars or put humans on Mars, just preparation for humans to reach mars is a worth-while venture technologically and would provide a bonus to the rest of society. It is not the achievement that feeds advancement, its the struggle to achieve, the mars rocks are a bonus. A Mars program that is achievable is not ludditic perspective, a tourist driven program in neutral on this, but is a waste of resources.

I should point out that 40 years after the Lunar mission, the Lunar rocks and samples are still being used for research, publications are still coming forth, so . . . . . .

[Luna-Industries]

Jokes aside the conservative resistance to space program and science in general is basically a ludite perspective, it generally goes no-where.

(PB666 has commented since I started writing this, but I still want to discuss this.)

I tend to agree with that statement, but I'm obviously biased because I love space and everything to do with it.

So I'm going to play devil's advocate for these conservative people. For most, I'd wager, it isn't about luddite-ism... It's honestly just fiscal conservativism. They don't like spending money on unsure things. And as Kerbal has taught most, if not all of us, space travel is rarely a certain thing. Is this perspective short sighted? Perhaps. But a lot can happen in a short time, and they don't want a lot of money to be tied up in space exploration when it does.

While this viewpoint is obviously detrimental to space exploration, I can understand why, at least, they'd have such an un-Jebediah viewpoint.

Fortunately for us, the private sector seems to be stepping up. We've got companies like SpaceX and Virgin trying to do things in space, cool things. This is important, because ideally, eventually, if the government is conservative with its dollars in space, we don't need them for cool things to happen. And that, is why I, personally, feel this scam is devastating. It might make people think non-governmental space exploration is a scam, when we're on the cusp of it becoming a serious thing. And that makes me sad.

[DaMichel]

So I'm going to play devil's advocate for these conservative people. For most, I'd wager, it isn't about luddite-ism... It's honestly just fiscal conservativism. They don't like spending money on unsure things. And as Kerbal has taught most, if not all of us, space travel is rarely a certain thing. Is this perspective short sighted? Perhaps. But a lot can happen in a short time, and they don't want a lot of money to be tied up in space exploration when it does.

Space programs are (like) basic research, in contrast to specific product development. Its benefits unfold in the long run and nobody can tell what new understanding it will bring. It is certainly a good idea to have either of them. I bet most decision makers are aware but feel pressured to spent money elsewhere.

And that, is why I, personally, feel this scam is devastating.

In my experience, the public cares very little.

[Shpaget]

You guys are amazing. Depending on what suits you, Elon is either an altruist willing to give up his fortune for his dream or a businessman who would sell his mother. Talk about double standards.

You must have confused me with somebody else. I don't remember ever calling Musk an "altruist willing to give up his fortune for his dream" or anything remotely similar.

[Luna-Industries]

In my experience, the public cares very little.

Well, I suppose apathy is better than active distrust...

[tater]

And that's why we haven't been to the moon since the 70s. It's this precise attitude. "Why should we as tax payers?.."

That is entirely the wrong take on my statement, and completely unrelated to the situation I proposed.

A Dutch company manages to strand a handful of people on another planet due to terrible planning that will never achieve a sustainable colony, then the US taxpayers have to bail them out in perpetuity? Really? I'm all for NASA (working with other programs as required/desired) sending people wherever. I'm not for NASA having to blow its budget trying to rescue people who go with an unworkable plan. That's throwing good money after bad. It would be better for NASA to look at what failed with the bad plan, then design a new mission that won't fail, and is actually sustainable.

If you want to posit a workable Mars-One evolution that real programs could salvage, then that's a different story.

I would also add that the reason we have not been to the moon is quite simple: we won the race. Apollo was a Cold War stunt, period. We'd certainly have gotten more valuable science out of the same money spent on probes (we could collect the same mass of samples with smaller craft with no need for life support and crew). Once the moon was "done" as a race, the Cold War posturing was basically done. Had the CCCP then moved to a public try at Mars, then maybe we would have continued (the economics of the 70s might have been a problem, though). The NASA budget has been pretty constant (in constant dollars) after the huge bubble of mid-Apollo.

What made Apollo work, IMO, was partially the death of JFK. The call to land men and return them before the end of the decade allowed longer term commitment than usually exists with any government spending. JFK's death made following through easy to sell emotionally to the country (which is sadly how many (most?) voters seem to make decisions).

Because if we don't, then all of our achievements, all of our technology, all of our literature, all that is us - means absolutely zilch. We will perish. Of the Seven Billion people living on this planet right now, every single one is going to die and rot on this world. And leave practically nothing of themselves to be remembered. And if we only consider immediate gains, that is all we will ever be, until a giant solar flare, or a stray asteroid, or a global war ends us. Barely a footnote on Planet's history. Not even a dot on Galaxy's.

I'm completely onboard with the idea of a safety net for humanity (another "basket" for the eggs, as it were). But that is only true if the colony is 100% self-sufficient. Yes, that will take time, during which they will not be. Again, I'm fine with that. But it would help to have an actual plan that can work. Throwing Dragon capsules at 4, 8, 12, etc people for a few decades at huge expense will do nothing to achieve the goal if their plan doesn't account for them actually becoming self-sufficient. How can NASA/etc work on that problem when half their budget is going to bail out a reality show?

