Slashdot Mirror

And yet, you failed to compare it to radiation on earth. Boulder has a significant higher incidence rate of many cancers for missing only a mile of air,

Umm, the mass of a 1 mile high column of air (1.2 kg/m3 at sea level) is substanitally less than the mass of a 1 meter column of rock (2600 kg/m3), and the rock has the additional advantage of not having an exponential decrease in density versus height.

Habitat radiation sheilding is already a well-considered problem. You should read about rather than taking ignorant pot-shots.

http://www.mars-one.com/news/p...

http://www.mars-one.com/faq/fi...

Who said Mars One was useless! http://www.mars-one.com/techno...

Will never happen. Not even their "space relay communications satellites." Noah Money" will see to that.

Who said Mars One was useless! http://www.mars-one.com/techno...

There is no evidence Mars One is not sincere in their attempts.

How about this quote from an article dated March 16 2015.

So, here are the facts as we understand them: Mars One has almost no money. Mars One has no contracts with private aerospace suppliers who are building technology for future deep-space missions. Mars One has no TV production partner. Mars One has no publicly known investment partnerships with major brands. Mars One has no plans for a training facility where its candidates would prepare themselves. Mars One’s candidates have been vetted by a single person, in a 10-minute Skype interview.

What more evidence do you need?

Lets look at the article "refuting" the criticisms.

This is simply a polite request asking them to continue their support of Mars One, as they are now very close to being part of their project.

The subtext being that if they do not donate they will become less " close to being part of their project".

Even though it would be desirable that Mars One corrected every false statement, they cannot be held responsible for how the media interpret and phrase their reports about Mars One.

For statements like this it is the responsability of Mars One to correct such big misconceptions. But they will not as te false information helps them.

Whether they completed the application process to the video stage may be where you begin to see different numbers.

So anyone who clicked on "apply here" is counted in their numbers. That is completely skewing the numbers and they know it.

It would have consumed inordinate amounts of time and money to go through rigorous testing for 660 Round 2 candidates.

It is strange that the couple of million dollars to interview 600 candidates is too high but the 3,000 time that amount to get to Mars is not. They also told round 2 candidates there would be interview and then changed. That is a classic bait and switch.

The primary source of finance is to be an investment firm in the first stages of the mission (leading up to and including the first manned mission).

Where is this investment firm? Why won't you name them? Do they even exist?

The $6 billion in revenue was never stated to be entirely funded from one source.

While this is factually true, it plays on the use of absolutes. If even 0.1% of revenue comes from other sources that statement is true. According to the Mars One site their major sources of income would be Media and IP. Notice they never say just how much they expect to receive from each source. They just show the numbers for the Olympics. Had they shown the number for Big Brother it would be more accurate.

Scam implies profit. If Mars One is a scam, show who you think is getting rich.

The executives running Mars one are getting paid an unknown amount.

Show who is being cheated/harmed when all of the candidates are participating voluntarily and are aware of the low probability of success?

Here are some things and people being harmed;
Other space programs who's funding is being wasted on Mars One.
Future similar projects will always have to deal with the "Mars One" stigma.
Any future large crowd funding will have to deal with the "Mars One" stigma.
Anyone who was ever on the list will be ridiculed for falling for the "Mars One" scam.

Firstly, their claim on their website "While complex, the Mars One Mission is feasible. The science and technology required to place humans on Mars exists today. ", is provably false and it is reasonable to expect authors of this statement know this to be false. First thing that always comes to my mind is delivery configuration for soft land something closely resembling required tonnage on the surface, including the 4 meat bags they claim they are able to send. Simply put, no viable configuration currently exists. When you look at tonnage Apollo landed on the moon, vs what government space agencies have successfully landed on Mars so far, vs what NASA is currently developing, there is an enormously absurd leap of faith to say landing ppl on Mars is feasible with today's tech.

Secondly, a document like this : http://www.mars-one.com/images..., just stinks of handwaving with overuse of technical flourishes, fails to deal with funadmental issues, i.e. the weight issue, and seems to be created with an intent to deceive and create false assurance that mission profile is both well defined and accessible.

Accepting that proof of fraud is far from conclusive, the whole thing just reeks to high heaven of fraud.

I love the effort that went into listing the 100 that have been chosen. Seriously, fuck aspect ratio when we can't be bothered to include things like last names.

Sergii & Minerva please. Don't bore us to death. It would be nice to have some space luv. And I'm sure they're professional too. They certainly want it.

Sergii & Minerva please. Don't bore us to death. It would be nice to have some space luv. And I'm sure they're professional too. They certainly want it.

I know the idea of going to Mars is pretty awesome but this just reeks of scam. They are claiming they will launch the first people by 2024, a mere 9 years from now. You will note that except for a Donate link there is no mention of funding. They even say "No new technology developments are required to establish a human settlement on Mars", which is demonstrably false.

Why is slashdot giving scammers like this the time of day? This is not a real mission to Mars. This is not even a credible attempt at one. There is no funding, no realistic plan, no details, no technology development, and nothing else that should even give the slightest hint that this is anything more than a scam.

