[space] Is Mars-one a scam?

[Diche Bach]

microgravity =/= reduced gravity.

You're arguing a circuit here. We don't have the data, so we can't go to Mars, but if we don't go to Mars, we can't get the data, and if we don't have the data... A lot of this thread is in the same vein. Most of this stuff we won't know until we get someone, something, living on Mars to find out.

The closest thing we can do, short of going to another planet and living there, is building a giant spinning ring in orbit calibrated to give .38g, and having someone hang out up there for a year or two. NASA had a smaller one planned to test the viability of those kind of rings, but hey, funding got in the way of it.

Lack of funding is not a good excuse to blindly forge ahead and place human beings into risky situations from which the negative PR could prove to be even more harmful to progress toward successful Mars colonization.

"Mars One colonists All Dead (headline) Final heartrending message from dying scientist . . ." <-- That would do wonders for public opinion about space travel.

[Kerbart]

(...)It stands to reason that 0.376g is at best (and without remedial preventative care such as restrained exercise regimes) only 38% as health as 1.0g. In fact, if most of the ill health effects from micro-gravity derive from the initial reductions from 1.0g, anything below some relatively high level (0.8g, 0.54g, or whatever) might effectively be just as bad as 0.001g.

One can equally argue that many bodily function depend on the existence of a gravitational vector without too much regard how much, once a certain treshold is passed. The stomach liner is thicker at the bottom than at the top (if I remember biology lessons correct) so it's beneficial that the acids in your stomach collect at the bottom at not all over the place. But .25g will achieve that as much as 1.0g; the benefits diminish as gravity goes up (or down, when you really think about it ). At the same time the stress the body is exposed to at higher gees might counteract some of benefits, making lower gees far less unhealthy (again, above a certain level).

[Faark]

The good part about their plan is, that its a one way mission. Lets be honest... if there is a return ticket, the mission has a much higher chance of being shut down due to insufficient funding. But who would let a fellow countryman die out there...

Anyway, i would put my money on Elon as well. If only for the reason that he put a hundred million of his own dollars into his plans, and i pretty sure would do sth similar on a mars mission.

Whatever happens, the only way we get to mars is if someone is willing to spend a lot of cash. So another good bet would be China. It might take a little longer, since they are doing everything on their own, but they want to prove that can do everything as well as "we" can and even more. So yes, its pretty likely that the first living human on Mars is a Chinese.

Anyway, I'm not that old, so I'm pretty sure to be still alive when the first man steps onto the Mars. It would be a shame for mankind if we need another 40 years to do so.

[Stargate525]

Lack of funding is not a good excuse to blindly forge ahead and place human beings into risky situations from which the negative PR could prove to be even more harmful to progress toward successful Mars colonization.

I'm not arguing for 'blindly forging ahead.' The plain fact of the matter is that for Mars to colonize, SOMEONE has to go first. It will be risky. It will be dangerous. Apollo missions are a perfect example; something goes wrong, they're SOL, dead! The president had a speech prepared and everything mourning their loss. Unless you're willing to say that the first MArs mission will be a 1000-5000 man mission, including full industry and processing facilities, there will be an element of risk. Same as with Jamestown, same as with Apollo, Same as with our first eventual interstellar journey.

[Albert VDS]

1. Nobody know how a human body will handle 0,4g for a long time (Apollo astronauts spend days at most on the Moon, we're talking about years)

2. How do you know 0,4g won't cause it also?

3. like above

4. No resupply = death. There is no closed life support system at the moment.

5. I agree.

6. SPE could kill you.

7. "Depends on how you handle" means green light? I can't agree with it.

8. I agree.

9. Maybe.

Plus 10. Mars One doesn't have money, knowledge or hardware. They have pretty fancy PowerPoint presentations though.

Actually, you are right. I was completely off. But still you can't use a list, which is about a 3 year Mars mission with most of the time in space, as proof that it can't be done.

[czokletmuss]

It's no proof - it just shows how hard and challenging it's gonna be. I doubt MarsOne can handle issues which are problematic for NASA, ESA or any other big agency.

On a side note - I would love to see people on Mars in the next 10 years. But realistically speaking, it's almost certainly not going to happen.

[Kerbart]

Here's a question for those that think this is a viable project. Let's say you have a machine doing something in your habitat, like taking care of your urine. It breakes down and requires maintenance. Assuming you know how to fix it, you take the neccessary tools and get down on it. But one of your tools breaks down. What are you going to do?

