Ask Bas Lansdorp About Going to Mars, One Way

NASA's been solicited ideas for exploring Mars, but Dutch entrepreneur Bas Lansdorp is already planning a different kind of trip than is likely to come from the U.S. government. Lansdorp's Mars One project has the goal of putting humans on Mars in 2022, with a twist that might dampen many people's hopes to be a Mars-exploring astronaut: the trip Lansdorp plans is one-way only. That means dramatically less fuel on board, because unlike typical Mars voyage plans, there would be no need (or ability) to carry the mechanism or the energy storage to return to Earth. If you (and three close companions) are willing to go be the first people to die on Mars, you'll also need to give up more than a pinch of privacy, because the Mars One plan to obtain the necessary funding is straightforward: create a media spectacle, and monetize it through advertising. (Note: If Elon Musk's optimistic sounding predictions are right, maybe one-way Marstronauts can get a return ticket, after all.) Many questions about the proposed journey are answered in the project's FAQ; check there before formulating questions. Ask Lansdorp about the practicalities and impracticalities of reaching Mars with as many questions as you'd like, but (lest ye be modded down) please only one question per post.

Comments

Participant Psychosis?

[eldavojohn]

This question may boil down to cultural differences but I'm an American, fairly non-nomadic and I have a lot of cargo -- both mentally and physically. There are places of my youth that I may never return to and I currently sit a thousand miles away from. But I'm okay with this because if I flipped out one day I could just board a plane or road trip it back. I'm aware that settlers who came to the Americas faced similar issues but they were moving to a new land that was already inhabited by humans and had new places to offer them. Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids. In fact, it's cold as hell. I would surmise that someone would need to be legally insane to willingly go to a place without society, without parks, without schools, without culture, without even atmosphere, without children, without the elderly and without the prospect of seeing those things first hand again. Furthermore, should a sane person make such a decision I can see no perceivable way they would remain sane. Even if the person is nomadic or adventurous in nature, you will bring them to a new world and require four of them to remain cooped up in a thousand cubic meters.

Call it cabin fever, call it space madness, call it batshit insanity, call it whatever you want but aside from bombarding them with digital crap from Earth, how are you going to combat it? I know your ratings go up but what happens when all your reality television is 90% insane ramblings of home?

If the Mars mission is brought to you as reality TV, you will see how the astronauts land on Mars, start construction on their habitat, cooperate, discuss, laugh and live.

Exactly what kind of laughter did you have in mind?

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[0racle]

how are you going to combat it?

You give them a way to quickly kill themselves. The whole plan is somewhat brutal, I don't see why the final step wouldn't be included.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not everyone is the same. Some of us don't have hometowns. We moved around all of our lives and have covered most of the world. There is very little left for us to see here.

I'd make the trip to Mars, if I could be guaranteed food (or the means to grow food) and water.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Jeremi]

You give them a way to quickly kill themselves.

No need for that -- if they're on Mars, simply stepping outside will suffice.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[SQLGuru]

I would think that these types of plans would need to be preceeded by some teraforming efforts a few years (20? 50?) ahead of them. Not that a planned two-way trip ensures a return trip, but at least there's a plan. Send some extremophile algea "bombs" to blanket the landing area. Send probes to see how they progress. Start trying to set up a successful mission instead of one destined to fail.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Joce640k]

Yeah, well, maybe you shouldn't apply for this. I'm sure there's some suitable people among the 7,000,000,000 others who live here.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[gatfirls]

The first thought that popped into my head was hours and hours of people begging into cameras to be saved from boredom, injury, etc. It's kind of a neat idea but the "no return ticket" thing is grim. They're basically being sent to a tiny prison (I can't imagine the living quarters would be much more than a jail cell) with no possibility of parole.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[0racle]

Ya, I should have said quickly AND painlessly. Without the painless part, the whole thing is incredibly cruel.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[MyLongNickName]

Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids. In fact, it's cold as hell

Wait I thought your name was Elvado, not Elton!

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Lanfranc]

Probably. The question is A) how to find them, and B) how to ensure they'll still be suitable when sent to another planet and faced with the prospect of living out the rest of their lives in a metal can with only a tiny group of people and being monitored by video cameras most of the hours in the day. Pretty tall order.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[OakDragon]

Exactly what kind of laughter did you have in mind?

Heeeeere's Johnny!

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Sardak]

I would surmise that someone would need to be legally insane to willingly go to a place without society, without parks, without schools, without culture, without even atmosphere, without children, without the elderly and without the prospect of seeing those things first hand again.

What a coincidence. Aside from the atmosphere, those are all the things I dislike about living on earth.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

In vacuum, or in the almost-like-vacuum kind of atmosphere that Mars has, losing pressure means losing consciousness within ten seconds or so. Not much time for pain, I'd say. If you exercise before exposing yourself, it should be even faster.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[HapSlappy_2222]

Eh, I can see doing it to be the documented first, the one who pioneers the way, the guinea pig, one who advances the science. Though I'd have to a) convince myself and my family why this is important and worthwhile enough to justify the sacrifices involved (assuming it actually was worth it to me; it isn't), and b) my family would need to be set for life - college educations, annuities, etc for losing me. By accomplishing both of those things, you could actually improve the future for your family, their kids, grandkids, etc. Sorta like a dude that "accidentally" drives off a cliff to give the life insurance claim to his wife; but actually accomplishing something lasting, too.

While Mars would be orders of magnitude worse, justifying the trip isn't as much different from sailing to the "New World" as you'd think. Most of those dudes never went home, either, and the landing sites were NOT inherently hospitable, though they did, of course, have breathable air, flowing water, and allowed you to walk about outside of your transport vehicle. In one or two ways, the New World was actually worse; at least on Mars, there's (probably) not indigenous folk who are PISSED you're there, and regular communication with the homeland is possible.

All that said; yeah, a one-way space trip is a very tough pill to swallow.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Mabhatter]

If they were really serious, the first crew would be for setup. You would be able to give them 100% + extra resources for establishing the base up front.

I think the problem is that much like founding America, trailblazers are supposed to be followed by supplies and crew at regular intervals. There were lots of problems where one crew would come ahead, then the crew to follow would never have LEFT to bring supplies.

Mixing manned missions and supply missions might help too. You can pack a lot of supplies of you don't have to keep people alive in space 2 years. if they were really clever, they would launch supply and robot scouting missions first so the settlers had plenty of equipment on the ground when they got there.

Personally, they should also build a space station over Mars before landing people. Again. They might not have fuel to return, but the "could" be rescued. And they can verify equipment is working befor landing it. A chain of Solar-synchronous stations in the orbit between Eatrh and Mars might not be bad either... Basically glorified lifeboats at the mission halfway points.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[AliasMarlowe]

In vacuum, or in the almost-like-vacuum kind of atmosphere that Mars has, losing pressure means losing consciousness within ten seconds or so. Not much time for pain, I'd say.

Have you asked anyone who was nearly asphyxiated about the brevity and painlessness of their experience, and the extent to which they were aware of it? Consciousness and discomfort will persist a lot longer than 10 seconds. The near vacuum outside your skin on Mars is essentially irrelevant, and would greatly diminish the effect of the low temperature.

Here's a quick experiment you can do at home (but don't overdo it, obviously). Breathe out fully, and don't breathe in again for a while. Even without any special preparation, a fit person can hold out longer than 10 seconds before having to breathe in again, with their consciousness quite intact. I can easily get well past 10 seconds and I'm mid-50ish and not particularly athletic.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Penguinisto]

On this same note, one thing I was thinking about is the 'always on' aspect of filming these astronauts.

Hopefully the mission will give them some privacy. Not everyone wants (okay, needs) to see a guy take a crap on Mars. If you have mixed-gender couples, I'm very sure they'll be wanting some 'alone time' to get their hormones on, so to speak. To top all that off, after seven months of living cheek-to-jowl, they'll most definitely want to get some space to re-collect their own personalities.

So how exactly does one fit that need for privacy into the schedule and mission?

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[eam]

Mars will need lawyers & politicians. I suggest we start by sending them.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[ultranova]

I would surmise that someone would need to be legally insane to willingly go to a place without society, without parks, without schools, without culture, without even atmosphere, without children, without the elderly and without the prospect of seeing those things first hand again.

Obviously. And someone who couldn't see this objection being rised and used to halt the whole project would need to be dumb as a brick. So that leaves two possibilities:

1. This is a scam, so the trip will never happen.
2. Lansdorp really is this dumb, so the trip will never happen.

Personally, I lean towards the "scam" option. The very summary points out that you can rise money by creating controversy, while even the stupidest of people tend to keep their planned suicide missions secret until execution, rather than publish them.

Or it could just be a troll trying to make the "our ancestors ate death and shat success but now we're all pussies" -crowd to howl their defiance against the tyranny of the authority doing its job by stopping insane or depressed people from being exploited by ruthless sociopaths.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[GameboyRMH]

Got to 22 seconds before I hit any real discomfort. I'm in my mid-20s, average build (at best).

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[alexander_686]

If this thing is going to fly because of paid viewership you don’t want a quick death. You want something long and cinematic.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[meta-monkey]

That's what the first season or two of the show would be about. Think about the first few episodes of American Idol each season where tens of thousands of people apply and from that the producers pick the top whatever who go to vegas, and from that the top 20 and so on.

I'd say finding the astronauts isn't the hard part (assuming 4 such sane-ish people exist). All the Mars One folks have to do is copy every other reality competition show out there, except instead of it being a singing/dancing/cooking/losing weight/dog grooming/clogging/whatever competition, it's a "who gets to go to mars" contest.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[RespekMyAthorati]

In vacuum, or in the almost-like-vacuum kind of atmosphere that Mars has, losing pressure means losing consciousness within ten seconds or so.

And no one can hear you scream.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[RespekMyAthorati]

Mars will need lawyers & politicians. I suggest we start by sending them.

And telephone sanitizers.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Anonymous Coward]

Holding your breath is different than being exposed to near/partial vacuum.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[hughJ]

I'm wondering if a near vacuum would be enough to cause surface level capillaries to burst? Say, for instance, in the eyeballs?

Oh well, having some dead bodies on the Mars surface might be interesting in and of itself to see how well they stay preserved. They could be a museum piece for future Earthling immigrants a thousand years from now.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[bill_mcgonigle]

someone would need to be legally insane to willingly go to a place without society, without parks, without schools, without culture, without even atmosphere, without children, without the elderly

And somehow nobody's brought up the Slashdot basement-dweller stereotype yet...

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[GodInHell]

According to the FAQ they plan to send 8 un-manned missions ahead of the first crew.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Anonymous Coward]

The average time a man can hold his breath is around two minutes, out of curiosity I tried and got just above that.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Anonymous Coward]

In vacuum, or in the almost-like-vacuum kind of atmosphere that Mars has, losing pressure means losing consciousness within ten seconds or so. Not much time for pain, I'd say.