It doesn't strike me as a scam as much as a sincere attempt by a group of moderately accomplished yet fairly typical geeks to take their best shot and go as far as they can.

I look at their plan and my thought is that it's more-or-less what I would do if I really wanted to launch a mission to mars. The big asterix is cost and technical expertise. They say they need 6 billion which might be feasible, big Hollywood blockbusters can run $200 million and Olympic broadcast/sponsorship would be enough to cover the budget, so if they get something credible (or at least entertaining) going then the networks might get interested. More likely might be some eccentric billionaire willing to dump a large percentage of their net worth into a vanity project.

For me the big thing is the technical and organizational expertise, I suspect they're massively underestimating the difficulty of the technical challenges and it will be a very long time before they've built up the organizational expertise to even address them. And because they're underestimating the technical difficulty I also suspect the budget is massively underestimated.

I suspect the best case for the project is a moderately successful media venture that either sets up the organization for a proper attempt in 20+ years, or spurns a government to action.

I know the idea of going to Mars is pretty awesome but this just reeks of scam. They are claiming they will launch the first people by 2024, a mere 9 years from now. You will note that except for a Donate link there is no mention of funding. They even say "No new technology developments are required to establish a human settlement on Mars", which is demonstrably false.

Why is slashdot giving scammers like this the time of day? This is not a real mission to Mars. This is not even a credible attempt at one. There is no funding, no realistic plan, no details, no technology development, and nothing else that should even give the slightest hint that this is anything more than a scam.

It doesn't strike me as a scam as much as a sincere attempt by a group of moderately accomplished yet fairly typical geeks to take their best shot and go as far as they can.

I look at their plan and my thought is that it's more-or-less what I would do if I really wanted to launch a mission to mars. The big asterix is cost and technical expertise. They say they need 6 billion which might be feasible, big Hollywood blockbusters can run $200 million and Olympic broadcast/sponsorship would be enough to cover the budget, so if they get something credible (or at least entertaining) going then the networks might get interested. More likely might be some eccentric billionaire willing to dump a large percentage of their net worth into a vanity project.

For me the big thing is the technical and organizational expertise, I suspect they're massively underestimating the difficulty of the technical challenges and it will be a very long time before they've built up the organizational expertise to even address them. And because they're underestimating the technical difficulty I also suspect the budget is massively underestimated.

I suspect the best case for the project is a moderately successful media venture that either sets up the organization for a proper attempt in 20+ years, or spurns a government to action.

I know the idea of going to Mars is pretty awesome but this just reeks of scam. They are claiming they will launch the first people by 2024, a mere 9 years from now. You will note that except for a Donate link there is no mention of funding. They even say "No new technology developments are required to establish a human settlement on Mars", which is demonstrably false.

Why is slashdot giving scammers like this the time of day? This is not a real mission to Mars. This is not even a credible attempt at one. There is no funding, no realistic plan, no details, no technology development, and nothing else that should even give the slightest hint that this is anything more than a scam.

It doesn't strike me as a scam as much as a sincere attempt by a group of moderately accomplished yet fairly typical geeks to take their best shot and go as far as they can.

I look at their plan and my thought is that it's more-or-less what I would do if I really wanted to launch a mission to mars. The big asterix is cost and technical expertise. They say they need 6 billion which might be feasible, big Hollywood blockbusters can run $200 million and Olympic broadcast/sponsorship would be enough to cover the budget, so if they get something credible (or at least entertaining) going then the networks might get interested. More likely might be some eccentric billionaire willing to dump a large percentage of their net worth into a vanity project.

For me the big thing is the technical and organizational expertise, I suspect they're massively underestimating the difficulty of the technical challenges and it will be a very long time before they've built up the organizational expertise to even address them. And because they're underestimating the technical difficulty I also suspect the budget is massively underestimated.

I suspect the best case for the project is a moderately successful media venture that either sets up the organization for a proper attempt in 20+ years, or spurns a government to action.

I would advise people to give this a chance.

Let me clear up some things about Mars One. It is often claimed that Mars One is a scam and has no scientists, engineers, technology, timetable, suppliers or plan. This is just not true!

Scientists and Engineers:
Lansdorp received his Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering from Twente University in 2003. For five years Lansdorp worked at Delft University of Technology and in 2008 founded Ampyx Power in order to develop a new, viable method of generating wind energy.
Lansdorp is also a successful entrepreneur. Here is a ted talk about his last company.
Arno Wielders received his Master of Science in Physics from the Free University of Amsterdam in 1997. He was soon hired by the Leiden Observatory, Leiden University, to work at Dutch Space in the Very Large Telescope Interferometer Delay Line project.
Gerard 't Hooft, Nobel laureate and Ambassador of Mars One
Gerardus (Gerard) 't Hooft is a Dutch theoretical physicist and professor at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. Received the 1999 Nobel Prize in Physics.
Norbert Kraft, Chief Medical Officer, Mars One
Norbert Kraft is an American Medical Doctor with over 17 years of experience in aviation and aerospace research and development as of 2012.[1] His primary area of expertise is developing physiological and psychological countermeasures to combat the negative effects of long-duration spaceflight.[1] He has worked for the Russian Space Agency, the Japanese Space Agency and NASA.[1]
Grant Anderson, Sr. VP Operations, Chief Engineer and Co-Founder, Paragon Space Development Corporation 28 years of experience in spacecraft systems design, requirements formulation and preliminary and detail hardware design. Founded or help found 5 companies, two of which are still operating.
Time table: http://mars-one.com/en/mission...
Suppliers: http://mars-one.com/en/partner...
Technology they want to use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
They don't plan to develop much of the technology themselves, they're planning to buy it from other companies mostly such as SpaceX. Most of this technology exists already. They have written statements of the companies that they are willing and able to supply these things.