Call mommy (Earth) for help? "Hey, I need a size 4 defloppulator, please send one ASAP!"

Yeah, you'll get one, in few months if you're lucky.

You've got only size 1, 2, 3, 5. No defloppulator #4, no urine recycling. Immediate microbe threat to your habitat. Immediate water reclamation threat. Result: death in two weeks.

No 3D printer will help you, because defloppulator is made of high carbon steel and germanium. OK, you could get some germanium if you break down one high yield fluctuation dampener, you've got 5 of those stored. What about steel? Destroy more tools? Melt it? Using what? Energy from solar panels? ROFL

Precise machining? Using what? Ultra-lazor-robotic-something? No problem, just build yourself one

The answer to that, to a large extend, is engineering. A lot of the doom scenario's pointed out can be mitigated by:

• Redundancyâ€â€critical systems would not rely on a single implementation. If urine recycling is essential for the survival of the colony, then you're going to rely on four or five recycling units, and have one or two spare (as well as plenty of spare parts, based on what testing has revealed are the most failing parts, if any)
  
• Designâ€â€there's usually more than one solution to a problem and there will be a tendency to stick to the reliable solution. As a trivial example, LED lights would be preferred over incandescent lights that can burn out.
  
• Repairabilityâ€â€in similar fashion, the design would focus on designs where you can 3D print spare parts. In the same way as you don't design a submarine in such a way that you have to dismantle half the vessel to replace the torpedoes, you wouldn't design life support systems in such a way that parts with a tendency to fail cannot be replaced.
  
• Proactiveâ€â€modern technology allows for unmanned missions. Even if landing on-site requires to be supervised in real-time, you could still put a whole bunch of spare-parts pods in orbit and let them descend when needed. In similar fashion, you don't wait for critical parts to fail; you'll set up a schedule to send in (and replace!) certain parts ahead of time.
  

In the same way as we don't design rocket- and aircraft parts in a similar way as car and bicycle parts, components for a Mars base will be designed with a different mindset than those for an RV or even an arctic base.

EDIT:

Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of questions regarding the viability of the project, but those are of economic nature, not of technical nature.

[Albert VDS]

It's no proof - it just shows how hard and challenging it's gonna be. I doubt MarsOne can handle issues which are problematic for NASA, ESA or any other big agency.

On a side note - I would love to see people on Mars in the next 10 years. But realistically speaking, it's almost certainly not going to happen.

True, but like I said before in this thread; Mars One has 2 problems money and time.

But that seems to be the trend in space exploration if you look at government run space agencies.

[lajoswinkler]

The answer to that, to a large extend, is engineering. A lot of the doom scenario's pointed out can be mitigated by:

• Redundancyâ€â€critical systems would not rely on a single implementation. If urine recycling is essential for the survival of the colony, then you're going to rely on four or five recycling units, and have one or two spare (as well as plenty of spare parts, based on what testing has revealed are the most failing parts, if any)
  
• Designâ€â€there's usually more than one solution to a problem and there will be a tendency to stick to the reliable solution. As a trivial example, LED lights would be preferred over incandescent lights that can burn out.
  
• Repairabilityâ€â€in similar fashion, the design would focus on designs where you can 3D print spare parts. In the same way as you don't design a submarine in such a way that you have to dismantle half the vessel to replace the torpedoes, you wouldn't design life support systems in such a way that parts with a tendency to fail cannot be replaced.
  
• Proactiveâ€â€modern technology allows for unmanned missions. Even if landing on-site requires to be supervised in real-time, you could still put a whole bunch of spare-parts pods in orbit and let them descend when needed. In similar fashion, you don't wait for critical parts to fail; you'll set up a schedule to send in (and replace!) certain parts ahead of time.
  

In the same way as we don't design rocket- and aircraft parts in a similar way as car and bicycle parts, components for a Mars base will be designed with a different mindset than those for an RV or even an arctic base.

EDIT:

Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of questions regarding the viability of the project, but those are of economic nature, not of technical nature.

We do not possess such engineering techniques yet. Our culture depends on synthesis of various industries. For the same reasons, today you can't make an LCD television in Germany, from the scratch, or a hybrid car in USA. Mars One would heavily depend on Earth, and that's very expensive.

This project fails on so many aspects. Psychological, physiological, legal, economic, technical...

I assure you that people stranded on the surface would turn to murder. When there's no hope and no beauty in your life, however you strong are, you eventually break. Living in tiny capsules with the same people for the rest of their lives... When they realize they'll leave their bones in the red dust, they'll probably snap and either commit suicide or go into amok.

