[space] Is Mars-one a scam?

[lajoswinkler]

Of course terraforming is a fact, but it's easier to affect Earth's climate than the one at Mars. Here we have lots of fluid matter to begin with. Lot of water, lots of air, huge biosphere that is responsible for it. The fluid does the work.

At Mars, you've got a thin veil of CO2 and permafrost that's going nowhere. No detectable biosphere. The "activation energy", so to speak, for Mars to kickstart at least something, is much larger than here. Earth has a system of loops. Mars has nothing.

What could maybe change Mars is a huge asteroid impact in the polar cap. All our bombs are a tiny fart compared to such scenario.

[SargeRho]

Or giant, light-weight solar reflectors in orbit around Mars, increasing the solar irradiance of mars significantly. Factories producing so called super-greenhouse gases too perhaps?

Personally, the way Mars should be explored by humans would be a manned flyby mission soonish, to explore the effects of long term space travel, then a set of Mars Direct-style round trips, flying there, staying 2 years, and returning, each of them sent to promising locations for a permanent settlement. Once the optimal location has been located, the construction of a colony begins. This is done by sending further Habitats and ulility landers, and colonists, to Mars. The utility landers contain further vehicles, tools, spare parts, added life support capabilities, the machinery needed to mine, process and utilize metals, seeds, perhaps fertilizers, the critical stuff to sustain a colony basically. We might need to find a way to produce electronics at acceptable quantity, or make that part of the supply line from Earth, since electronics aren't in exessively high demand, and would be built to last for space missions in the first place.

I'm fairly sure that by this time, the FDR or other high-speed propulsion systems will be space tested, so at the same time, a freighter to fly between Earth and Mars would be built and begin regular freight and crew trips. I consider this ship critical for the large scale colonisation of Mars, because it will fly back and forth all the time, all that will be needed will be fuel. No heavy lift vehicles would need to be used. With a bit of luck, Skylon or another affordable SSTO will be in operation. Reusable Falcon 9's and Heavies will certainly be in regular operation by then. The freighter would be a one-time expensive investment, but after that the price would be comparatively low, since deuterium is not too rare, and the FDR doesn't actually use terribly much, and only some level of maintenance will be required.

Edited August 24, 2013 by SargeRho

[Anton P. Nym]

Terraforming is science fact. We're doing exactly what we need to do on Mars, on Earth right now. Don't tell me you deny anthropogenic climate change?

And you realise how much infrastructure it takes to implement here, right? And that's without equipment supplying enough delta-V to ship it to Mars, and very handy and well-understood local sources of hydrocarbons plus effectively-unlimited supplies of free oxidizer.

So what if the Moon is closer? You need to bury quite deep into the ground, or cover your habitat with metric craptons of regolith. Don't have to cover it nearly as much material on Mars, because the radiation is roughly equivalent to Low Earth Orbit. Establishing a permanent human presence is thus more practical on Mars.

Except that digging holes and building mounds is a fairly simple engineering task, and with only ~2s light-speed signal delay could be done largely by teleoperated equipment on the Moon. It may require more digging, but the vastly lower delta-V requirements make a lunar outpost much more practical in the short term.

-- Steve

[rkman]

Terraforming is science fact.

Terraforming has never been done. It is theoretical, not fact.

Also the most optimistic estimates put the process of terraforming on a timescale of thousands of years. No reason to say it can't be done, but it is reason to not hold your breath about it.

[SargeRho]

Terraforming, or rather, the main process that would be used for Terraforming, is being done right now. And we don't even emit the strongest of greenhouse gases. CO2 mostly. Water is more powerful than that. Methane and certain compounds are stronger by, if I remember correctly, several 1000 times.

The most optimistic estimates put Terraforming to the point where humans can live on Mars (probably with breathing aparatus and winter clothes though) at a few centuries.