Price/Funding:
All they need is the funding, and they plan to get that through broadcasting and sponsor deals. His argument is that the olympics got 6 billion dollars in sponsor deals, so wouldn't a colony/trip to mars get the same? It would certainly help them get funding if people didn't denounce it as soon as they hear the name. The mission is so cheap (6 billion dollars) because it's a one-way trip. Sending people from Mars back to earth is very expensive. Also, they're not a big wasteful government agency.
The falcon heavy for example costs only $77-135M to launch (2013). Technology has come a long way, this combined with the privatization of space has caused costs to drop significantly.

Comparison Olympics/Moonlanding:
http://www.theguardian.com/med...
According to this the 2008 olympic openings ceremony was watched by 1 billion people. According to wikipedia in 1969 (the world population was only half of what it is now, and people weren't as well connected as they are now) the moon landing had 500 million people watching. So, just imagine, how many people would watch a landing on Mars in 2023.

Other:
Not saying they're actually going to be able to pull it off, but there's no evidence that their efforts aren't sincere.
Here is a press conference that answers most of the questions you may have: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I am aware that reddit AMA was badly received and too

I would advise people to give this a chance.

Let me clear up some things about Mars One. It is often claimed that Mars One is a scam and has no scientists, engineers, technology, timetable, suppliers or plan. This is just not true!

Scientists and Engineers:
Lansdorp received his Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering from Twente University in 2003. For five years Lansdorp worked at Delft University of Technology and in 2008 founded Ampyx Power in order to develop a new, viable method of generating wind energy.
Lansdorp is also a successful entrepreneur. Here is a ted talk about his last company.
Arno Wielders received his Master of Science in Physics from the Free University of Amsterdam in 1997. He was soon hired by the Leiden Observatory, Leiden University, to work at Dutch Space in the Very Large Telescope Interferometer Delay Line project.
Gerard 't Hooft, Nobel laureate and Ambassador of Mars One
Gerardus (Gerard) 't Hooft is a Dutch theoretical physicist and professor at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. Received the 1999 Nobel Prize in Physics.
Norbert Kraft, Chief Medical Officer, Mars One
Norbert Kraft is an American Medical Doctor with over 17 years of experience in aviation and aerospace research and development as of 2012.[1] His primary area of expertise is developing physiological and psychological countermeasures to combat the negative effects of long-duration spaceflight.[1] He has worked for the Russian Space Agency, the Japanese Space Agency and NASA.[1]
Grant Anderson, Sr. VP Operations, Chief Engineer and Co-Founder, Paragon Space Development Corporation 28 years of experience in spacecraft systems design, requirements formulation and preliminary and detail hardware design. Founded or help found 5 companies, two of which are still operating.
Time table: http://mars-one.com/en/mission...
Suppliers: http://mars-one.com/en/partner...
Technology they want to use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
They don't plan to develop much of the technology themselves, they're planning to buy it from other companies mostly such as SpaceX. Most of this technology exists already. They have written statements of the companies that they are willing and able to supply these things.

Price/Funding:
All they need is the funding, and they plan to get that through broadcasting and sponsor deals. His argument is that the olympics got 6 billion dollars in sponsor deals, so wouldn't a colony/trip to mars get the same? It would certainly help them get funding if people didn't denounce it as soon as they hear the name. The mission is so cheap (6 billion dollars) because it's a one-way trip. Sending people from Mars back to earth is very expensive. Also, they're not a big wasteful government agency.
The falcon heavy for example costs only $77-135M to launch (2013). Technology has come a long way, this combined with the privatization of space has caused costs to drop significantly.

Comparison Olympics/Moonlanding:
http://www.theguardian.com/med...
According to this the 2008 olympic openings ceremony was watched by 1 billion people. According to wikipedia in 1969 (the world population was only half of what it is now, and people weren't as well connected as they are now) the moon landing had 500 million people watching. So, just imagine, how many people would watch a landing on Mars in 2023.

Other:
Not saying they're actually going to be able to pull it off, but there's no evidence that their efforts aren't sincere.
Here is a press conference that answers most of the questions you may have: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I am aware that reddit AMA was badly received and too

I know the idea of going to Mars is pretty awesome but this just reeks of scam. They are claiming they will launch the first people by 2024, a mere 9 years from now. You will note that except for a Donate link there is no mention of funding. They even say "No new technology developments are required to establish a human settlement on Mars", which is demonstrably false.