Have you asked anyone who was nearly asphyxiated about the brevity and painlessness of their experience, and the extent to which they were aware of it? Consciousness and discomfort will persist a lot longer than 10 seconds. The near vacuum outside your skin on Mars is essentially irrelevant, and would greatly diminish the effect of the low temperature.

Here's a quick experiment you can do at home (but don't overdo it, obviously). Breathe out fully, and don't breathe in again for a while. Even without any special preparation, a fit person can hold out longer than 10 seconds before having to breathe in again, with their consciousness quite intact. I can easily get well past 10 seconds and I'm mid-50ish and not particularly athletic.

The GP is correct, in a vacuum you'll be out in 10-15 seconds. So we are told in our aircraft safety seminars. (We have a research plane that gets to ~ 50,000 feet.) And that's why the nice flight attendants tell you to put on your mask first in case of loss of pressurization. If you try to help someone else first and don't immediately succeed, you'll both faint. And die.
Losing consciousness from lack of O2 while continuing to breathe is quite different then being prevented from breathing. Increasing CO2 in the blood is what causes the desperation for air. As long as that is being exhaled there isn't any panic and you'll quietly pass out from lack of oxygen. It happens frequently when somebody goes into a sewer for instance, where the oxygen has been consumed. After a few moments, they simply pass out. Many years ago I watched a science program where the host, with a mask, breathed his own exhaled air, only the CO2 was chemically scrubbed out, as he wrote what he was experiencing. As his available oxygen diminished, his writing became sloppy, but he expressed (and showed) no signs of distress as he sagged, wobbled in his chair, and started to slump before the folks came in with the oxygen to revive him.

SB

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[mcgrew]

As someone who has gone through a near-death experience, I can tell you that when you're dying, ten seconds is the rest of your life! Remember what Einstein said about relativity - when you're with a pretty girl, an hour seems like a minute. When your hand is on a hot stove, a minute seems like an hour".

That said, I'd rather die from explosive decompression than most forms of natural causes, like a heart attack, alzheimers, cancer (god what a terrible way to go). With a few exceptions (like my ex mother in law, who died mid sentence and felt no pain, she just stopped), the only people who don't die horribly are convicted murderers who are executed in the US. The rest of us are most likely to die in horrible agony.

If I was on Mars and dying of cancer, I'd step outside. Ever seen anyone die of cancer? If not, you're lucky.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[u17]

I know that you're joking, but you have it the other way around. It is the pressure of the environment that causes people to do useful, productive work. Send all useless and lazy people to Mars and within a few generations Earth will be full of them again. But send all sorts of people to the Marsian frontier and there the rough environment will only reward the enterprising, useful and fit, and eventually most inhabitants will become like that. Well, until Mars becomes like Earth and we'll need to go out and colonise further planets.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would surmise that someone would need to be legally insane to willingly go to a place without society, without parks, without schools, without culture, without even atmosphere, without children, without the elderly and without the prospect of seeing those things first hand again.

I imagine it wont be much different from living in the USA

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Herkum01]

I disagree, I say we send some 1%ers up there. They were able to pull themselves by their bootstraps without any help from society to become billionaires. Imagine what they could do Mars!

MMOOHHHAAAAHHHAAAA!!!

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[ewieling]

The "suffocation" feeling comes from the build up of carbon dioxide in your body. If you can prevent that you'll peacefully lose consciousnesses and never feel like you are suffocating. Breathing something else like helium or nitrogen with no oxygen would do the trick. If you let the carbon dioxide build up your body will continue to struggle even after you lose consciousnesses.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[argStyopa]

Our immigrant ancestors, who braved the almost-complete unknown, packed their worldly belongings into a trunk or two, in order to give us a chance better life - are now spinning in their graves.

The didn't expect the complete pussification of their descendants to proceed quite so rapidly.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Mars mission is brought to you as reality TV, you will see how the astronauts land on Mars, start construction on their habitat, cooperate, discuss, laugh and live.

Exactly what kind of laughter did you have in mind?

He means fucking.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[19thNervousBreakdown]

No need for that, in an artificial atmosphere, chances are you can just take oxygen out of the mix. Breathing pure nitrogen will ... well, read all about it.

The plus side being that, since you have a way to vent carbon dioxide, you won't feel like you're suffocating, which you would if you breathe out and then can't breathe in.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Joce640k]

There's no discomfort in a vacuum. The discomfort/craving for air is caused by buildup of CO2, not lack of O2.

Hypoxia (lack of O2) gives you a sort of high then you pass out.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Joce640k]

Nitrogen has been proposed as a method of execution to replace all the messing about with needles and electric chairs that we currently use. OTOH there's some people who want the ending to be nasty. Hypoxia is pleasant.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Joey Vegetables]

If it would help my family, I would do it in a heartbeat. My own quality of life doesn't matter much to me. Theirs does.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[nedlohs]

The magic of editing fixes that.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Anonymous Coward]

I grew up living a nomadic lifestyle, as I'm the child of military parents, commonly known as a "brat". I left the place where I was born before I formed any permanent memories (that I am positive are memories and not other imagery). I don't have any actual hometown other than whichever place I spent the longest amount of time in. I don't know anyone from prior to being a teenager, not a single person. I am skilled in a wide variety of things, chiefly computer programming (over two decades), but also electronics, farming, automotive and small-engine repair, chemistry, math, physics, and a whole host of more commonplace things, such as cooking, construction, etc.. My night job is physically laborious, and my day job is mentally intensive. I'm also extremely fit (a variety of competitive and solo sports). I sleep in 4 hour blocks, as I have my entire life, and this suits me fine. I was raised to be a human, not a specialized insect.

I'd rather work in complete silence and isolation, get my job done quickly and correctly, and go back home and sleep. The universe has a lot to throw at us, and there's too much to do before we're dead, including being with family and friends.

I don't have a degree to my name. I am mostly self-taught, though I believe that I have learned from all those around me, through observation and analysis. I acquired my knowledge by reading voraciously, always asking questions, and performing experiments when necessary. (I should point out as this juncture that the law has been a serious impediment to much of this, as I don't operate within the confines of a corporation or academic institution generally. The only laws I hold to be truly laws are those which can be enforced--the laws of math and physics so far as we're aware, though as a matter of practice, I won't physically harm someone who isn't attempting to physically harm me.)

I can't stand reality TV. You'll never find me in a competition set up this way. Perhaps we want to select for highly overdramatic persons with aspirations to fame instead of the improvement of the human condition. Reality TV is not an effective fitness function to select for depth and breadth of experience.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Anonymous Coward]

this is why euthanasia should be 100% legal.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Anonymous Coward]

the word you are looking for is "raise"

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Stormthirst]

Indeed - and it has been suggested as an alternative method to both lethal injection, gas chamber and electrocution as methods of capital punishment. The particular program I was watching also discussed such a change with a number of American pro-death penalty advocates. Their response? It wasn't painful or humiliating enough way to day to be used.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7183957.stm

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[pimpsoftcom]

You are wrong. I am not legally insane, but I would love to go to mars. As for kids, sure, let me donate to a sperm back I hold all rights to, give me a willing female PHD on mars as a backup, and we are good. I will be the first guy on mars, women will be begging to use my seed here on earth - thats why i would leave a supply behind - and the money can be spent on things I care about here on earth while my kids would eb well taken care of, so its win-win. As for kids on mars, sure, but its something you have to really plan for due to the hostile conditions. I wouldn't be surprised if the first trip is all of the same gender to not create issues. You are the one with mental problems; why would you have such a low self esteem that you cared about the world you left behind? Better to think of the future and all the great things you could explore OUT THERE.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Anonymous Coward]

The effect of breath-holding is not the same as being exposed to near-vacuum. In breath-holding, the urge to breathe occurs due to buildup of carbon dioxide, while oxygen tension in the blood decreases as it is utilised by the body. In exposure to near vacuum, oxygen diffuses _out_ of the lungs down the partial-pressure gradient, and so one would lose consiousness due to hypoxia much more quickly

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually Douglas Adams (in the Hitchhiker's Guide) has already covered this subject when he described how all the Middle Managers were sent out ahead as the vanguard of planetary colonization...

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot, please castrate yourself for the good of the human race. And if you've spawned any offspring, please castrate them as well.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Zeek40]

So how exactly does one fit that need for privacy into the schedule and mission?

What I'd do is unplug the cameras whenever I didn't want them on. Of course I wouldn't tell them that before launch, but it only makes sense. Being several years away from a rescue team, there's no way I'd be wasting limited resources operating a camera if it wasn't necessary for the task at hand, and It's not like mission control could do anything about it. I'd be so far away that it's impossible to hold a real-time conversation, and it's designed as a one-way trip. It's not like they could fire me or punish me with anything more than a strongly worded email or nasty phone message from that distance.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Anachragnome]

"...Not much time for pain, I'd say. If you exercise before exposing yourself, it should be even faster."

Before becoming Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger was exposed to the atmosphere of Mars and he exercised regularly. It looked rather painful, at least in the video of it that I saw. Not sure where I saw it (prolly Fox News).

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[nospam007]

"Have you asked anyone who was nearly asphyxiated about the brevity and painlessness of their experience, and the extent to which they were aware of it?"

It actually Killed Bill.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Cyberax]

You won't feel anything from vacuum exposure. The first symptom will be unconsciousness when O2-depleted blood hits your brain in about 15 seconds - the brain doesn't have any significant energy reserves and shuts down almost immediately. And you can't compare it to holding your breath because being in vacuum actively sucks O2 and CO2 out of your blood so it acts much more rapidly.

And it's not at all theoretical, NASA did experiments on monkeys and had a technician accidentally exposed to vacuum during spacesuit testing: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970603.html The same happens in any neutral atmosphere and is an industrial hazard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_asphyxiation#Accidental_deaths

Another close example: chokeholds (particularly the sleeper hold) in martial arts. They work by constricting blood supply to brain, NOT by constricting your air supply. I've been in a chokehold a couple of times during my training - you lose conciseness in several seconds.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Khashishi]

I can see some sane people willing to do this. Terminally ill sane people, but sane people nonetheless.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[SuricouRaven]

I've experienced it myself once, while trying to sing 'still alive' on one breath from a helium balloon. I recognised it, and immediatly inhaled air. Yes, it is actually pleasant.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[findoutmoretoday]

simply stepping outside will suffice.

No need for that - #2 and #4 have each separately planned your death. That's OK as it's good for the audience.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[butalearner]

Two of those missions are the Life Support Units, which are supposed to arrive in 2021, that are supposed to extract water and useful gases from the soil and atmosphere. That's entirely new and unproven technology, and they've only got one year between landing the life support units and sending the astronauts. That's just begging for trouble. Realistically they have to understand the actual production capability and the lifespan first (on top of making certain they actually work correctly in the first place!), so they can plan properly for margin and schedule replacement units.