Edited August 24, 2013 by SargeRho

[Nibb31]

Terraforming is science fact. We're doing exactly what we need to do on Mars, on Earth right now. Don't tell me you deny anthropogenic climate change?

Climate change on Earth is an undeniable fact, but there is still a lot that we don't understand in terms of feedback loops and long term effects. It's also the result of billions of tons of hydrocarbons being burned over several decades. We know very little about Mars' climate mechanisms and ultimately there is very little oxygen to actually burn.

We don't have the technological capability to intentionally control the climate of a planet. It's science fiction. Anything beyond a decade or two away is pure speculation. It's pointless to plan for things that are so far into the future.

We definitely have the technological capability to build a Mars Cycler - thanks to the abandoned NERVA program. Sending nuclear reactors into space probably has all sorts of political issues though. Further development of the Fusion Driven Rocket might make such a thing even easier. Reusable rockets will make it even cheaper, and they are to start flying soon-ish.

Nerva was abandoned, therefore is a technological capability that we no longer have. It was also far from being complete and operational. We have explained to you that having a theoretical solution does not mean that you have the technical capability. There is a huge gap between theory and reliable operational hardware.

As for the Mars Cycler, you appear to not even understand what it is. In no way does a Cycler increase your transportation capability. It only makes the journey less unpleasant (but longer) by allowing a more volume and comfort for passengers. You still have to accelerate the same mass on the same trajectory as if you were going direct.

Reusable is not necessarily cheaper either.

So what if the Moon is closer? You need to bury quite deep into the ground, or cover your habitat with metric craptons of regolith. Don't have to cover it nearly as much material on Mars, because the radiation is roughly equivalent to Low Earth Orbit.

This is speculation. You seriously don't know because nobody has done the actual studies to determine the level of radiation on Mars, its effects on the human body, and how to mitigate those effects. There needs to be a lot more serious work spent on this before we can actually risk lives.

Establishing a permanent human presence is thus more practical on Mars.

This is handwaving. Both are impossible for now (this includes MarsOne) because we don't have the technological capability. However, it is easier to develop that technology for the Moon, simply because the Moon is much easier to get to and to return from.

Edited August 24, 2013 by Nibb31

[lajoswinkler]

Or giant, light-weight solar reflectors in orbit around Mars, increasing the solar irradiance of mars significantly. Factories producing so called super-greenhouse gases too perhaps?

Maybe, but it would take an enormous, extremely expensive array of reflectors for that, and the effect would be so weak. We can't agree on cutting down CO2 because stupid politicians don't want to do something that would have a tiny measurable effect in a few generations.

Doing something on Mars, with at least hundred years worth of waiting? Not gonna happen.

Super-greenhouse gases are a more viable option ("more", not "very"). That, and bombing the **** out of the polar caps, though I'm not really happy with such invasive procedures. The caps probably contain lots of important data.

Edited August 24, 2013 by lajoswinkler

[SargeRho]

The NERVA engine still exists, in one of NASA's many storage hangars, just like the SSMEs, and some F-1 engines too.

Again, Curiosity carries a radiation sensor, and it indicates that the radiation at the surface is roughly similar to what astronauts experience in Low Earth Orbit, so inside the habitat it will actually be even lower.

I'm not handwaving. You're simply a hard-core pessimist on this topic.

"No, the correct attitude is to concentrate on stuff that can be done instead of wasting energy on projects that simply cannot work. "

No, it isn't, because that doesn't get you anywhere. Innovation comes from those willing to "waste energy" on projects that cannot be done. Powered flight, cars, trains, PCs, spaceflight, all of that "cannot be done" according to the experts of those eras.

Edited August 24, 2013 by SargeRho

[Diche Bach]

Earth's climate has been changing forever. In the past, long before humans developed permanent settlements, much less industry, there is irrefutable evidence that Earth's climate has fluctuated quite wildly. This presents a very important complication to any efforts to explain contemporary climatic fluctuations in terms of exclusively and completely anthropogenic forces such as industrial carbon emissions.