Regarding China, if it wasn't for the national pride, China would send people into Jupiter's metallic oceans years ago. Monkey-in-a-can style. It's China. Human rights are low priority, and there are so many people they're an expendable product. It's a scary thought, but it's reality.

I wouldn't be surprised if one day we find out they did suborbital experiments on prisoners. They already kill them and take their organs like butchers. As a matter of fact, I'm quite convinced the Soviets did similar stuff when they started the Space Race.

[SargeRho]

Actually, they WOULDN'T live in the pods. Those would only be used to land stuff on Mars. The people would live in much larger, inflatable habitats buried in dust nearby.

[lajoswinkler]

Inflatable? Oh, good. Elastic polymers exposed to harsh environments. We could all place bets about the whole compound popping. March 2045 or September 2038?

Who is going to bury all that stuff? I think it requires around 1 metre of soil.

[SargeRho]

Not elastic. More comparable to kevlar or carbon fibre. When inflated, it's sturdier than the aluminium used in most spacecraft these days.

[lajoswinkler]

At least it will not be easy to rip it when they loose their **** and start running around with knives.

[Lexif]

Of course Mars One is a scam -- or if it's not a scam, it's terribly misguided. I don't even talk about all the space exploration stuff. I say it's doomed to fail as a commerical product. Who would want to sign on as the sponsor of a one way mission to Mars? You can sell the reality TV show that will be the selection process for the candidates, and that's the best that the people that signed up for this can hope for. The part where they get missions in support of the program rolling might also be quite juicy, but if you do the calculations, how are the going to return the money? By then, I'm sure that they count on having some kind of political support, where governments are going to chip in if they are going to fail, but I don't see it happening. Every government that supports this will have to deal with the political fallout when people will die and they will feel pressured to send a rescue mission, but those governments will gain none of the propaganda glory that comes with starting it themselves, they just risk being seen as not doing enough. So why would they chip in? This might do space exploration a huge disservice as it could put governments into a position to say that going to Mars is just not worth it, because someone messed it up and ruined the public perception of it.

And in the end, the whole thing will be called off at the astronaut selection stage because that kind of show is just too boring as a TV program, let's face it. And if it becomes a success at that stage, rivaling shows might pop up that do something similar, but cheaper, like selecting candidates to set up a colony in Antarctica. It would get you the same social dynamics, but with costs several order of magnitudes less that the Mars One program.

Which takes me to my personal problem with those that propose colonisation of other planets... I just can't take any program serious that's not trying to establish an independant colony on earth as a test. If you propose a program to go to Mars that doesn't include a proving run where people spend the same time in a closed off environment on earth or in earth orbit, you are doing it wrong. People here naturally focus on space. But what about first establishing an autonomous colony in LEO, Antarctica, on Mount Everest or in the oceans? If it's so easy, it should be no problem. But actually, there's not even a single successfull attempt to really colonize the parts of earth that don't support human life. If you can survive in Antarctica, at the top of an 8000 m high mountain, or at the bottom of the ocean for a few years without help from the outside, we can talk. I'm sure the vistas there will be just as nice as on Mars.

[Apature rocket science]

I think they will use mec jeb to land on Mars

[jwenting]

No. What pushes Humanity to explore and expand is to find ways to improve our living conditions by increasing wealth, comfort , security, or all three of those conditions. That's all.

We go where we will be safe, where the food grows, where we will find a decent job and get a better home, like our ancestors followed the bison and dwelled in caves. When people emigrate it is always because they hope to find a better life for themselves and for their children, not because they want to "give themselves a meaning". Exploration and colonization was a government-sponsored initiative to increase the wealth and political influence of the country. The goal certainly was never for the colonies to become self-sustaining and independent, quite the contrary.

The "give ourselves a meaning" is western romanticism, not human nature.

Nothing on Mars provides any hope for increased wealth, comfort, or security, or for a better life for your children. In fact, it's quite the opposite. There is no possible trade or wealth to exploit, and life would be harsh and dangerous.

quite often colonisation was also a means to get rid of malcontents, criminals, and other undesirables (either by deliberately shipping them out, or by creating conditions in which they choose to do so voluntarily).

So who knows, a penal colony or a refuge for a religious group persecuted at home could well emerge as at least the initial attempt to establish a colony on another planet.

But the effort needed would be much greater than just putting them on a rickety old ship and grounding that on some distant shore (though in relation to the size of our economies, maybe not that much greater than the initial settlement expeditions to places like Australia).