One of the main arguments they make is that Mars One only uses existing technology, but we've never tried to extract and use resources from other planetary bodies before.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[dissy]

So how exactly does one fit that need for privacy into the schedule and mission?

During commercial breaks, obviously ;}

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[networkBoy]

Well, it's not like anyone's going to make you plug the cameras back in over in hab 3. If there's a sock on the doorknob, don't come in.
There may be some wierdness in scheduling time in hab 3, but that's something the inhabitants can deal with.
-nB

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dissolved gasses in the blood would boil out, causing the bends, I have always heard this is very painful.

Rod

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Skal Tura]

point is getting people there for prolonged periods of time as soon as possible. Sending algae does not achieve that and terraforming with what we can transport one rocket at a time will take approximately 10 000years. Say even if 10,000kg a year pace.

Sending people, 4 every 2 years, having them built larger and larger habitats, will however achieve sensible budget terraforming efforts over time for required scale, even with just going around and moving crap around makes biological entities thrive in the outside atmosphere.

And just think what happens if they just throw their excrement and other biowaste (uneatable parts of veggies) in a outside "landfill" ... maybe throw a few plant/tree seeds in there just for the fun of it ;)

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Skal Tura]

Think of the reality tv section as the cost for getting a ticket to mars ;)

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Skal Tura]

Maybe you should actually goto the site and read the FAQ.

  - The trip to mars is less than 2years, infact just 7months
  - They will send up ahead several missions to put in place: orbital communications satellite, living habitats, life support, rovers, scouting the area and choosing best location
  - Basicly what they travel on to mars is a small spacestation, albeit this is left behind on landing - it's not needed at mars anymore
  - Water, oxygen, electricity is all produced at mars
  - Plants are grown and harvested by the people at mars - no need to send further proportions after farming gets going on
  - few years later they will build a larger habitat from ON-SITE materials to even plants trees - think about fresh oranges, apples and such! ;)
  - Over time they will eat better and healthier than pretty much anyone on earth - for "free" as well. They will have certainly clean air and soil to grow their food on, probably also without usage of anykind of pesticides, and probably very little of any "non-organic" fertilizers.

Personally i would be missing for a good steak!

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Skal Tura]

Ok let's see.

What part of unproven is in melting ice to get water? Then purifying it, just to be safe?
What part is unproven in turning water into oxygen and hydrogen? You know, water is H20
What part is unproven in separating different types of gases from each other?

Nothing! I believe we have already not only invented fire, but also carbon filtration. We have been turning H20 into 2xH and O for a reaally long time now, and we have definitively been separating gasses from each other, you know, you can just go and buy Co2, H, NOx and other gasses today, no problem almost anywhere in the modern world.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[khallow]

Last I checked, we weren't all identical copies of you. Just because you can't imagine handling this sort of environment (which I might add is vastly different from actually handling said environment), doesn't mean that it can't be done or would even be a serious issue.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Darfeld]

Maybe we could offer this to some death waiting prisoner as an alternative? Maybe not the sanest crew... But They would have double motivation to succeed.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[0111 1110]

I was put in a chokehold by an angry cop recently and I was not able to breathe in or out. The hold was one where he lay or sat on my back and pushed my face down into the pavement while keeping his forearm under my neck. I did not lose consciousness however despite my larynx being crushed down preventing breathing in or out for at least 60 seconds. I was actually waiting to lose consciousness but it didn't happen before (I think) another cop finally pulled him off of me and I was able to breathe again. So I guess there are different kinds of chokeholds. Not all of them result in a loss of consciousness. I'm sure eventually I would either have passed out or died. I've also had 2 cases, one from a garden hose and one in a swimming pool, when I actually accidentally inhaled water, where I was not able to breathe in or out for at least 45 seconds. I also did not pass out in those cases.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Joce640k]

I'm pretty sure that won't happen in a vacuum. Normally there's not much gas dissolved in the blood. Deep sea divers breath stuff which is pressurized to many atmospheres (one atmosphere for every ten meters of depth). They can easily have 20 or 30 times more gas dissolved in their blood then a person at the surface.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Cyberax]

That's why the sleeper hold was banned - policemen kept accidentally killing people by strangling them. When it's applied correctly there is absolutely no pressure on larynx but it's easy to mess it up.

Also, sleeper hold works very fast. Result of a quick googling: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4603043818001526637

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Joce640k]

instead of it being a singing/dancing/cooking/losing weight/dog grooming/clogging/whatever competition, it's a "who gets to go to mars" contest.

They could send two ships and the public can vote on which one gets the most thrust every day based on the crew's hilarious antics/bitchiness.

First one to Mars wins!

They could even vote on who gets thrown out of the airlock just before landing. Put the cast of Jersey Shore in there and you're on your way to being a trillionaire.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just don't send *all* of the telephone sanitizers.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Thiez]

Plants require either (liquid) water or an atmosphere to perform photosynthesis. Mars has neither, so dumping seeds 'outside' is completely pointless.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Thiez]

> I will be the first guy on mars, women will be begging to use my seed here on earth

What makes you say that? Somehow I doubt that 'lives on another planet, never to return' is a quality that people find attractive in a mate, nor does it in any way suggest you have good genes.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[HapSlappy_2222]

Well said. I have to wonder at all these comments poo-pooing the project. Are the the same dumbasses that yell "why'd you kill the space shuttle!" or "we need to get past LOE!" or "we have to get off this rock to save the species!"?

Either support the project, or don't, but at least it's a project with some sort of gameplan. Nobody's asking YOU to go OR fund the project, so shut up and let the men work.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[HapSlappy_2222]

Personally i would be missing for a good steak!

Ah, but the freak free love hippie sex would totally make up for it.

Joking aside, I just don't get people's negativity toward this project. "You're sending them out to die!!!!" Uh, a) I'm gonna die HERE someday. b) it'd be pretty damn sweet to be the first dude buried on Mars, when you consider you're gonna die someday anyways. c - i) all those things you listed.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[butalearner]

Ok let's see.

What part of unproven is in melting ice to get water? Then purifying it, just to be safe? What part is unproven in turning water into oxygen and hydrogen? You know, water is H20 What part is unproven in separating different types of gases from each other?

Nothing! I believe we have already not only invented fire, but also carbon filtration. We have been turning H20 into 2xH and O for a reaally long time now, and we have definitively been separating gasses from each other, you know, you can just go and buy Co2, H, NOx and other gasses today, no problem almost anywhere in the modern world.

Sure those pieces are easy enough on Earth. The single rover is supposed to load 60 kilos of soil into the Life Support Unit at a time, and it is supposed to produce 3 liters of water and 1/4 kg of oxygen per day. Being able to do that consistently for years is what I see as the main thing that needs to be proven. Note that NASA says a single human needs 3.5 times that amount daily, so I guess they will have to import a lot of oxygen.

Also, purifying the water will also require reverse osmosis, because carbon filters do not remove much in the way of perchlorate (which NASA believes is common in Mars soil) or other inorganic compounds. And the contaminants in a pile of Martian soil will be made up almost entirely by such things. I'm simply assuming the power requirements for all of these things is not an issue, but that's still an area of concern since they're relying entirely on solar power. Hopefully they don't get any extended dust storms, and hopefully the rover can be operated manually in case of failure, since there is only one.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[billdale]

You sound like a priest advising on matters of sex and marriage-- obviously lackng in personal experience or any truly reliable data. The first thing you'll notice when exposed to even a mild vacuum is that your ears hurt, and with extreme vacuum administered quickly, your ears would rupture unbearably. The nitrogen in your blood would boil painfully, and within a minute or so, you would die, but it definitely would NOT be painless.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Anonymous Coward]

You sick idiot. All you are thinking of Mars exploration is how good a spectacle the astronauts would make.

IDIOCRACY. It's here.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[GodInHell]

Good points. Warn the astronauts. MARS HO!

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[markimusk]

Too soon? hahahaha!

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[mug funky]

i wish he'd exercised a bit more before the last time he exposed himself.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[mug funky]

phantom camera. if it's good enough for sportsmen scratching their balls, it's good enough for a hollywood death.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[mug funky]

the diminishing returns model of space exploration? intriguing.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[mug funky]

nah, they'd turn the ship around and crash it into the White House...

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Anonymous Coward]

you make a strong argument for NOT doing it. But it is entirely based on fear. The thrill of actually living on mars would incredible. I hate all those earthly things anyways.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Anonymous Coward]

They could use Mars moon .. well 1 of the two... the bigger one that isn't zinging around retrograde like the smaller one, as a base station. Then it would require very little fuel to take off for the return trip.

So... I say the outpost should be setup on the moon before any actual surface exploration.

JMO..

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[Anonymous Coward]

And hairdressers ;-)

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[angel'o'sphere]

There are two (in fact 4, see below) kinds of choke holds (basically the wrong ones and the right ones :D ... j/k): blocking your breath, usually at your neck/throat. Blocking the bloodstream to your brain, done at an artery leading to your brain, also at your neck (left and right to your throat).

Blocking the breath can easyly be counterd if the choke is not perfect by flexing the muscles around your throat in the correct way and your tongue. Turning the headto face the attacker usually helps as well (hence why he put your face into the mud, to prevent you from turning)

However you can do other kinds of chokes (less effective, but hard to overcome without martial arts training): bear hug from front or behind compressing your lungs (from behind more effective than from front). And similar hugs to excercise preasure to the heart of the attacked one. The latter one is using the panic effect of the victim to get him out of breath.

Re:Participant Psychosis?

[angel'o'sphere]

Last time I checked. Mars had an atmosphere ...

stretch goal: return trip!

[Anonymous Coward]

put it on kickstarter

Re:stretch goal: return trip!

[JustOK]

back-kickstarter

Just Send Geeks From Prison!!

[zenlessyank]

I am sure there are at least 400 slightly wacked 'Sheldons' that are lifers, who would love to go to Mars to die on national TV!!! Did that need to be in the form of a question??!!

Re:Just Send Geeks From Prison!!

[ackthpt]

I am sure there are at least 400 slightly wacked 'Sheldons' that are lifers, who would love to go to Mars to die on national TV!!!
Did that need to be in the form of a question??!!

I thought it was lawyers we had too many of?

Re:Just Send Geeks From Prison!!

[camperdave]

Lawyers? No. Like K said in MiB: "Keep them on *this* planet".

Re:Just Send Geeks From Prison!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Lawyers? No. Like K said in MiB: "Keep them on *this* planet".

Put them on the B Ark!

Re:Just Send Geeks From Prison!!

[newcastlejon]

Put them on the B Ark!