The basic ignorance of this fact among proponents of simplified "global warming" scare talk (which is in fact, political advocacy for a particular segment of special interests) is one of the most breathtakingly painful and disappointing testiments to human intellectual laziness and dogma ever. It rivals historical superstitious beliefs that led to things like the Salem Witch Trials, the European Wars of Religion, and the decimation of indigenous populations by conquest that extends back to the beginnings of civilization. And yet, it is so normal, so pervasive, and so widely accepted.

Edited August 24, 2013 by Diche Bach

[SargeRho]

Anthropogenic global warming is real, deal with it. There is no evidence indicating the contrary, and plenty that does say it's real. Specially the fact that CO2, and with it temperatures, have constantly been rising since the industrial revolution. Coincidence? I think not. The climate has changed more in the past 200 years than in the past 5 million years, and it started around the industrial revolution.

Edited August 24, 2013 by SargeRho

[SpaceHole]

Terraforming is science fact. We're doing exactly what we need to do on Mars, on Earth right now. Don't tell me you deny anthropogenic climate change?

It is a scientific concept - but still science fiction. Not to mention that we dont have the technology and probably cant actually estimate the consequences of doing such things.

Since you seem to dissagree

- do we have the capabilities to terraform a planet in a specific way while having control over it? - no

- do we have the capabilities of getting the equipment there for terraforming a planet in a decent ammount of time? - no

- do we know what will happen on mars when we randomly try to terraform? - no

Beeing able to change the ammount of oxygen on a planet which will take forever without knowing what will happen is something i would consider science-fiction.

We also know how to reach the speed of light - eventually - by simply accelerating - still its science fiction.

Edited August 24, 2013 by SpaceHole

[SargeRho]

Well, define "decent". I find several centuries to be extremely decent for a planet like Mars.

[Diche Bach]

Anthropogenic global warming is real, deal with it. There is no evidence indicating the contrary, and plenty that does say it's real. Specially the fact that CO2, and with it temperatures, have constantly been rising since the industrial revolution. Coincidence? I think not.

Correlation does not equal causation, and especially when that correlation is observed on the tail end of a temporal sequence involving what is confidently known to be a complex multi-variable interaction which has shown even greater variance through time than that which is putatively explained by the correlation.

There is little question that anthropogenic forces have dramatically altered many of Earth's ecosystems and probably influenced long-term global processes such as climate. However, whatever influence anthropogenic forces have had, they have been exerted into a system which was already highly variable and dynamic before those anthropogenic forces came into play. I have yet to see a single "global warming" scare model which even acknowledges this basic undeniable fact, much less attempts to account for it in a theoretical or quantitative way. Your insistence that it is "real" is no different than a religious believers insistence that what they believe in is "real," and unbelievers are consequently heretical.

ADDIT: just to be clear. I am a huge environmentalist, having spent many sum total years in the wilderness. I am an advocate of reducing the human ecological footprint by any viable and reasonable means which promises to actually benefit the Earth's ecosystems--and especially the myriad species that are presently at risk of extinction. Reduction of any pollutants, carbon emissions included is generally a good thing.

But none of these ethical and practical convictions leads me to believe without critical thinking in an finalistic and dogmatic explanation which lends itself all to easily to simple, and potentially useless or even misguided 'solutions.'

Edited August 24, 2013 by Diche Bach

[SargeRho]

My insistence that it is real is based on the available evidence (temperatures following CO2 levels), and the fact that most predictions made by climate science regarding global warming have come true.

[lajoswinkler]

Earth's climate has been changing forever. In the past, long before humans developed permanent settlements, much less industry, there is irrefutable evidence that Earth's climate has fluctuated quite wildly. This presents a very important complication to any efforts to explain contemporary climatic fluctuations in terms of exclusively and completely anthropogenic forces such as industrial carbon emissions.