Why is slashdot giving scammers like this the time of day? This is not a real mission to Mars. This is not even a credible attempt at one. There is no funding, no realistic plan, no details, no technology development, and nothing else that should even give the slightest hint that this is anything more than a scam.

I know the idea of going to Mars is pretty awesome but this just reeks of scam. They are claiming they will launch the first people by 2024, a mere 9 years from now. You will note that except for a Donate link there is no mention of funding. They even say "No new technology developments are required to establish a human settlement on Mars", which is demonstrably false.

Why is slashdot giving scammers like this the time of day? This is not a real mission to Mars. This is not even a credible attempt at one. There is no funding, no realistic plan, no details, no technology development, and nothing else that should even give the slightest hint that this is anything more than a scam.

"that Mars One reality show thing was doing the same thing"
They ARE doing the same thing. http://www.mars-one.com/news/p...
and I think I read that Space-X was one of the transport choices which is probably where he is getting his timeline.

That is in the works as well.

One way ticket though.

http://www.mars-one.com/

If you look at his "team", you see half of it is artists and online social media strategists. This company is designed around social media and conning people out of money. Mars is a distraction to them to use to collect gullible people's money.

Has anyone looked at the site?
Look at this page. Notice they lump Donations and Merchandise together but forget to subtract the costs related to the merchandise. Revenue is not net revenue. Note the expense graph does not even have a section for merchandise expenses and displays percentages and not dollar amounts. Why no dollar amounts? Maybe because they don't want us to know how much money they are hiding. Note they say "income from donations and merchandise have not been used to pay salaries" so what are they used for and where does the money to pay salaries come from? Also, technically speaking, if a person is paid through a contract it is not a salary so people could be paid from those revenues.

On this page they say "On December 10th, Mars One launched their first ever crowd-funding campaign, focused on bringing funds and attention to the first mission". There is no link. Where is the campaign? Maybe they don't want us to see how badly it is going.

From this page;

Norbert Kraft, MD, received "The NASA Group Achievement Award 2013", it is one of the most prestigious awards a group can receive, and is presented to selected groups who have distinguished themselves by making outstanding contributions to the NASA mission

This makes it seem that Dr. Kraft received the award for work on Mars One but Mars One never appears in the list.He got the award for work on another project. Also notice that between the annual and semi-annual awards 44 different groups were recognized in one year. How many groups are working on space related projects? The award does not seem all that prestigious to me. It looks more like NASA slapping themselves on the back.

I like this segment;

Lansdorp says, “We fully anticipate our remaining candidates to become celebrities in their towns, cities, and in many cases, countries.

If by celebrity you mean laughing stock you may be right. You have seen Jersey Shore.

This is one of the biggest scams in history to make money for the people pushing it.

Has anyone looked at the site?
Look at this page. Notice they lump Donations and Merchandise together but forget to subtract the costs related to the merchandise. Revenue is not net revenue. Note the expense graph does not even have a section for merchandise expenses and displays percentages and not dollar amounts. Why no dollar amounts? Maybe because they don't want us to know how much money they are hiding. Note they say "income from donations and merchandise have not been used to pay salaries" so what are they used for and where does the money to pay salaries come from? Also, technically speaking, if a person is paid through a contract it is not a salary so people could be paid from those revenues.

On this page they say "On December 10th, Mars One launched their first ever crowd-funding campaign, focused on bringing funds and attention to the first mission". There is no link. Where is the campaign? Maybe they don't want us to see how badly it is going.

From this page;

Norbert Kraft, MD, received "The NASA Group Achievement Award 2013", it is one of the most prestigious awards a group can receive, and is presented to selected groups who have distinguished themselves by making outstanding contributions to the NASA mission

This makes it seem that Dr. Kraft received the award for work on Mars One but Mars One never appears in the list.He got the award for work on another project. Also notice that between the annual and semi-annual awards 44 different groups were recognized in one year. How many groups are working on space related projects? The award does not seem all that prestigious to me. It looks more like NASA slapping themselves on the back.

I like this segment;

Lansdorp says, “We fully anticipate our remaining candidates to become celebrities in their towns, cities, and in many cases, countries.

If by celebrity you mean laughing stock you may be right. You have seen Jersey Shore.

This is one of the biggest scams in history to make money for the people pushing it.

Has anyone looked at the site?
Look at this page. Notice they lump Donations and Merchandise together but forget to subtract the costs related to the merchandise. Revenue is not net revenue. Note the expense graph does not even have a section for merchandise expenses and displays percentages and not dollar amounts. Why no dollar amounts? Maybe because they don't want us to know how much money they are hiding. Note they say "income from donations and merchandise have not been used to pay salaries" so what are they used for and where does the money to pay salaries come from? Also, technically speaking, if a person is paid through a contract it is not a salary so people could be paid from those revenues.

On this page they say "On December 10th, Mars One launched their first ever crowd-funding campaign, focused on bringing funds and attention to the first mission". There is no link. Where is the campaign? Maybe they don't want us to see how badly it is going.