That's fine by me, so long as we keep a few telephone sanitisers around.

Re:Just Send Geeks From Prison!!

[canadiannomad]

How about middle managers, hairdressers, telephone sanitizers anyone?

National vs. Commercial Interests

[Pollux]

Mars One plan to obtain the necessary funding is straightforward: create a media spectacle, and monetize it through advertising.

Why is it in humanity's best interest to let this initiative be led and run by business interests rather than by a government space program?

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[YodasEvilTwin]

What do you mean "let"? Why on Earth can't some people go to Mars if other people pay them to go?

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Joce640k]

Every time you go to sleep there's a chance you might not wake up. Every time you get in a car you can't say for sure if you'll get out alive.

If somebody really wants to do this, why do they need anybody's permission? They aren't dying anonymously like most people will, they're guaranteeing immortality for themselves.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[tmosley]

You make it sound as though this is an either/or proposition.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Millennium]

Because for the foreseeable future, no government space program is going to do anything remotely like this. If we're going to go to Mars, business interests are pretty much all we've got.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it in humanity's best interest to let this initiative be led and run by business interests rather than by a government space program?

Strawman argument. There is nothing that prevents a government space program from doing its thing. In fact, China's space program is doing quite well. Indias too. You just have to get used to the fact that the US of A is now a "me-too" nation, with the better part of a century gone since it's glory days.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to get it, but why does nobody seem to understand that they'll die if they stay here, too? Everybody dies. Maybe some people are interested in actually living first, instead of just staying home and waiting for the end.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[arth1]

What do you mean "let"? Why on Earth can't some people go to Mars if other people pay them to go?

Because by international treaties, the planets belongs to humanity, and are not subject to exploitation.

Also, any hope of finding traces of life on Mars might be shot if we ship life there.

This is a plan that needs to be shot down. With Reagan's ray guns if needed.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Anonymous Coward]

dude the only life on Mars will be when humanity goes there.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about dying some time in a distant future, but about how and when you die.

Anyway, this project will never, ever see the light of the day. The vast majority of humanity, billions of people, would be appalled by watching people die slowly without prospect of being rescued. Nobody will pay for it.

Not that I personally belong to these people, I'm just stating the obvious. A one-way trip would be considered gross and disgusting, not in the spirit of human exploration. (Exception: Perhaps they could find some people who will die anyway, that would change matters.) Anyway, I personally don't care if somebody I don't know wants to kill himself. I'd probably even find it entertaining and have fun making jokes about the stupid suicide astronauts.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Burning1]

I ride a motorcycle. I've done speeds well in excess of 100MPH, with parts of my body dragging along the ground. I don't however, make a habit of shooting myself in the head, nor do I have a desire to do so.

There is a huge difference between engaging in activities that *could* kill you, and engaging in activities that *will* kill you.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it in humanity's best interest to let this initiative be led and run by business interests rather than by a government space program?

No one is stopping the government from stepping in. So its in humanities best interest because the government doesn't seem to have their shit together, at least NASA doesn't anyway.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Jason Levine]

When I go to sleep, there's a reasonable chance that, when it is time for me to wake up, there will be breathable air outside, temperatures will be livable, water will be plentiful enough, food will be somewhat easily obtained. If you needed more food or supplies, you could drive down to the nearest store. (Yes, you could say all of these even if you went full on nomad and lived off the land. Just replaced "drive to the store" with "hunt/forage.")

If you went to Mars, you would only have breathable air or livable temperatures if the systems didn't malfunction. Water and food supplies would be limited. Replacement parts (for any malfunctioning equipment) or new food supplies would be months away at best. Imagine your fridge breaking in June and having to wait until April for a replacement fridge. What if your air system was leaking and you needed parts to fix it?

This more than just "anytime you get into a car there's a chance of you dying" expedition, it's a suicide mission. The survival rate of this mission would be 0% guaranteed.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Anonymous Coward]

The vast majority of humanity, billions of people, would be appalled by watching people die slowly without prospect of being rescued. Nobody will pay for it.

You've never seen Jersey Shore, have you. It'll sell, believe me.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Anonymous Coward]

Mars One plan to obtain the necessary funding is straightforward: create a media spectacle, and monetize it through advertising.

Why is it in humanity's best interest to let this initiative be led and run by business interests rather than by a government space program?

Maybe it is, maybe it's not. If some government really feels it's better not to let the first human Mars landing be led and run by business interests, they could always deliver an Apollo-like level of funding to their own manned spaceflight program and get there first, thus killing the media spectacle for the commercial also-ran.

And if all this program does is give Congress the requisite pants-kickage to make them fund our space program again, I'd say that's in humanity's best interest.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[coinreturn]

Because by international treaties, the planets belongs to humanity, and are not subject to exploitation.

So go there and arrest them.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Sperbels]

Because by international treaties, the planets belongs to humanity, and are not subject to exploitation. Also, any hope of finding traces of life on Mars might be shot if we ship life there.

How is barely surviving on Mars considered exploitation? And if there's any life on Mars, it'll still be there regardless of contamination by Earth life. And seriously, these two arguments are totally ridiculous.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Anonymous Coward]

the planets belongs to humanity

Pretty sure that cold war treaty was designed to help contain the cold war to this planet.
 
 

Also, any hope of finding traces of life on Mars might be shot if we ship life there.

If we bring extra life that actual can survive, thrive and live on the planet then it is simply survival of the fittest. What is so great about life that may or may not exist? If Mars has life, it would mean that life is indeed everywhere. That means life is not as unique or special as once believed.
 
 

This is a plan that needs to be shot down.

so lets ban private citizens and enterprises from going into space. It use to be that governments were the only ones that could afford it, but now that private citizens can do it... it suddenly is bad.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[canadiannomad]

I've seen enough people give money to 'rich' street beggars to know that, especially if we are watching people dying on a foreign planet, people would send money to poor bastards... Eventually there would be a way to get them back.... How about funding Virgin's Spaceport... I'm confident enough that we would solve the problem, especially if we actually got people up there in the first place. I'm tired of waiting for moralists to catch up and let people make their own personal ethical decisions. The people who go will be going with eyes open, not a random group of unconscious "volunteers."

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Anonymous Coward]

Because by international treaties, the planets belongs to humanity, and are not subject to exploitation.

Well, that's just one of many treaties that need to be broken...

Ridiculous. What the hell is the point of their "belonging to humanity" if we can't exploit them?

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[ShanghaiBill]

Why is it in humanity's best interest to let this initiative be led and run by business interests rather than by a government space program?

Why is it in humanity's best interest to have a government space program rather than to let this initiative be led and run by business interests?

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[spire3661]

You were operating a motorcycle at WELL beyond safe speed. Essentially suicidal even if you wont admit it to yourself. Further, riding a motorcycle on public roads is just plain stupid.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[spire3661]

You dont think the earth can malfunction? I would also like to point out that the survival rate for ALL humans is 0%

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[ShanghaiBill]

Because by international treaties, the planets belongs to humanity, and are not subject to exploitation.

I believe you are refering to this: Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.

From the article:
In practice, it is a failed treaty since it has not been ratified by any nation which engages in self-launched manned space exploration or has plans to do so (e.g. the United States, The United Kingdom, European Union, Russian Federation, People's Republic of China, Japan, and India) since its creation in 1979, and thus has a negligible effect on actual spaceflight.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[pluther]

If there's any traces of life on Mars, astronauts on the ground for the long term, with local equipment and labs are *more* likely to find it than robotic probes launched once a decade or so.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[erixm]

Also, any hope of finding traces of life on Mars might be shot if we ship life there.

This is a plan that needs to be shot down. With Reagan's ray guns if needed.

How can you be opposed to the mission if you want to know if there is life on Mars? If we send people there we will know for sure that there is!

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Migraineman]

There's a clue in the previous post that I believe you've missed. Re-read that part about "parts of my body dragging along the ground." (Hint: this is generally done in a controlled environment.)

Other activities that *could* kill you:
- Crossing the street (walking on a street full of cars is essentially suicidal, even if you won't admit it.)
- Un-jamming the toaster with a metal knife (messing with electrical appliances is essentially suicidal, even if you won't admit it.)
- Eating sushi (eating raw meat is essentially suicidal, even if you won't admit it.)
- Skydiving (jumping from a perfectly servicable aircraft is essentially suicidal, even if you won't admit it.)

I don't appreciate others trying to protect me from myself. Where would you propose that I ride my motorcycle? In your bathtub? (now *that* would be stupid.)

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[spire3661]

i propose that motorcycles should be illegal on public roads. If we force people in steel cages to wear seat belts, then why do we allow people to ride on a bare motor with wheels and a seat? Its an unsafe contraption that has no place on public roads, given current safety policy.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[hob42]

When I go to sleep, there's a reasonable chance that, when it is time for me to wake up, there will be breathable air outside, temperatures will be livable, water will be plentiful enough, food will be somewhat easily obtained.

There is also a non-zero chance that your furnace will malfunction and asphyxiate you with carbon monoxide, or one of many electrical appliances will malfunction and catch your house on fire while you sleep, or that someone will break into your home and murder you. Yes, even sleeping is risky here on earth. Yes, there are more risks to living there.

We make choices about risk all the time. Some people enjoy the thrill of extreme risks, like jumping out of perfectly good airplanes with one mechanical device between a happy landing and a mess of bloody broken body parts, and we don't generally consider them insane.

Imagine your fridge breaking in June and having to wait until April for a replacement fridge.

That's why you have multiple redundancies in critical life support systems. What does the ISS do? It's not like we can overnight supplies to them via fedex. The lead time will be longer for Mars since the actual flight time of resupply ships would be longer, but that simply means factoring in some additional levels of redundancy into the system.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[slippyblade]

And yet there are people who would be willing to do it. Their names would go down in history - forever. The survival rate for LIFE is 0%, btw.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Burning1]

As Migraineman surmised in his post, I ride on a closed circuit.

Life is terminal. I don't want to die... But I don't want to grow frail knowing I missed out on some of the greatest experiences of my life.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Anonymous Coward]

If we're walking down that path, then why not ask a soldier why he agrees to be sent into a violent war zone. Let's up the ante, and ask why soldiers agreed to be sent to pearl harbor or any other high-casualty battle. If you're in the front lines, there's an exceptionally good chance you're never returning from that battle. Why wouldn't most of them refuse to go, and choose prison + life over death?

Because sometimes people do things with a high likelyhood of death for the greater good.

Also, I wouldn't say 0%. Close to 0, yes... but I could see there being a massive push in engineering and whatnot to try to bring them back after the fact. After all... we've now proven it's possible to put people there and keep them kicking. Now let's prove we can drag them home in one piece too.