The basic ignorance of this fact among "global warming" proponents is one of the most breathtakingly painful and disappointing testiments to human intellectual laziness and dogma ever. It rivals historical superstitious beliefs that led to things like the Salem Witch Trials, the European Wars of Religion, and the decimation of indigenous populations by conquest that extends back to the beginnings of civilization. And yet, it is so normal, so pervasive, and so widely accepted.

It fluctuated with much greater amplitudes, true. Conditions were unbelieveable during the geological history.

But the speed of change? Never been this high. Today we're witnessing changes that are several orders of magnitude faster than any change that has ever happened, and it exactly correlates with industrial development. Mind that this is not the strongest proof. There is an irrefutable evidence of different isotopic composition of CO2 today and CO2 in the past.

Denying anthropogenic climate change was an interesting opinion 15+ years ago. Today it's obsolete as the chances for it to be true are melting faster than the northern polar cap.

Denying the mere presence of climate change is ignorance on the level of denying evolution or existence of atoms. Even the politicians began to realize that.

There is no conspiracy or hippie tree hugging here. It's data and solid evidence. It's science. True, someone will turn that into profit (oh, the surprise), but that doesn't mean it's not solid.

As for the consequences, who knows? All we know is that the average temperature is rising, the sea level is rising. Plants and animals are shifting. Jellyfish are becoming an ever increasing danger for the fishing industry because they eat baby fishes.

What concerns me the most are the vast areas of permafrost and methane clathrates. It's melting and releasing methane, much more powerful greenhouse gas. Yes, a positive feedback loop. The amount of methane thought to be locked there is... mindboggling. I don't think current simulations are taking permafrost into account. There are already huge areas where methane is just bubbling out.

Edited August 24, 2013 by lajoswinkler

[Diche Bach]

I think you are missing the main point. I have not "denied" anything you posit (except see below about the idea that the speed of change is necessarily outside the range of past variability). What I have pointed out is that:

(a) Earth's climate has always been in a state of some change.

( any anthropogenic forces (and there are far more than simply 'carbon emissions' ranging from cow farts/belches, to the sum total of warm-bodied critters on the planet, to changes in distributions of biomes, to myriad other pollutants, and even potentially the total heat retention of cities and other builtup areas) that have been acting in recent centuries to influence Earth's climate have necessarily been 'inserted' into those pre-existing dynamic systems.

->

(d) Thus, in addition to sorting out how any specific form of anthropogenic footprint has influenced climate, and how those various factors may have interacted with one another, truly useful models must take account of the complex interactions of those anthropogenic forces with the pre-existing dynamic natural Earth systems.

If you are aware of a model that actually attempts to do this, I would love to read it.

Moreover, the following is, as I understand it, speculation. Debates about the rapidity of past climate events continue as I understand it and the possibility that the current pace of change in those variables that are clearly being observed to change is significantly different than any previous event is questionable as far as I know. If you have citations that demonstrate otherwise I would actually welcome the chance to read them.

But the speed of change? Never been this high. Today we're witnessing changes that are several orders of magnitude faster than any change that has ever happened . . ..

Moderating and slowly reducing the horrific human impact on the Earth's ecosystems is of vital importance. Reducing carbon-emissions is certainly a good thing, and I'm not opposed to that.

However, a single-minded focus on the prevailing "carbon emission reduction" model, and especially the premature conclusion that "Aha! We got this figured out! Its all about carbon-emissions" runs the risk of being only partially correct and misguiding efforts or preventing a more complete understanding of the complexities.

Fundamentally, the ultimate problem is that there are ~7 billion humans (plus ~25 billion chickens, ~1 billion cattle, and several hundreds of millions each of pigs, sheep, goats, etc.) living on Earth, most of whom aspire to a high standard of living approximating that of the Western countries, and some of whom live those sorts of highly impactful and wasteful lifestyles with glee.