Not that it matters, because Mars-One is and has always been a joke.

Whoever ends up being the first people to actually land on Mars and try to make it there, we owe them our support. They will surely perish. Just like the first colonies to the New World perished. But how much of an effort they put into staying alive, and how much support we all give them, that will determine when the next group will try and what sort of resources will be invested into it. And we can keep trying until we get it right. Until we have permanent, self-sufficient outposts off-world. And then - then it will all mean something.

If a bunch of lunatics take a one-way ride to Mars, we don't owe them the help. We owe it to ourselves. For our future.

Assume for the sake of argument that we would bail out any such endeavor. Then wouldn't the best model for Mars-One be to just launch the one or two crews, then abandon them? They can privately tell any investor, "Look, don't worry about the costs forward of the first couple crews! We're going to run out of money, then NASA will take over costing us nothing!"

I'd be fine with the various space programs setting goals for a sustainable colony evolution (1-way trip), then paying for it after the fact (private firms build it/monetize it any way they like, and if it is in place with the minimal specs required by NASA/ESA/etc, then we will give you XX billion $).

I think we owe it to ourselves to plan something that will actually work, not bail out something so poorly planned it needs bailing out.

Serious question, sorta OT: Is Mars worth colonizing in the first place vs other options? Assume M1 goes on schedule (some insane billionaire gives them money). How does the logistics of Mars colonization compare to using resources in space (asteroids, etc) to construct things like O'Neil colonies? Is 0.38g acceptable for human physiology over long time periods, for example? I honestly don't know how well characterized this is. We have loads of data now on microgravity, and 1g, but effectively none at any other value.

Seems like "Step 1" of any plan to colonize Mars should not be sending people there 1-way, but to put a transit vehicle in Earth orbit someplace, then spin it to 0.38g and crew it for a few years and get data. Alternately, a round trip plan first, to see how their bodies fare.

Edited August 25, 2015 by tater

[Godot]

...

I should point out that 40 years after the Lunar mission, the Lunar rocks and samples are still being used for research, publications are still coming forth, so . . . . . .

But rock samples can also be collected and sent home via a robotic sample collection + return mission (AFAIK such a mission even was discussed at NASA).

Much less dV requirements ... and if something disastrous happens, no human lives are lost ... and you also can plan for a longer voyage of the spacecraft (as it doesn´t consume any lifesupport), increasing the number/length of possible launch windows

[tater]

A robot sample return mission allowed the same mass to Mars as a manned mission would collect the same mass of samples as the manned mission, PLUS the total mass of what would have been crew and life support, minus the mass of the actual robot.

[peadar1987]

But rock samples can also be collected and sent home via a robotic sample collection + return mission (AFAIK such a mission even was discussed at NASA).

Much less dV requirements ... and if something disastrous happens, no human lives are lost ... and you also can plan for a longer voyage of the spacecraft (as it doesn´t consume any lifesupport), increasing the number/length of possible launch windows

Just to be pedantic, the dV requirements are the same (unless you use a low-energy gravity-assisty transfer), just the mass requirements are less.

[Grumman]

A robot sample return mission allowed the same mass to Mars as a manned mission would collect the same mass of samples as the manned mission, PLUS the total mass of what would have been crew and life support, minus the mass of the actual robot.

Actually, not minus the mass of the actual robot. The robot is expendable - you can leave it on Mars and only send the the samples and maybe the hard drive back to Earth.

[More Boosters]

Actually, not minus the mass of the actual robot. The robot is expendable - you can leave it on Mars and only send the the samples and maybe the hard drive back to Earth.

Though most of the robot's mass would be the containers for the samples and various space-grade equipment that you'd probably want to recover, and you're still carrying the robot during launch which is where you shed most of your mass and Delta-V.

[Godot]

Just to be pedantic, the dV requirements are the same (unless you use a low-energy gravity-assisty transfer), just the mass requirements are less.

Yep, you are right of course

[Grumman]

Though most of the robot's mass would be the containers for the samples and various space-grade equipment that you'd probably want to recover, and you're still carrying the robot during launch which is where you shed most of your mass and Delta-V.

You're carrying the robot during one launch. There are two - the one from Earth and the one from Mars. By launching a smaller cargo from Mars, you don't need to land as much fuel on Mars to launch it.

[Nibb31]

The Mars Sample Return reference mission uses two robots. The first is the Mars 2020 rover (based on Curiosity), which will pick up samples and package them in a capsule.

The second mission will come later (2024), with a return vehicle that stays in orbit and a lander that carries a small rocket. The rover meets the lander on the surface, puts the capsule on the rocket. The rocket launches, which rendez-vous and docks to the return vehicle in orbit.

The lander has its own arm for collecting samples, just in case Mars 2020 isn't able to rendezvous with the lander.

If we are lucky, we might get a sample of Mars regolith back to Earth in the late 2020's or early 2030's.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Nibb31