Hell, that would be the FIRST thing the USA would get behind. If there's one thing the USA loves more than anything else, it's dick-waving at the rest of the world, screaming that they're better than everyone else. What better way to prove it than by bringing them back alive, when everyone thought that not possible or feasible?

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[mantissa128]

Mars-y Shore. A one-way ticket for Snooki to Mars. And you say it wouldn't be in humanity's best interest? Live the dream!

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[pentalive]

Has anyone seen the problem? Our intrepid mars colonists are just getting the knack of mars living and the ratings start to wane. uh oh no more food, no other colonists coming. They better build it so the colony is self sufficient when the first martians get there.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[arth1]

If we bring extra life that actual can survive, thrive and live on the planet then it is simply survival of the fittest. What is so great about life that may or may not exist?

Because we learn something from it, which we otherwise may not have a chance to learn.

If Mars has life, it would mean that life is indeed everywhere. That means life is not as unique or special as once believed.

Exactly. Which would be an absolutely invaluable thing to have proof of. Whether the life is extinct or not.

--
"All these worlds are yours, except Europa"
-- Arthur C Clarke

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[arth1]

I believe you are refering to this: Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.

No, I was referring to this: Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.

Which is ratified by 100 countries, including the US.

From the treaty:
Article VI

States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty. When activities are carried on in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, by an international organization, responsibility for compliance with this Treaty shall be borne both by the international organization and by the States Parties to the Treaty participating in such organization.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[spire3661]

Even on a closed circuit riding a motorcycle at anything approaching highway speeds can in no way be considered safe because you are operating in a completely unprotected manner (vs a car) at speeds far beyond what could be considered safe for the human body. Its a DANGEROUS machine, more so when you operate it above 30 MPH. Im not saying dont do it, but dont pretend that its noble or necessary. You do it because your ego demands it, nothing more.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[HangingChad]

Because by international treaties, the planets belongs to humanity, and are not subject to exploitation.

Tell that to the first country that gets there and establishes a colony.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, any hope of finding traces of life on Mars might be shot if we ship life there.

Well, no one is ever going to prove that there is no life on Mars and no one is ever going to define what life is.
If we intend to go to Mars before the Earth and Mars are consumed by the Sun we pretty much have to ignore the possibility of life on Mars.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the government yanked NASA's funding, so they cannot afford to launch the manned missions like they used to.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Skal Tura]

So you'd rather not have us go at all on Mars? What an stupid idea.

Never mind, stopping private entities capable of doing this feat would just somehow, i don't know ... Feel like oppression?

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Skal Tura]

why not ban these steel cages at the go too? They are comparable to small bomb in kinetic energy!
Also, sports is so wasteful so let's ban all kinds of motorsports, and other sports for other than therapeutic reasons, so they can work longer days and get some productive stuff done ... ...

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Skal Tura]

you are *FAR* from unprocted on motorcycle if you were the proper gear.
You have boots, gloves, helmet and the suit, all of them designed to protect you. Also as long as you don't hit something, you are likely just to have some really bad scrapes on your suit/helmed, and some bruises.

By your statement, anything that is fun should be banned.
Also motorcycles are fantastic for when you don't have a passenger or lots of luggage you need to haul. In comparison, using a car is kinda stupid, hauling a ton of extra weight (often literally and more), for absolutely no other reason than comfort.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Skal Tura]

and not all business interests are evil, and who if not businesses know how to make ends meet financially - when there is no one to bail you out. (Unless ofc your business is in Finance)

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Skal Tura]

This is something which could become "national past time", people watching at least weekly, just to know how it's going there etc.
It's friggin' another plant - it will have people intrested and it will somehow get funding.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[r_a_trip]

They aren't dying anonymously like most people will, they're guaranteeing immortality for themselves.

What a romantic notion. No, they are guarenteeing immortality to a meaningless name on a piece of paper/digital file. Once every actual person, who witnessed the newest low in humanities atrocities (actual Space Opera?), has died, nobody knows who John Smith and Jane Sixpack, Mars Pioneers, really were. Do you know who Genghis Khan really was? Or do you know the stories, historians have been telling centuries after Genghis' death?

This new "tv show" better have good ratings, otherwise the poor saps trapped on Mars will die alone. Unwatched and not cared about. Don't expect new pods and crew to arrive if the "show" is cancelled.

Glory is craved by those not having it. My greatgrandfather used to say "A true hero is a dead hero." I'm historically immortal is a very poor solace, if the last days of your life is to be trapped in a tin can on an uninhabitable planet with only three other randomly selected attention whores to accompany your last moments.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Intrepid imaginaut]

The international space treaties are already in tatters. We can safely say that the remaining shreds will be cast to the wind when space travel becomes more common.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Joce640k]

I ride a motorcycle. I've done speeds well in excess of 100MPH, with parts of my body dragging along the ground.

There is a huge difference between engaging in activities that *could* kill you, and engaging in activities that *will* kill you.

Doing that *will* kill you. It's just a matter of doing it often enough.

I don't however, make a habit of shooting myself in the head,

You're playing Russian Roulette and arguing about the number of bullets in the gun? Two is safer than three...? Only for some abstract, technical definition of "safe".

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Darfeld]

Either way, this treaty need serious rethinking, as in it's current state, it is hardly enforceable. For one thing, apart maybe for China and India, There were no manned space exploration program seriously supported by any government since the 70s. It might be that not being able to exploit the moon or another celestial body made it difficult to sell to earth people, and ultimately difficult for government to justify to put money on it. It's just a thought.

An other difficulty to enforce this treaty, is that their is no real way to punish transgressor... Imagine China set a colony on Mars. What is the rest of the world gonna do, apart from learning to speak mandarin?

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Joce640k]

There's a clue in the previous post that I believe you've missed. Re-read that part about "parts of my body dragging along the ground." (Hint: this is generally done in a controlled environment.)

Ok, you do it in a place where you wear full armor, have medics standing by, have some sort of knowledge about the condition of the road surface and no solid obstacles in the way or other road users.

That reduces the risks quite a bit, sure...but how many accidents have you had despite all that? What about the other people you know who do it? Are they all safe and well?

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Joce640k]

I'm historically immortal is a very poor solace,

As poor as it is, it's still better than dying anonymously of old age (in many people's opinion).

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it in humanity's best interest to let this initiative be led and run by business interests rather than by a government space program?

Why do so many people think that governments are any good at running anything? A government agency would never be able to pull something like this off. Imagine the controversy if the government were to sponsor a 'certain death' mission. And everyone would have to pay for it whether they liked it or not (i.e. paying taxes.) At least in the private plan, only those who partake in the media spectacle pay for the mission (i.e. paying attention.)

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Burning1]

I think you're making a stink because your ego demands it.

Everything you say is absolutely true for traveling in a car at freeway speeds. If you hit an fixed object such as a bridge at 65MPH, you will die, and no combination of seatbelts, airbags, and crumple zones will protect you. It's situationally 'safe' - most of the stuff you might hit is not fixed, and most of the stuff which is fixed is either safely out of your path of travel, or protected by barriers.

Regardless, you're wasting your time with this argument. I do not consider riding a motorcycle on the street or on the track safe. It's a calculated risk, and one that I'm fairly confident I understand a hell of a lot better than you do.

I believe I made that clear in my original post.

I hope you do enjoy a few unsafe activities in your life... A rare stake... Traveling somewhere off the beaten path... Skydiving... Flying... Something. Anything.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Burning1]

Doing that *will* kill you. It's just a matter of doing it often enough.

The vast majority of the people racing motorcycles die of old age.

You're playing Russian Roulette and arguing about the number of bullets in the gun? Two is safer than three...? Only for some abstract, technical definition of "safe".

The vast majority of the people playing russian rulette with a semi-automatic pistol die of bullet wounds.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Burning1]

Actually, it's pretty rare to have track time without other road users.

I'm curious if there's no risk that you take purely for pleasure. I wonder if you'd have the same discussion with someone who wants to obtain a private pilot's license.

Out of curiosity, have you ever ridden or considered riding a quad?

To answer your questions, I've crashed on the street twice, on the track 3 times. I've dislocated my right shoulder in a trackday accident. I have lots of friends who have broken bones. I have lots of friends with various bits of titanium in them. A couple friends in wheel chairs. A few dead friends. I'm pretty sure I'm better informed than you on the risks of riding, and I kind of doubt there's much you could tell me that I don't already know.

It'd be interesting to hear you explain why I'm an irrational person, with an invalid understanding of this matter.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[Migraineman]

I have 15+ years of motorcycle seat time. I have had zero accidents, though I did drop my scoot on it's side twice (parking lot low-sides.) As a passenger, I've been in 9 or 10 car accidents in my life. I've lost count. I know one person who died on a motorcycle. I know three people who died in car accidents. Seems that being on the road, regardless of vehicle, is essentially suicide (even if you won't admit it.) We should ban all forms of motor vehicle. Hell, ban the bicycles and skateboards, too. And people who walk with canes ... they could fall and impale themselves or others. Damn, the world is a dangerous place. Maybe we should ban the world.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[angel'o'sphere]

Define safe speed?
Do you fear the motorcycle is falling appart? Or is shaking to much so it is inherently insafe? Sorry, there are motorcycle races where the riders go for 200MPH. Lots of ordinary standard japanese motorcycles can run close to 200MPH without any inherent safty issues.
So the only unsafetiness comes from the ability of the driver to look ahead and adapt his course/speed in time.

Re:National vs. Commercial Interests

[angel'o'sphere]

You summareize it :D
And on top of that modern safety gear een offers air bags for cyclists. They get triggered when you disconnect from your cycle, depending on speed etc.

That's Different

[dav1dc]

So the Mars One project is basically asking for volunteers to board Apollo 13 then?? Yikes! :S
You'll be famous... but you will likely never return or see your loved ones again.

Why am I suddenly reminded of the Free Willzyx episode of South Park??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Willzyx

^_^

Re:That's Different

[pluther]

There were six Apollo missions that successfully landed on the moon, kept people alive there for hours to days, and successfully returned them to Earth.

Why pick on the one that didn't?

And, really, if my only choice was to go to Mars, but be unable to land because something went wrong, and have to loop around and come back, I'd still do it.

Re:That's Different

[Patch86]

There were six Apollo missions that ... successfully returned them to Earth.

Why pick on the one that didn't?

Did you even read TF title of this story?

Power Draw?

[eldavojohn]

Exactly how do you plan on broadcasting reality TV of your mission? Mars seems like a difficult place to get energy. When people's lives are at risk in a mercilessly harsh environment, isn't it a bit selfish for us to be asking them to use their solar panels to send us video of their daily lives? I understand the need for communications but how do you plan on sending enough video and audio back from the teams to make a reality show?

Is the following statement morally reprehensible to you? "I know you've had a long day but we need someone to do a walk out to dust off the south solar panels because we're not getting enough power to transmit cameras five and six to monitor you while you sleep."