Edited August 24, 2013 by Diche Bach

[lajoswinkler]

I think you are missing the main point. I have not "denied" anything you posit. What I have pointed out is that:

(a) Earth's climate has always been in a state of some change.

( any anthropogenic forces (and there are far more than simply 'carbon emissions' ranging from cow farts, to the sum total of warm-bodied critters on the planet, to changes in distributions of biomes, to myriad other pollutants, and even potentially the total heat retention of cities and other builtup areas) that have been acting in recent centuries to influence Earth's climate have necessarily been 'inserted' into those pre-existing dynamic systems.

(d) Thus, in addition to sorting out how any specific form of anthropogenic footprint has influenced climate, and how those various factors may have interacted with one another, truly useful models must take account of the complex interactions of those anthropogenic forces with the pre-existing dynamic natural Earth systems.

If you are aware of a model that actually attempts to do this, I would love to read it.

Moreover, the following is, as I understand it, speculation. Debates about the rapidity of past climate events continue as I understand it and the possibility that the current pace of change in those variables that are clearly being observed to change is significantly different than any previous event is questionable as far as I know. If you have citations that demonstrate otherwise I would actually welcome the chance to read them.

a) That's true.

Also true.

c) (or d?) That's where the things like ice cores come into the account. They hold valuable data. Not only the isotopic composition, but also the amounts of gases trapped inside. An incredible amount of stuff can be learned just by looking at those rods drilled from the depths. It's almost a science for itself, but it's interdisciplinary. Earth is such a complex system. Compare it to that hoax with the Saturn V blueprints lost. There is a handful of people that were aware of the rocket as a whole. It was made by lots of different companies, and each had made tons of blueprints. There was never a book called "how to build Saturn V", only few people that supervised the whole effort (and they're dead now).

The same thing is with the climate change. We know it because of the synthesis of whole sciences. It's a consensus, based on evidence.

I'm not cheering the scaremongering politics, but something needs to be done. We're already seeing an increase in weather extremes. Floods, hurricanes, forest fires, that was always present, but it's getting more and more serious.

It's true that corellation is not equal to causation, but it implies it. In this case, we don't have one experiment and one sample. We've got arrays of equipment measuring stuff for a long time and we see how close the correlation is. The amount of evidence is huge and it can not be lumped into a forum thread. Not even close. I'm not even qualified to do so.

As for the citations, that would require digging about something that is an acknowledged thing and is a fact that nobody questions anymore. I really, really don't have enough time for that. I honestly don't know who discovered it first.

I'd suggest reading that collosal article on Wikipedia, but more important, the references. It's a few weeks worth of studying, and that's nothing compared to the years people spend on proper education about the subject matter.

One more article worth of studying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

I agree, we must not let the politicians turn the problem into "it's only about the carbon emissions". Science is not telling us that, at all.

Edited August 24, 2013 by lajoswinkler

[SpaceHole]

Well, define "decent". I find several centuries to be extremely decent for a planet like Mars.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2013/05/29/can-mars-be-terraformed-nasas-maven-mission-could-provide-answers/

Everything i find about terraforming sounds more like science fiction than reality - may you provide links with actual concepts beyond 2 sentence-statements?

As i said we dont know how to exactly and what will actually happen.

Edited August 24, 2013 by SpaceHole

[Diche Bach]

As for the citations, that would require digging about something that is an acknowledged thing and is a fact that nobody questions anymore. I really, really don't have enough time for that. I honestly don't know who discovered it first . . .

I agree, we must not let the politicians turn the problem into "it's only about the carbon emissions". Science is not telling us that, at all.

The problem here is that, we have in recent decades been presented with a very simple model. A simple model with powerful political, ideological, and moral meaning. None of us, not even the world's leading experts, are in the position to say with certainty and finality that "THIS IS THE SOLUTION!" Nonetheless, this is how the current political discussions, and moral chastising that goes with it tends to be presented.