[czokletmuss]

quite often colonisation was also a means to get rid of malcontents, criminals, and other undesirables (either by deliberately shipping them out, or by creating conditions in which they choose to do so voluntarily).

So who knows, a penal colony or a refuge for a religious group persecuted at home could well emerge as at least the initial attempt to establish a colony on another planet.

But the effort needed would be much greater than just putting them on a rickety old ship and grounding that on some distant shore (though in relation to the size of our economies, maybe not that much greater than the initial settlement expeditions to places like Australia).

Wouldn't it be easier to lock'em up in a prison or kill them than to spend billions only to send them to place where they would probably die anyway?

[NovaSilisko]

I wouldn't really call Mars One a scam so much as a ridiculously optimistic and poorly-conceived project... I'd much rather see money go to Inspiration Mars - that's very simple, and very achievable. And it brings the crew home so it's got some extra inherent public appeal

[Speeding Mullet]

I'm so ill informed on this, but with absolutely no formal qualifications to back me up I'd like to weigh in with an opinion that it won't happen in this form.

I think for the purposes of keeping the debate in the public sphere it does an average job compared to other solutions, but hopefully with the cumulative conversations and debates centering around going and doing it privately, the hand may be forced at some point for NASA with an adequate mandate.

[jwenting]

Wouldn't it be easier to lock'em up in a prison or kill them than to spend billions only to send them to place where they would probably die anyway?

got to wonder how many people said the same thing about the plan to deport prisoners to Australia and the Americans when those were put up in England and France.

"We got to send people, we don't want to pay them wages, it's going to cost a lot of lives. Know what, let's send prisoners, nobody cares if they die anyway".

[czokletmuss]

got to wonder how many people said the same thing about the plan to deport prisoners to Australia and the Americans when those were put up in England and France.

"We got to send people, we don't want to pay them wages, it's going to cost a lot of lives. Know what, let's send prisoners, nobody cares if they die anyway".

I'm sorry but sentencing someone to Australia and sending someone to Mars are completely different things. If you can't see the difference - well, I don't know what could I say honestly. Prison-planet is just a silly s-f idea. It's not going to happen ever.

[Nibb31]

got to wonder how many people said the same thing about the plan to deport prisoners to Australia and the Americans when those were put up in England and France.

"We got to send people, we don't want to pay them wages, it's going to cost a lot of lives. Know what, let's send prisoners, nobody cares if they die anyway".

The difference with sending prisoners to Mars is that you are going to need people who are highly qualified, highly motivated, mentally stable and disciplined. That sort of profile is quite rare in the prison population.

[Seret]

We do not possess such engineering techniques yet.

Actually we do. What Kerbart was expounding is some of the principles of good, conservative engineering that are already used in aerospace. Redundancy, good design, repairability, and preventative maintenace are just ideas used in any kind of reliability engineering. His point was that actually reiterating the point that a Mars base would need regular, reliable and extensive engineering support. That's the point others (including myself) have been making in this thread.

The issue of whether Mars One can get their act together to put some boots on Mars is only half the question. Once you put the people there they'll require a heroic amount of support. Does Mars One show the slightest indication of being able to assemble and sustain that level of support indefinitely? No, not at all. They don't even look terribly likely to make a single launch, let alone a dozen of them a year for the next 50 years. What Mars One are suggesting they can do is produce and output far greater than all previous space programmes. That seems pretty outlandish.

[Seret]

got to wonder how many people said the same thing about the plan to deport prisoners to Australia and the Americans when those were put up in England and France.

"We got to send people, we don't want to pay them wages, it's going to cost a lot of lives. Know what, let's send prisoners, nobody cares if they die anyway".

Fun fact: most prisoners transported to places like Australia in colonial days were in fact brought home when their sentences ended. So yes, people did care. The Victorians were very interested in moral issues like prison reform, and human dignity in general.

[Nibb31]

I wouldn't really call Mars One a scam so much as a ridiculously optimistic and poorly-conceived project... I'd much rather see money go to Inspiration Mars - that's very simple, and very achievable. And it brings the crew home so it's got some extra inherent public appeal

Inspiration Mars is more realistic, but actually quite pointless. Calculations show that the actual flyby of Mars will happen at night time, so they won't even be able to see Mars when they get there. I guess it will provide valuable biological data about interplanetary travel.

The timeframe for implementing closed-loop life support and getting their inflatable module built, tested and launched before the crewed launch in Jan 2018 is also quite short. I don't think they can make it.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Nibb31