Re:Power Draw?

[Anonymous Coward]

fission, bro

Re:Power Draw?

[Bigby]

1. Holy crap! We are on Mars! (on camera battery)
2. Set up the solar array
3. Get full-time camera online use a fraction of the power
4a. Set up rechargeable transportation vehicle (on camera)
4b. Set up airtight greenhouse (on camera)
5. Find more sources of energy through exploration (on camera)
6. Find Martian civilization (on camera)
7. Have Ewalk Return of the Jedi style party with Martians (on camera)
8. "Borrow" ship for return journey to Earth (on camera)

Re:Power Draw?

[camperdave]

You can get all the power you want with an RTG or two.

Re:Power Draw?

[Anonymous Coward]

And if people are going to watch it .. in 2023 it's going to have to be, what about 10,080p? They're not gonna want some quaint "HD" broadcast, and if you send them grainy black and white images at 240 lines no one will watch, except geeks who already watch NASA broadcasts.

Re:Power Draw?

[Attila the Bun]

isn't it a bit selfish for us to be asking them to use their solar panels to send us video of their daily lives?

They'll need lots of power for heat and to electrolyse water to make oxygen, amongst other things. The few watts needed for communications will be the least of their worries.

Re:Power Draw?

[Jason Levine]

I'm thinking it might be more like this.

1. We're on Mars, Hooray!
2. Set up equipment.
3. Transmit episodes of "Life On Mars".
4, Get call from producer, "You had some great content, really, but the show's been canceled by the network execs for a new user-submitted video show called Cute Puppy Antics."
5. All communication between Mars and Earth cut (show's canceled = no more budget).
6. Weeks pass.
7. Crew goes insane, kills each other.
8. Last crew member alive, as he is dying from lack of food and water, notices that the cameras have been filming the whole time.
9. Producer call comes through "Thanks. That 'going insane and killing everyone' stuff will make a great series finale."
10. Video cuts out and last crew member dies.

Re:Power Draw?

[ceoyoyo]

They're going to Mars to die. And you're worried about whether it's selfish to ask them to use a bit of power to send back the video of it?

Re:Power Draw?

[HangingChad]

When people's lives are at risk in a mercilessly harsh environment, isn't it a bit selfish for us to be asking them to use their solar panels to send us video of their daily lives?

Just who is going to make them do it if they feel it's not in their best interest to burn power that way? If there's a chance of raising enough money for a supply flight, then they have choice.

If circumstances are so dire they can't spare the power for broadcast, which isn't that much btw, provided it's not in real time HD, it's not like they're going to lose their job or get taken to court on Mars.

Re:Power Draw?

[wattersa]

By the time the mission launches ten years from now, there may be more advanced broadcasting methods and codecs available. It doesn't need to be and probably can't be live with today's technology, whether due to the number of cameras or amount bandwidth/editing required, so maybe the astronauts would do some of the editing while there. Or, there could be automated camera switching/editing triggered by personal locators or simply sensors in the portions of the habitat where someone is actively working so bandwidth isn't wasted filming empty rooms or whatever. They also could hold regular meetings which would be a highlight of the TV coverage, or have a scheduling system. It doesn't need to be high definition, just something of YouTube quality.

> Is the following statement morally reprehensible to you? "I know you've had a long day but...."

No. Much is asked of those to whom much is given. I would gladly take this opportunity.

Re:Power Draw?

[pscottdv]

It's called a radioisotope thermoelectric generator and they have been in use on spacecraft since 1961.

It's not rocket science.

Well, it IS rocket science, but it's not the hard kind.

Re:Power Draw?

[Khashishi]

It may be hard for most people to understand, but the people who volunteer for this probably WANT to have every part of their lives observed. Moreover, being totally deprived of physical contact with society will drive people to do their best to ensure that the communication link stays in top condition. What else do you have to look forward to if you are living on Mars, in a sealed box, eating condensed food bars, day after day?

Re:Power Draw?

[buchner.johannes]

Sure there is the question of ethics approval (addressed here), but in the first place, how do you get all the materials needed to live on mars?
I understand you will bring some algae to produce oxygen. You can't cut down trees to make sheds, drill for oil or hunt deer and live off that. What will the astronauts eat? What can they use as raw materials? I don't understand how you can create a full circle without bringing everything. Maybe I'm not aware of the raw materials available on Mars.

Re:Power Draw?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, a RTG is limited in power, mainly due to size and safety constraints
And link budgets to mars are so hard that the bandwidths are measured in bits/s. No wonder, considering path losses around 285 dB...

an example :
http://www.amsat-dl.org/p5a/p5a-to-mars.pdf

Just one question.

[dutchd00d]

Just one question: Wait, what?!

Re:Just one question.

[Hentes]

A clever mediahack for some kind of scam, most likely.

Re:Just one question.

[gatfirls]

The more I think about it I am convinced the idea came to him after watching 'The Hunger Games', really that's what this would be should it ever (it won't) come to happen. Luckily it's not just a question of funding it's a logistical and technical nightmare that requires nothing less than armies of people to solve.

Re:Just one question.

[DerekLyons]

This - and after reading their [laughable] 'FAQ', I'd expand that to "what are you smoking?'.
 
I mean, seriously - they claim to have identified "potential suppliers" for equipment... when most of the technologies involved are barely at the "laboratory bench prototype" stage... (And keeping in mind that "things get heavier and more expensive is practically a law of nature in aerospace.) Not to mention the laughable notion that reality TV will fund even a fraction of the quoted six billion dollar cost*, let alone that someone will be insane enough to provide significant bridge funding.

* I don't have the numbers, but I would not be surprised if that adds up to the show having to be the most popular show ever - year after year for decades. Six billion is a *lot* of money, and the interest/expected ROI on the bridge funding is going to add at least billion or so more.

Re:Just one question.

[meta-monkey]

I mean, seriously - they claim to have identified "potential suppliers" for equipment... when most of the technologies involved are barely at the "laboratory bench prototype" stage... (And keeping in mind that "things get heavier and more expensive is practically a law of nature in aerospace.)

I know! I mean, when Kennedy had the audacity to say we should send a man to the moon, he already had the Saturn V sitting on the pad at the cape with every system fully developed and tested and ready to go.

Re:Just one question.

[Anonymous Coward]

This - and after reading their [laughable] 'FAQ', I'd expand that to "what are you smoking?'.

I mean, seriously - they claim to have identified "potential suppliers" for equipment... when most of the technologies involved are barely at the "laboratory bench prototype" stage... (And keeping in mind that "things get heavier and more expensive is practically a law of nature in aerospace.) Not to mention the laughable notion that reality TV will fund even a fraction of the quoted six billion dollar cost*, let alone that someone will be insane enough to provide significant bridge funding.

* I don't have the numbers, but I would not be surprised if that adds up to the show having to be the most popular show ever - year after year for decades. Six billion is a *lot* of money, and the interest/expected ROI on the bridge funding is going to add at least billion or so more.

^ Billion is less than 1 dollar per person on the planet. Space exploration is something that humanity as a whole should be involved whatever race, religion, nationality etc. A goverment funded mission is only going to be for the gain of the goverment of that country. For once humanity should rise up above corruption and stand together for the purpose of advancing the human race by colonising Space. I say its a brilliant idea

Re:Just one question.

[AmiMoJo]

Oddly enough six billion is what it is going to cost the ESA to finish Galileo. Human spaceflight for a year followed by landing and setting up a permanent habitat is a tad more expensive I'll wager.

Re:Just one question.

[Jeng]

If you are looking for a goal for humanity lets start off with something simple like safe drinking water for all.

It might cost more than the six billion they project would be needed to go to Mars, but it will have more of an impact on peoples lives.

Re:Just one question.

[Skal Tura]

they simplified a lot for this reason, also never underestimate the economics of private business operating things, all of sudden things get a lot more economic.

Re:Just one question.

[tbird81]

How's that going to help? It's just going to make more people, and soon you won't have enough water again.

Re:Just one question.

[Intrepid imaginaut]

It comes to several million per day, which is north of what Friends was making at its peak.

Re:Just one question.

[DerekLyons]

Do I really have to do the math for you? Or can you multiply the number of episodes of Friends by "several million" and compare that total to six billion without taking off your shoes and socks or asking your mother for help?

Re:Just one question.

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Internet sarcasm, that really ruins my week. When you've managed to resume normal breathing, look again. I was supporting your point.

Solar Sail or Rocket?

[ackthpt]

Which is the most efficacious way to get there?

Because we all know Ralph Kramden could only send you so far as the Moon

Understatement of the year

[Deep Esophagus]

"Living on Mars cannot be considered entirely risk-free, in particular during the first few years."

Ya think?

Re:Understatement of the year

[Anonymous Coward]

It gets safer after that, though. Noone will die after the first five years.

Re:Understatement of the year

[balouderbaer]

True, since 4 out of 4 probably die within the first 4 years...

Re:Understatement of the year

[Khashishi]

A one way trip may even be safer than a two way trip, depending on how you look at things. While a one way trip is certain death, it's possible to live for some length of time off supplies with mass comparable to the mass of fuel you save. The complexities involved in a two way trip leave a lot more room for catastropic failure. Although there's some chance of getting home, it's probably better to think of any trip to Mars as one way, regardless of the mission specifications.

Re:Understatement of the year

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh shit!

Re:Understatement of the year

[ignavus]

"Living on Mars cannot be considered entirely risk-free, in particular during the first few years."

Ya think?

Um, wouldn't the real problem be the last few years of living on Mars? The last one particularly.

Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

"you'll also need to give up more than a pinch of privacy"... so what stops those who go from just disconnecting the camera?
Or is it going to be a glass dome with the camera outside and no spacesuit to reach it?

Re:Privacy

[camperdave]

Exactly. If it's a one way trip, then once they break orbit they have all they need. There would be no reason for them to need to raise money, so they would no longer need to make a spectacle of themselves.

Re:Privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

"you'll also need to give up more than a pinch of privacy"... so what stops those who go from just disconnecting the camera?
Or is it going to be a glass dome with the camera outside and no spacesuit to reach it?

They would just stop sending food from Earth to Mars if the camera gets turned off.

Re:Privacy

[TheCycoONE]

They said they'd have space suits. I guess the biggest risk with disconnecting the camera is that they're not going to be sending more people and supplies in 2 years because the show went off the air, lost it's audience, and everyone involved is bankrupt.

Re:Privacy

[HapSlappy_2222]

If it's a one way trip, then once they break orbit they have all they're gonna get.

Fixed that, a little, for ya. Even MORE of a reason to say "yeah, screw this, let's yank the cables, eat all our rations, have an end-of-the-world orgy, giggle about how nobody gets to watch us, and then go outside for a stroll. Let those dumbasses wonder what happened for decades."