Reducing our carbon emissions is laudable because it assuredly is a greenhouse gas, and it is artificial. But it is also laudable to reduce our nitrogenous waste output, reduce our agricultural methane output, our heavy metals pollution, our plastic litter, our waste of rare metals like platinum and so forth when we throw away used industrial equipment, our failure to properly steward forests and provide habitats for vital species, our unintentional spreading of invasive (e.g,. feral pigs in the Appalachians) or pathogenic species, etc., etc.

For example, White nose syndrome, which seems to have been introduced from European caves into the North American bat populations, may well cause SEVERAL bat species to go EXTINCT! The inordinately politicized and profitized focus on carbon emissions has, as far as I can tell, done absolutely NOTHING to help save these wondrous species from the risk of disappearing forever from existence.

These are just a few examples of the myriad environmental catastrophes that are unfolding around the globe.

"Believing" in the global warming rhetoric makes people feel good, it makes them feel that they are believing in something good. Perhaps it has helped by making some changes to certain specific elements of the human boot stomp of Earth. But by focusing so much attention and faith into a single factor, and moreover by promoting a dogmatic nearly religious zeal about the sufficiency and necessity of that single factor as an explanation and moral imperative, this 'movement' may well have prevented other equally important issues from receiving proper attention.

ADDIT: as far as the sufficiency, validity, reliability and soundness of the 'science' underlying simple anthropogenic models, the simple points raised here in this readily accessible source are worth considering, and can easily lead a dispassionate reader to a long string of additional materials. None of which I endorse; but simply raise to point out that, the general contention that "there is no debate, there is no basis for any doubt" are not sound.

Edited August 24, 2013 by Diche Bach

[NGTOne]

The inordinately politicized and profitized focus on carbon emissions has, as far as I can tell, done absolutely NOTHING to help save these wondrous species from the risk of disappearing forever from existence.

I think you've hit the nail on the head - money makes the world go 'round, and money is the only thing that actually incites realistic action towards helping the environment. Grassroots movements, while nice and huggy-feely and all that, have little real power - they lack the resources, leadership, and organization to do anything meaningful on a large scale. So how do you motivate the groups that do have those things? With profit, of course. There's a lot of profit to be had in reducing carbon emissions (or, at least, LOOKING like you are), especially when you're the one selling the wind turbines and the carbon credits. Know why we don't see Al Gore much anymore? He plugged his movie, did his speaking tour, and retired to his Tennessee mansion off the investment profits (a large part of his portfolio consists of environmental technologies and the companies that make them - wind-turbine and solar manufacturers, carbon credits, what have you, all of which underwent a massive gain in value following An Inconvenient Truth).

To go back to your bat example - if bats were discovered to be the source of some new wonder-drug or super-material or something, white nose syndrome would have been eradicated yesterday, due to the threat it would pose to (hypothetical, for the purposes of this example) commercial bat farms.

And let's not forget the fact that technologies such as nuclear power plants (which are far more efficient than either wind or solar, given current levels of technology) are unpopular - nuclear plants are actually very safe, both for people and the environment. Normal people hate them because they hear alarmist news reports about near-meltdowns, and associate nuclear plants with nuclear weaponry. Environmentalists hate them because of the waste (admittedly something of an issue, but it can be safely sequestered deep underground). Conservatives hate them because coal and oil are much cheaper to build and operate. Any technology that is sufficiently advanced to be environmentally friendly never has common appeal, because to the uneducated observer (read: 99% of people who look at it), it's black magic/witchcraft.

Edited August 24, 2013 by NGTOne

[karolus10]

First, I don't like idea of sending humans into mars permanently, before suitable infrastructure has been established on mars and tested by one of early two-way missions, sending people permanently into outpost no larger than ISS is just plainly nuts.

I'm not convinced to mars-one, even if it would (with some incredible luck) succeed, they had none scientific agenda (big brother on mars, meh).

It mean that they had no priority to send up scientists and engineers to do actual research on surface, supervising robotic missions in real time with tight cooperation with earth or set-up and test equipment to clear the path for colonization.