From this page;

Norbert Kraft, MD, received "The NASA Group Achievement Award 2013", it is one of the most prestigious awards a group can receive, and is presented to selected groups who have distinguished themselves by making outstanding contributions to the NASA mission

This makes it seem that Dr. Kraft received the award for work on Mars One but Mars One never appears in the list.He got the award for work on another project. Also notice that between the annual and semi-annual awards 44 different groups were recognized in one year. How many groups are working on space related projects? The award does not seem all that prestigious to me. It looks more like NASA slapping themselves on the back.

I like this segment;

Lansdorp says, “We fully anticipate our remaining candidates to become celebrities in their towns, cities, and in many cases, countries.

If by celebrity you mean laughing stock you may be right. You have seen Jersey Shore.

This is one of the biggest scams in history to make money for the people pushing it.

Lansdorp himself is a successful entrepreneur, here is a ted talk about his last company. He sold his stake and has been using the profit he made there to get Mars One off the ground for the past 3 years.

Among the people supporting them are:
  - Gerard ‘t Hooft, Nobel Prize winning Theoretical Physicist
  - Dr. Robert Zubrin, President of the Mars Society
  - Terry Gamber, worked on the lander designs for the Viking mission
  - A very large number of experienced people (see their website Advisers, ambassadors)

They don't plan to develop much of the technology themselves, they're planning to buy it from other companies mostly such as SpaceX. Most of this technology exists already. They have written statements of the companies that they are willing and able to supply these things.

List of the technology they want to use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_One#Technology

The total cost is estimated at $6 billion. Technology has come a long way, this combined with the privatization of space has caused costs to drop significantly. The falcon heavy for example costs only $77-135M to launch (2013).

They plan to get this through sponsorship deals. They're going to broadcast the entire thing on TV. Which makes sense, the olympics receives 6 billion dollars for 1 billion viewers. The moonlanding in 1969 had 500 million viewers. The population of the earth was only 3,5 billion back then and people weren't as well connected as they are now. So imagine how many viewers a colony on Mars would get?

No one says it's guaranteed that they will succeed, but i think they should try, and we should support it.

More information can be found on their website and IndieGoGo campaign:
http://www.mars-one.com/
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/mars-one-first-private-mars-mission-in-2018

The campaign is just to help pay for the Lockheed Martin study and to convince sponsors there is enough interest. I have donated myself, and advise people who think space exploration is important to do the same. It's risky, but it's high impact.

Lansdorp himself is a successful entrepreneur, here is a ted talk about his last company. He sold his stake and has been using the profit he made there to get Mars One off the ground for the past 3 years.

Among the people supporting them are:
  - Gerard ‘t Hooft, Nobel Prize winning Theoretical Physicist
  - Dr. Robert Zubrin, President of the Mars Society
  - Terry Gamber, worked on the lander designs for the Viking mission
  - A very large number of experienced people (see their website Advisers, ambassadors)

They don't plan to develop much of the technology themselves, they're planning to buy it from other companies mostly such as SpaceX. Most of this technology exists already. They have written statements of the companies that they are willing and able to supply these things.

List of the technology they want to use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_One#Technology

The total cost is estimated at $6 billion. Technology has come a long way, this combined with the privatization of space has caused costs to drop significantly. The falcon heavy for example costs only $77-135M to launch (2013).

They plan to get this through sponsorship deals. They're going to broadcast the entire thing on TV. Which makes sense, the olympics receives 6 billion dollars for 1 billion viewers. The moonlanding in 1969 had 500 million viewers. The population of the earth was only 3,5 billion back then and people weren't as well connected as they are now. So imagine how many viewers a colony on Mars would get?

No one says it's guaranteed that they will succeed, but i think they should try, and we should support it.

More information can be found on their website and IndieGoGo campaign:
http://www.mars-one.com/
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/mars-one-first-private-mars-mission-in-2018

The campaign is just to help pay for the Lockheed Martin study and to convince sponsors there is enough interest. I have donated myself, and advise people who think space exploration is important to do the same. It's risky, but it's high impact.

Lansdorp himself is a successful entrepreneur, here is a ted talk about his last company. He sold his stake and has been using the profit he made there to get Mars One off the ground for the past 3 years.

Among the people supporting them are:
  - Gerard ‘t Hooft, Nobel Prize winning Theoretical Physicist
  - Dr. Robert Zubrin, President of the Mars Society
  - Terry Gamber, worked on the lander designs for the Viking mission
  - A very large number of experienced people (see their website Advisers, ambassadors)

They don't plan to develop much of the technology themselves, they're planning to buy it from other companies mostly such as SpaceX. Most of this technology exists already. They have written statements of the companies that they are willing and able to supply these things.

List of the technology they want to use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_One#Technology

The total cost is estimated at $6 billion. Technology has come a long way, this combined with the privatization of space has caused costs to drop significantly. The falcon heavy for example costs only $77-135M to launch (2013).

They plan to get this through sponsorship deals. They're going to broadcast the entire thing on TV. Which makes sense, the olympics receives 6 billion dollars for 1 billion viewers. The moonlanding in 1969 had 500 million viewers. The population of the earth was only 3,5 billion back then and people weren't as well connected as they are now. So imagine how many viewers a colony on Mars would get?