Re:Privacy

[Khashishi]

so what stops those who go from just disconnecting the camera?

Loneliness.

Re:Privacy

[Spy Handler]

they would no longer need to make a spectacle of themselves.

Except that the "pioneers" selected to go would most likely be Kardashian-type personalities who would rather slit their wrists than turn down an opportunity to mug in front of a camera.

And there's also the fact that additional supply missions or even a return trip are distinct possibilities, if SpaceX's booster reusability plans succeed... but only if the pioneers remain in good graces with the people of Earth and the project is a commercial success. (good TV ratings)

Really, what's with all the pessimism, why point out every possible way it can't work, instead of getting excited by a grand adventure and seeing how it *can* work? Not just the parent, but seems like every other post is full of naysayers.

Isn't this using human beings like lab animals?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think there's much doubt that you can transport three humans to Mars, if you don't have to worry about their safety or their return. The "one way" aspect of the mission is one thing, but the idea that even reasonable expectations of the astronaut's survival can be jettisoned in the interests of commerce and "mankind breaking barriers" seems irresponsible. Yes, there will always be people who will sign up for it, just like Reality TV can always get people willing to do amazingly gross, indecent or dangerous things on camera. But shouldn't there be a lengthy discussion about the ethics involved, moderated by someone other than space entrepreneurs?

Re:Isn't this using human beings like lab animals?

[Anonymous Coward]

But shouldn't there be a lengthy discussion about the ethics involved, moderated by someone other than space entrepreneurs?

Umm... no?

It's not up to anyone but the people involved. If someone completely understands the risks and volunteers for a one way trip, YOU don't get a say, any more than you get a say in what I'm having for breakfast today. Period. It simply isn't your place to decide for them what is acceptable to to them.

People do crazy shit like climb K2, and I'd never do that, but you don't see me trying to stop them even when there's a large risk they die in the process. It's THEIR life. Since you seem to be new to the concept of a free society, let me be the first to welcome you.

Re:Isn't this using human beings like lab animals?

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, we stop people from jumping off buildings instead of clearing the sidewalks for them. Funny how that work, eh?

Re:Isn't this using human beings like lab animals?

[Anonymous Coward]

When it comes down to it, what's the difference? Every species see's it's own conciousness as the highest form, so why not risk people's lives for the sake of... wait, what we're they achieving again?

Re:Isn't this using human beings like lab animals?

[HapSlappy_2222]

The ethics are actually pretty well set for this type of thing. People have been venturing into the unknown for millennia; the only differences this time are distance and the fact that we know exactly how inhospitable the destination is before we set out.

People have killed (or almost killed) themselves by traveling into the cold north/south, across oceans, into deserts, jungles, into tundras, up mountains, down canyons, under lakes, oceans, low earth orbit, the moon, etc.

Many of these early ventures were known to be one-way trips, but a tiny percentage of people will do it willingly in the name of exploration.

Re:Isn't this using human beings like lab animals?

[FictionPimp]

Do you want to clean up the sidewalks?

Re:Isn't this using human beings like lab animals?

[chill]

Only because they may endanger other people and property when they land. That isn't likely on Mars.

Re:Isn't this using human beings like lab animals?

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, we try to stop people from jumping off buildings instead of clearing the sidewalks for them. Funny how that work, eh?

FTFY.

Re:Isn't this using human beings like lab animals?

[canadiannomad]

Only cleanup in this case would be a bankruptcy sale as we lament the loss of some daredevils who took a risk. I think the world will be ok with that.

Re:Isn't this using human beings like lab animals?

[spire3661]

There are 7 billion of us, there is NOTHING wrong with asking for volunteers for exploration suicide missions . We do it EVERYDAY for far more petty things.

Re:Isn't this using human beings like lab animals?

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Many of these early ventures were known to be one-way trips, but a tiny percentage of people will do it willingly in the name of exploration.

No, they weren't.

Re:Isn't this using human beings like lab animals?

[HapSlappy_2222]

Yeah, they were:

http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/discovery/death.html is just one list of explorers who died while out and about, explorifying. What' more: that list doesn't include trips specifically intended to settle an unknown landing site (one-way), and, I'm sure, is not all-encompassing. On top of that, none of the exploration ventures I listed are "safe", meaning there were people looked death straight in the face and said "I'm going anyway." These are the type of people who'd sign up to go to Mars.

You may be arguing that many of these explorers intended to come home, but that really doesn't change much. Even in those cases, explorers knew not all of their men would come home, and the ones who survived wouldn't be back until years after they left, yet they (and their men) went anyway.

Regardless, my point is there are people who will do this willingly, and rather than seeing it as a death sentence, they'll see it as a chance to explore the unknown, facing dangers to break the trail for future explorers. Return trip and long term survival would be nice, but optional.

Re:Isn't this using human beings like lab animals?

[Intrepid imaginaut]

You may be arguing that many of these explorers intended to come home, but that really doesn't change much.

It does, in fact. It makes your comment wrong. Nobody sets out knowing they were going to die in the process except suicide bombers.

Re:Isn't this using human beings like lab animals?

[HapSlappy_2222]

Nobody sets out knowing they were going to die in the process except suicide bombers.

Right. Tell that to the guy who's buddy jumped on a grenade to save his life, or the family of a firefighter who dies trying to save a kid, or the father who continues to work in an unsafe coal mine or oil rig to support his family. People willingly risk (or even embrace) death for causes all the damn time. There are people who are willing to embrace the strong possibility of death - or living out the rest of their lives far from home with very slim to no chance of return - for a cause they believe in. We're all gonna die someday; why not do it on (or on the way to) Mars? Hell, I might consider it if I had the correct training and no family to need me here. There's something strongly appealing about being the first to do something, one who risks everything on the chance to do something that might truly matter in the millennial long run. Sure beats dying alone from a heart attack after one too many french fries.

Also, perhaps you've not read the project's FAQ? Here you go, if you haven't: http://mars-one.com/en/faq-en. The intent is for the first 4 explorers to hit Mars, set up a base with power, oxygen and water generation, set up a greenhouse for food, and pave the way for future landings in order to set up manufacturing facilities for further expansion. Sure, they're risking death with no immediate chance to come home, but they're not intending to just walk out the airlock and die the moment they land. From a "risking death" or a "never coming home" standpoint, how is this worse than sending a ship across an unmapped ocean to explore or colonize an unknown landing site an unknown distance away, under unknown conditions, hoping the provided provisions are enough to survive on until a self-sustaining system is set up? Just like so many amazing people have done throughout human history?

We've all gotten so used to puttering around a globe with very few frontiers left that we've forgotten what it's like to truly venture into the unknown. My original point stands: there's historical precedent for a certain type of people that would WANT to live out the rest of their lives on Mars, for it is a cause they believe in, so ethics are not in question.

Re:Isn't this using human beings like lab animals?

[networkBoy]

Human studies board my disagree with you

Re:Isn't this using human beings like lab animals?

[Intrepid imaginaut]

I'm not going to deal with the technical or financial issues here, and there are many. Attempts to set up a self sustaining biosphere even here on nice, comfortable earth have failed, for one. There's a big difference between jumping on a grenade to save your buddies and deliberately planning, preparing and setting off on a very elaborate journey knowing you are going to die miserably at the end of it. If they thought they were going to be able to live out their lives in full, it wouldn't be a suicide mission. The difference between risk and certainty is what I'm referring to here.

KNOWING for a fact you're not going to make it as a result of your decision is not the same as a high risk mission.

Re:Isn't this using human beings like lab animals?

[HapSlappy_2222]

I'm not going to deal with the technical or financial issues here, and there are many. Attempts to set up a self sustaining biosphere even here on nice, comfortable earth have failed, for one.

They're planning 2023 at the very earliest, not next week. It would be prudent, when funding this project, to insure proper production and testing is done prior to launch. While there are fewer people willing to take the risk as the probability of failure increases, there are people or are less risk-averse who'll still want to go. For me, the minimum benchmark would be being able to build a self-sustaining 1000 m3 quarters on earth (or underwater), testing contingency after contingency until I was certain repairs could be made on Mars when the inevitable problems arise, and in the case of impossible repairs, being able to fall back to a smaller section of the facility. Of course there's risk of total disaster, but there always is.

There's a big difference between jumping on a grenade to save your buddies and deliberately planning, preparing and setting off on a very elaborate journey knowing you are going to die miserably at the end of it.

I know for a fact that there are people willing to accept certain death for a good cause. Sometimes this decision is made over a long time (martyrs hanged at the end of a long imprisonment but refusing to renounce their cause, anyway) or it is a snap decision (grenade, drowning baby, raging inferno). History proves this over and over, but apparently you disagree, so I'll agree to disagree.

The above disagreement is irrelevant to a MarsOne debate, since guaranteed premature death in the project is (of course) not the goal of the mission. The goal of the mission is to send explorers to another planet to begin the very early stages of colonization. These explorers aren't planning their deaths any more than a soldier who goes on an extremely high risk mission is; they'll do everything they possibly can to try to survive and complete the project/mission. Since new astronauts will be arriving every 2 years, survival on Mars for just over 2 years is really the lowest benchmark of success.

If you're arguing that living on Mars for a year or 5 and then dying is a miserable death that nobody would choose; well, you're mistaken. I'd gladly trade earth years for mars years, at, oh... a ratio of 20 to 5. I don't fear a shorter lifespan, if I'm accomplishing more with less years., I've looked right into death's face too many times to still think 5 years is any shorter than 40. Death comes when it comes. As far as how crummy life on Mars would be; well, I already live in a miserable shit-hole, complete with Kardashians and Snookis and spam and traffic, and while I do alright for myself, I don't really matter in the larger scheme of things. The vast majority of us don't matter much.

At least if I go to Mars, I have a shot at creating something special and important and permanent; especially when you factor in being remembered as one of the 4 most important explorers that the human race has ever produced, for centuries and centuries. My point about the early explorers/emigrants is they were making this same trade. They didn't know if they'd survive the trip, didn't know what to expect when they got there, and very likely lived much shorter and less comfortable lives in their new homes than their old, yet the decision to risk it was the right one, for them.

Besides, we're talking about 1000 m3 facility, with all the work you could possibly ever want to accomplish laid out in front of you, with every moment being a moment you rely only on yourself for survival; not dumbass bosses or colleagues or doctors or lawyers. What kind of retarded rat in a maze would that NOT appeal to?

KNOWING for a fact you're not going to make it as a result of your decision is not the same as a high risk mission.

While you're correct in this, it's a matter of perspect

In-Sitiu Fuel Production?