If You don't want to sent skilled people who actually can do something meaningful there what is the point of sending humans there in first place ?

Also I don't really believe in sense of keeping colony self-sustainable (like biosphere projects) at this stage, any agricultural activity would be only for research, not really for feeding people.

Consumables like hardware, food or water(for the last one NEO asteroids with ice could be pretty big deal later on) , must to be sent from earth - few cargo pods with consumables should land before first colony crew arrive or be launched in same launch window.

Edited August 24, 2013 by karolus10

[Seret]

Terraforming is science fact.

No it isn't. Climate change is an uncontrolled process. We didn't start it intentionally, and we're not doing very well at slowing the process, let alone stopping or reversing it. The fact that we unintentionally triggered the warming and aren't able to control it shows exactly how bad we are at geoengineering. We aspire to the technology but we aren't able to do it. Calling terraforming viable because we triggered AGW is like a caveman who's just been struck by lightning declaring himself the master of electricity.

Terraforming is a dumb idea anyway. Even if we were able to carry out vast geoengineering projects the sheer investment of time and money required is ludicrous. Even a fraction of the money required to terraform one planet could fund the research required to make closed cycle habitats in space ten times over. Doing so would also irreperable damage the planet, erasing much of the science that could be done. We'd be better off leaving the planets as we find them and building Earth-like habitats to live in. We're also far more likely (and it would make far more sense economically) to develop the technology to modify ourselves to suit alien environments than try and modify an alien environment to suit ourselves. Terraforming is an inherently backwards idea IMO.

The "we can't do it now, so we shouldn't even try" mindset doesn't get us anywhere.

I think you misunderstand what people are saying to you. What you're actually being told is: let's not try to run before we can walk. Running is the objective, but right now we aren't ready. So we walk. This is the way space science is done, it's the way the Apollo Project did it. You don't tackle huge engineering challenges by skipping straight to the end, because you'll fail. You break them down into a series of achievable goals that build towards the objective. Right now a permanent Mars colony is not an achievable goal. One day it will be, but we have to master a few things before we'll be ready.

[Seret]

If You don't want to sent skilled people who actually can do something meaningful there what is the point of sending humans there in first place ?

Mars One isn't intended to produce any useful science output or advance humanity in any way. It's a purely commercial project, the return on investment is when they create a TV programme that they can sell. Whether that TV programme is actually filmed on Mars or on Earth, well, we'll see. I know where my money would be.

[Nibb31]

Fundamentally, the ultimate problem is that there are ~7 billion humans (plus ~25 billion chickens, ~1 billion cattle, and several hundreds of millions each of pigs, sheep, goats, etc.) living on Earth, most of whom aspire to a high standard of living approximating that of the Western countries, and some of whom live those sorts of highly impactful and wasteful lifestyles with glee.

This is the root cause of most of our problems, and the real elephant in the room that nobody wants to address. I'm also a strong believer in the Global Footprint hypothesis, which is quite alarming (our 2013 Overshoot Day was last wednesday, and it's getting earlier every year. If we don't resolve exponential population growth during this century by peaceful means (by making birth control widely available to all human populations and by ending foolish pro-natality programs) the problem will take care of itself, and it won't be pretty.

Of course, this and global warming are way beyond the topic of feasibilty of MarsOne and probably deserve their own thread.

Edited August 24, 2013 by Nibb31

[Lexif]

Mars One isn't intended to produce any useful science output or advance humanity in any way. It's a purely commercial project, the return on investment is when they create a TV programme that they can sell. Whether that TV programme is actually filmed on Mars or on Earth, well, we'll see. I know where my money would be.

The real elephant in the room for this project is: How do you get companies to invest a publicity budget close to the GDP of a not-so-small nation into a project that is so likely to end in a desaster? Who would want to associate themselves with this project to this extent? It's crazy. There's just no way this is going to work out.