No one says it's guaranteed that they will succeed, but i think they should try, and we should support it.

More information can be found on their website and IndieGoGo campaign:
http://www.mars-one.com/
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/mars-one-first-private-mars-mission-in-2018

The campaign is just to help pay for the Lockheed Martin study and to convince sponsors there is enough interest. I have donated myself, and advise people who think space exploration is important to do the same. It's risky, but it's high impact.

According to the Mars One website, the first crews leave in 2024. As in *not* 2018

http://www.mars-one.com/mission/roadmap/2024

Which bring us to the mars colonization project http://www.mars-one.com/

I thought they would have tried the moon first. At least it's close enough that a rescue mission may be able to get to you in time depending on the issue.

Dangerously low food or water supply the original moon mission only took 3 days to get there, mars would be an 8 or 9 month trip.

Sounds Familiar

I post this every time another MarsOne piece of fundraising comes up. So here goes again....

I really wish people would stop posting MarsOne propaganda. It's a scam, pure and simple. It's been pointed out time and time again that their team is primarily artists and PR people. Just look here for yourself:

http://www.mars-one.com/en/about-mars-one/team

Of the 7 people listed there's: an artist, an editor, a communication specialist, a communications director, and an MD. There's only 2 people who could conceivably have any expertise on getting to Mars.

They did an interview (AMA) on reddit and were torn apart:

http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/ufb42/ama_i_am_founder_of_mars_one_sending_four_people/

They lack any coherent plan on how they're going to even test their technology, let alone actually get people to Mars. Stop looking towards entertainers to do what you know will require a massive engineering effort. These people are after free press and free money.

STOP FEEDING THESE PEOPLE FREE PRESS!

Only if excessive credulity now counts as a virtue. The Mars One project has a very poor explanation how they are going to finance the construction and launch of the rocket, and none at all how they are going to finance all the testing they claim they'll do.

Only if excessive credulity now counts as a virtue. The Mars One project has a very poor explanation how they are going to finance the construction and launch of the rocket, and none at all how they are going to finance all the testing they claim they'll do.

Not quite sure whether to laugh or cry at the amount of irony coming from this when referring to a country that is trillions in debt. Seems "for too long" has been redefined.

I'm more flabbergasted by the irony of your posting that comment in a topic that is expressly about why your equating "country" with "business" is wrong. Dr. Tyson's entire point is that a country is NOT necessarily a for-profit business and doesn't need to balance its ledger ever. A nation's ability to incur debt is tempered only by the will of the people or the leadership to continue, and the ability that it has to secure loans from creditors. Even there, loans from creditors are only required because there are external debts -- payments to domestic bondholders and to other nations. A hypothetical SFnal future world-spanning empire would not have external debt payments and could engage in any venture that its leadership had the ability to bring to fruition.

Having said that, I still suspect that Dr. Tyson is incorrect. First of all, we have reached the point where private individuals are as wealthy as some governments, and I don't see that trend abating. Mars One estimates they can put four people there for US$6 billion. That's an amount that could come out of a hyperwealthy individual's back pocket totally without regard to profit. They would be able to enlarge the frontier, so to speak, and determine whether it is even viable for humans to establish a permanent colony there. They would be able to report back to the accountants and from there, if profit was viable, industry would gladly take over, which Dr. Tyson acknowledges and encourages.

Secondly, Dr. Tyson is referring to the undetermined costs of establishing a frontier as being something that governments have traditionally undertaken. But those costs are only going to get cheaper over time. Robots continue to develop greater autonomy and data-gathering ability, so at some point in the not-too distant future, it will be possible for a robotic probe to do all of the necessary frontiering. And at some point after that, it will be possible for the robots to do all of the colonizing and profit-extraction as well.

Also, the uncharted waters parallel that Dr. Tyson used doesn't really work. In the case of the New World, the Spanish Government literally had no idea whatsoever of the dangers Columbus faced. Were there monsters or other impassible dangers? Nobody actually knew. The only way to gather the data was to do the mission. That's totally unlike, say, a mission to Mars, where we already know a considerable amount about the planet. Many of the risks are already known and will be better known long before colonization begins in earnest.

Not to mention, a great deal of Christopher Columbus's funding was indeed private. He just ran out of potential investors and had to turn to the crown for the rest of the funding, but that was not necessarily a foregone chain of events. Plus, Isabella wasn't looking to advance the cause of science and exploration - the Spanish government was in it for the money as well.

Finally, back to your comment, "the amount of irony coming from this when referring to a country that is trillions in debt." Presumably you mean the USA here, but Dr.Tyson didn't refer to any specific country. He just said a government would do so. Could just as easily be China, which is not trillions in debt. In timeless words of our Usenet forefathers, "Nice strawman."

Space is dangerous.

Which doesn't matter as long as people are willing and the government doesn't step in to protect us from ourselves. I think the fact that it's dangerous has been much more of an impediment to NASA than it would be for private companies. When national pride rides on the mission success you have to attenuate risk to a degree that impedes the rate of progress. In any case, the progress of techology is constantly making all aspects of space travel safer, cheaper, and more feasible, which is why we are finally starting to see private space tech taking off. It could be that designing a robust space vehicle soon becomes as trivial as designing a luxury car.

It's expensive.

And potentially very profitable. Huge chunks of valuable metals floating around waiting to be mined. Potential for improved synthesis of high-value products in zero-G, or exploitable power which can be beamed back down to earth. Opportunity and adventure for which rich persons who would otherwise be building $1 billion yachts can pony up the ticket price. Entertainment value for the billions of earthlings watching the space colony reality TV shows. And then all the capitalizable charity and investment from people who just want it to happen.

There are unquantified risks.

Present in every undertaking, and the confrontation of which is what is known in economics as "entrepreurship."

I do completely agree that more government funding would be nice. But I think it's a mistake to downplay the promise of private space technology in order to make that case. Especially because doing so is going to chase away investment money, which, unlike the congressional budget, Neil Degrassie can definitely influence. In some ways, I don't think it's good to discuss feasibility at all. Space tech has been all about taking what is not feasible and making it feasible. It was never a given the Apollo missions would make it to the moon. And it's not a given that you and I are going to see someone land on Mars. But I'm willing to support Elon Musk, or NASA, or anyone else who is going to try, and I'm not going suggest they can't do it, because I have to hope they can.

I really wish people would stop posting MarsOne propaganda. It's a scam, pure and simple. It's been pointed out time and time again that their team is primarily artists and PR people. Just look here for yourself:

http://www.mars-one.com/en/about-mars-one/team

Of the 7 people listed there's: an artist, an editor, a communication specialist, a communications director, and an MD. There's only 2 people who could conceivably have any expertise on getting to Mars.

They did an interview (AMA) on reddit and were torn apart:

http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/ufb42/ama_i_am_founder_of_mars_one_sending_four_people/

STOP FEEDING THESE PEOPLE FREE PRESS!

I really wish people would stop posting MarsOne propaganda. It's a scam, pure and simple. It's been pointed out time and time again that their team is primarily artists and PR people. Just look here for yourself:

http://www.mars-one.com/en/about-mars-one/team

Of the 7 people listed there's: an artist, an editor, a communication specialist, a communications director, and an MD. There's only 2 people who could conceivably have any expertise on getting to Mars.

They did an interview (AMA) on reddit and were torn apart:

http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/ufb42/ama_i_am_founder_of_mars_one_sending_four_people/

STOP FEEDING THESE PEOPLE FREE PRESS!
 

With no way to send additional supplies

New supplies, and new colonists, would arrive every 2 years.

Also, shows like "Big Brother" work well for TV by the precise fact that they are very cheap to produce. The "Winner" gets half a million dollars. Most actors on popular sit-coms get paid more than that per episode.

These aren't actors, and they aren't getting paid. Their job is to set up a colony on Mars. They don't exactly need money.

I wonder if they even have the bandwidth to send back TV quality signals from Mars. What happens when it's on the far side of the sun? They will need to set up relay satellites to ensure they can always get a good signal.

They've done a feasibility study which consulted space experts from around the world. I'm pretty sure things like bandwidth and receiving a signal would have been high on their discussion list, considering that's how the project gets funded.

If you want to read more about it before poking holes in what they plan to do, you can check their FAQ or road map. The road map calls for 2 video streams by 2021, 2 years before people land, with a minimum of 4 streams by 2025, when the second team lands. The habitat (6 landers) and 2 rovers will already be on the planet by the time the first team lands, with 5 more landers just a few weeks behind them. Communication will go through a satellite orbiting Mars, and presumably there will be a relay satellite at one of the L4 or L5 points.

Even then I've seen lots of pictures from the Mars but I don't think I've seen too many videos.

That's because transmission of video from Mars has never been a priority. Here, it's a priority.

With no way to send additional supplies

New supplies, and new colonists, would arrive every 2 years.

Also, shows like "Big Brother" work well for TV by the precise fact that they are very cheap to produce. The "Winner" gets half a million dollars. Most actors on popular sit-coms get paid more than that per episode.

These aren't actors, and they aren't getting paid. Their job is to set up a colony on Mars. They don't exactly need money.

I wonder if they even have the bandwidth to send back TV quality signals from Mars. What happens when it's on the far side of the sun? They will need to set up relay satellites to ensure they can always get a good signal.

They've done a feasibility study which consulted space experts from around the world. I'm pretty sure things like bandwidth and receiving a signal would have been high on their discussion list, considering that's how the project gets funded.

If you want to read more about it before poking holes in what they plan to do, you can check their FAQ or road map. The road map calls for 2 video streams by 2021, 2 years before people land, with a minimum of 4 streams by 2025, when the second team lands. The habitat (6 landers) and 2 rovers will already be on the planet by the time the first team lands, with 5 more landers just a few weeks behind them. Communication will go through a satellite orbiting Mars, and presumably there will be a relay satellite at one of the L4 or L5 points.

Even then I've seen lots of pictures from the Mars but I don't think I've seen too many videos.

That's because transmission of video from Mars has never been a priority. Here, it's a priority.

Wait, what's this?

http://applicants.mars-one.com/

A website with almost a quarter million people wanting to go build a martian colony, and willing to pay with their own money and lives for the mere opportunity!?

Clearly, that website and that project must be a pure fabrication! It couldn't possibly be real, when no such effort to create thse "oh so much easier!" Earth shelters has even been seriously proposed by *ANY* nation capable of carrying out such a plan!

Because that would mean that a martian colony is clearly more favored than an earth fallout bunker, and has a higher chance of being built, and that would totally ruin your argument!

... it's not going to be much better. Mars does not have a spinning core so no radiation belts to deflect evil radiation on the surface either. Surface exposure would have to be limited.

http://mars-one.com/en/faq-en/19-faq-health/185-will-the-astronauts-suffer-from-radiation

However, I would still go. I mean, if we can actually get people to Mars, we shoudl have no problem getting around the radiation problem.

Yes, it is true. I applied. Not sure if I represent us well, but should we (as slashdotters) be worried ;) http://applicants.mars-one.com/profile/6cf2c6c2-0862-4994-a255-8caa980cea85

For those who cant seem to get laid, your odds are greatly increased, heres the link http://applicants.mars-one.com/overview/newest/desc/2?sex=FEMALE&minimumAge=&maximumAge=&country=&language=&rating= (im to lazy to format)

- Return trip: Not only is Mars much further away than the moon, it has a far more substantial gravity well: so we'll need a bunch more fuel, almost as much as for the trip out. The obvious solutions are to either make it there (a potentially major undertaking on a hostile planet), or send it ahead, probably via the interplanetary transport network (in which case we need to worry about what years of radiation exposure is doing to it) Also:
- Takeoff could be a problem. While SpaceX and others are working on it no-one has (so far as I know) ever successfully built and tested a reusable launch vehicle, which means we need to design something new that can land and take off again, even if only under 1/3 G.

Visit the Mars One website, there is no return trip planned. They go to great length to explain the reasons for this, most of which make some sort of sense. The main reasons are the fact that there is no available technology to do it, so that would delay the mission and increase the cost, and the weight considerations of sending a vehicle capable of making the return trip with all of the necessary fuel etc.

A further consideration, and not an insignificant one, is the impact on the bodies of the crew/colonists of an extended time away from Earth's gravity well. In order for the base to be established and real work to be done the time on Mars would have to be more than a few weeks.

This is quite a brave adventure and an attempt at colonisation rather than a flag planting exercise.

If that happens [a supernova goes off] the people on mars will have even less of a chance than everyone on earth because of the thin atmosphere.

That's true... To be safe from gamma ray bursts or nearby supernovas, we'll need to colonize other stellar systems. But the first step towards leaving our solar system, will be to leave our planet. And there are still lots of calamities that could affect Earth, but not Mars; supervolcanoes, pandemics, wars, asteroid impacts, etc.

How will a colony that depends on earth for survival be any sort of backup?

I agree, a backup should not depend on Earth for survival. That's why our long-term goal should be to create a self-sufficient colony with local mines, power plants, factories (the new 3D printers seem promising), greenhouses, etc. The colonial population needs to exceed around 200 residents to prevent long-term inbreeding; but if Mars One succeeds, we can reach that limit in about 100 years.

You talk about terraforming but that will literally take thousands of years if it can be made to work at all.

Are you sure about that? There are already polyextremophile bacteria and microorganisms on Earth that can withstand cold, drought, low pressure and radiation; see this and this for examples. Wouldn't it be possible to gene-manipulate these to perform photosynthesis, and breed them in laboratories to survive in a martian climate? In that case, we can ship them off to Mars, and let evolution do the rest. Sure, it'll take a while, but it's a good start.

One-way mission to Mars, you say? Then this is relevant.

Just because "somebody" gets to have an experience doesn't mean I do

If you want to experience this, why not apply as a volunteer for the Mars One project?

See http://mars-one.com/en/about-mars-one/advisers

"On what conditions would states allow a private company to send humans to another planet? What kind of requirements should a Mars settlement comply with in terms of planetary protection? What legal regime will govern life on another planet? Until now, these questions used to sound very 'far off', but if Mars One lives up to its promise, space lawyers have work to do, and I am excited to be a part of that!"

Tanja Masson-Zwaan, Deputy Director of the International Institute of Air and Space Law at Leiden University

The thing about suicide missions most people aren't considering is body disposal.

Well, they thought about that question:

http://mars-one.com/en/faq-en/19-faq-health/205-what-if-one-of-the-mars-inhabitants-passes-away

It looks kind of like a screw to me, but I guess we'll find out in a few days. It would be exciting if it was something more special and could maybe lead to more funding for programs like Mars One. If I wasn't married I'd volunteer for the Mars One program, but I think getting married puts me in the mentally unstable category. If it doesn't than being willing to go to Mars and live in what amounts to a large tent for the rest of my life certainly would... I guess they'll have a hard time finding qualified people.

Mars One is an existing plan to give volunteers a one-way trip to Mars. The mission will be paid by broadcasting every part of it, starting from the initial selection of candidates up to them living, working and dying on Mars, in a Big Brother like TV show.