[Cap'nSmithers]

Are you exploring any possibilities for creating fuel for a return trip while on Mars? There is at least one study for the possibility, most likely more. If you're planning on the trip being a one-way mission, why not at least experiment with the idea for future Mars missions? And if it works, you get a ride home, and you've made some pretty hefty contributions to space travel.

Re:In-Sitiu Fuel Production?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's covered in Zubrin's book, "A Case for Mars" that describes his Mars Direct approach. I met him in Cookeville, TN about a decade ago - great speaker. Too bad nobody has yet given him the $20B necessary for a series of small bases.

Re:In-Sitiu Fuel Production?

[meta-monkey]

Follow-up question: Have you considered a spin-off program in which researchers and inventors compete to supply systems or experiments for the mission, ala the X-Prizes? But filmed like "Dragon's Den" or "Junkyard Wars?"

Re:In-Sitiu Fuel Production?

[Katatsumuri]

They are, more or less:

Besides, emigrating does not have to mean permanent residence on Mars. Once the settlement is populated, we can send components for a return rocket. With people on Mars the occupants can build, fuel and check the return rocket.

Re:In-Sitiu Fuel Production?

[DerekLyons]

That's covered in Zubrin's book, "A Case for Mars" that describes his Mars Direct approach.

Sure, if by "covered" you mean "totally untested and largely theoretical technologies treated as if they were already at the off-the-shelf stage", then sure. Otherwise, not so much. Zubrin is a very smart man, but he's totally clueless on the difference between theory and reality and the often tortuous and expensive road between them.

All

[JustOK]

We all gotta die somewhere.

Why not shoot yourself into the sun?

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

If you're looking into one way trips, you'd be the first person to land on the sun. Though I don't think it would serve much purpose to bring a flag along.

Re:Why not shoot yourself into the sun?

[i kan reed]

Mars is easier to get to than the sun. The energy difference between the Earth's velocity and Mars' are much less than between the Earth and the Sun.

Re:Why not shoot yourself into the sun?

[JaredOfEuropa]

There's no need to try and match velocity with the sun, though I have no idea how much energy is required to achieve a trajectory that intersects the sun (at a high velocity difference). On Mars, the point is to actually land rather than smash into it.

Re:Why not shoot yourself into the sun?

[Anonymous Coward]

You could go at night!

Re:Why not shoot yourself into the sun?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the beauty of it though, the sun doesn't have a solid rock layer to worry about hitting. You can plow right into that ball of plasma full speed and its own density and gravity will do all the work. All it takes is enough energy spent couter-earth-orbit to result in a nice, 5 year death-spiral toward the inferno.

Life Insurance

[Sparticus789]

Since I am pretty sure that most insurance companies would attempt to deny any claim for someone who died on Mars, will you offer them a life insurance plan?

Re:Life Insurance

[MyLongNickName]

Huh? What? Insurance is about mitigating risk. Risk is the uncertainty of outcome. There is no risk at all in this instance... a 100% chance of death. In this case, you are offering payment for someone to essentially commit suicide. Insurance has no role here.

Re:Life Insurance

[Garble Snarky]

Well, by that reasoning, "life insurance" can't exist for anyone, since death is always guaranteed.

Re:Life Insurance

[SteelKidney]

There's always a 100% chance of death. Living on Earth doesn't change that.

Life insurance is about the risk of dying before the actuarial tables say you're expected to. Which is why it's difficult and expensive to get term life insurance when you're >65.

That being said, I think the insurance premiums for a Mars colonist would be roughly that of a 200 year old that routinely snorts cocaine off a diseased gibbon's rear end.

Give or take.

Re:Life Insurance

[mrchaotica]

Speak for yourself, sir. I plan to live forever!

Re:Life Insurance

[Penguinisto]

I think both sides of the argument fall wide of the mark.

"Life Insurance" is simply a wager between you and an actuary. The wager is simple: You bet that you will either die before the bond comes to maturity ("whole"), or before you stop paying the premium ("term"). If you do die, your heirs/beneficiaries 'win' the big pot of money without you having to pay into it by that much. If you 'lose', then you either get the bond that the actuary has been making huge interest rates off of ("whole"), or you simply stop making payments ("term") and get nothing.

With this trip? What would be the point? Not like funeral homes make 26-million-mile transports, and if you're going to Mars, you won't (okay, you really shouldn't) have a family behind on Earth that needs the money (now if you have a family on Mars by then, well okay, but nobody would need a monetary system on Mars for a hell of a long time to come).

 

Re:Life Insurance

[MyLongNickName]

Part of my original response was the assumption that you would die fairly shortly after arriving on Mars. Between a lack of health care and radiation and the inhospitable nature of the planet, your life span is likely months or maybe a couple of years.

Re:Life Insurance

[meta-monkey]

Which is why I would imagine that part of the "prize" for being selected as one of the astronauts would be a few million in compensation for those you leave behind. But I would also imagine most of the volunteers would be people without close family or kids. But perhaps not, and if so, setting the astronauts' kids up for life would be pretty cheap compared to the rest of the costs associated with the project.

Re:Life Insurance

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt there will be suicides. More likely, with 2 men and 2 women in each team, there will be jealosy, lust and crimes of passion committed within the first year or so. In fact, the first team to go will probably include the first rapist and first murderer on Mars. That also means the first lawyer and first executioner will be on the team. This is going to be one hell of a reality show.

Re:Life Insurance

[TwentyCharsIsNotEnou]

In some places (outside of the US I believe), you're right - it can't exist.

The term "life assurance" is used instead, indicating that it's covering something that is guaranteed to happen rather than might happen.

will i still have to pay child support?

[alen]

will i still be liable for child support if I move to Mars?

Re:will i still have to pay child support?

[Overzeetop]

Not if you die.

Re:will i still have to pay child support?

[HapSlappy_2222]

Not if you die.

At which point all you'll have left is alimony. Sweet, sweet justice!

Re:will i still have to pay child support?

[SolitaryMan]

There will be exactly zero law enforcement there. You can kill your fellow crew members in a most spectacular way and then eat their brains. All on national TV and nobody will be able to do anything about that.

Re:will i still have to pay child support?

[SteelKidney]

I'd just like to point out that this program could make your sig unnecessary.

Re:will i still have to pay child support?

[Penguinisto]

There will be exactly zero law enforcement there. You can kill your fellow crew members in a most spectacular way and then eat their brains. All on national TV and nobody will be able to do anything about that.

...well, they could stop sending supplies, then amp the ratings with a global betting pool/lottery put up as to the exact date and time that you die.

Never underestimate the depths of moral depravity to which television producers will plumb.

Re:will i still have to pay child support?

[coinreturn]

There will be exactly zero law enforcement there. You can kill your fellow crew members in a most spectacular way and then eat their brains. All on national TV and nobody will be able to do anything about that.

And that, my friend, is why I want to go (assuming I can be the killer and not the killee).

Re:will i still have to pay child support?

[wattersa]

In other words it will be just like The Shining (1980) but in space! What could possibly go wrong?!

HEEEEEEERE'S JOHNNY!!!!!!!

On that note, the sexual dynamics among a group of two men and two women isolated from the outside world for at least two years could create quite a firestorm on reality TV, not to mention extensive fodder for gossip magazines.

Re:will i still have to pay child support?

[Anonymous Coward]

There will be exactly zero law enforcement there. You can kill your fellow crew members in a most spectacular way and then eat their brains. All on national TV and nobody will be able to do anything about that.

Your fellow crewmembers might well be able to, particularly considering the well-known spectacularness/effectiveness tradeoff.

Re:will i still have to pay child support?

[meta-monkey]

Why would you want to do that?

Also, you should add, "But on Mars? Fuck that!" to your sig.

Re:will i still have to pay child support?

[KiloByte]

There will be exactly zero law enforcement there. You can kill your fellow crew members in a most spectacular way and then eat their brains.

And what if, beside a doctor, engineer and geologist, they'll send in a cop?

Re:will i still have to pay child support?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then the cop will try to kill everyone and eat their brains, and will promptly be killed by a scalpel, a rock hammer, and/or an improvised spud gun. If the doctor survives, so does everyone who's left. If the doctor's dead, maybe they all bleed out -- but I'd give the engineer 2:1 odds at being able to solve a simply problem of hydraulic.

Re:will i still have to pay child support?

[SolitaryMan]

Somehow "my friend" didn't sound very comforting.

Re:will i still have to pay child support?

[Anonymous Coward]

"national TV"

so this is an American only foray?
There are other lands beyond your seas... Some even have people, money and TV!

Re:will i still have to pay child support?

[Anonymous Coward]

i like that very clever. Out of the occupations provided if anyone was going to be violent and break the law it's most likely the cop, and most likely he'll be screaming RESPECT MY AUTHORITY at the time.

I have a list of people I'd love to send to Mars!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a list of people I'd love to send to Mars, one-way!

Given the speed that "the Internet" raised $650,000 for Karen Klein (the bullied bus monitor), don't you think we can raise, say, $500,000,000 to send (for example) Rosie O'Donnell or Rush Limbaugh to Mars?

Aliens

[Bigby]

Are you going to secretly send a ship up ahead of time to plant actors imitating stereotypical Martian Aliens to bring some "action" to the Mars One plan?

what are the entertainment options like?

[alen]

if i move to mars for the rest of my life what are the entertainment options? what am i supposed to do in my off time?

Re:what are the entertainment options like?

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll be coding applications for the mobile web. It's an unpaid internship, which will make you and your crewmates the low cost bidder.

Make sure you bring a decent laptop with you.

Re:what are the entertainment options like?

[miscGeek]

Attempt to stay alive more than likely.

Re:what are the entertainment options like?

[chemicaldave]

A healthy supply of ebooks should keep you busy for the rest of your life on Mars.

Re:what are the entertainment options like?

[Penguinisto]

Depends - is at least one of the other crewmembers (of your gender preference) hot?

Re:what are the entertainment options like?

[kamapuaa]

According to David Bowie albums it seems to involve exploring your sexuality and becoming some sort of rock Messiah.

Re:what are the entertainment options like?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like IT, you can expect working for your living to take rather more than 40 hours a week, to be effectively on call 24/7, and for your off-time entertainment to consist of posting to /. and masturbating.

Re:what are the entertainment options like?

[flyingfsck]

Actually, one short ebook should be sufficient.

Re:what are the entertainment options like?

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

In all seriousness, I expect that you (or I) might eventually choose to cut ourselves with something sharp, repeatedly.

Re:what are the entertainment options like?

[plover]

if i move to mars for the rest of my life what are the entertainment options? what am i supposed to do in my off time?

Watch reruns of Capricorn One, of course.

Re:what are the entertainment options like?

[meta-monkey]

Perhaps the sponsors will include Netflix, Pandora Radio, and Amazon Kindle. Oh and maybe Brazzers, "The Solar System's Best Pornsite."

Re:what are the entertainment options like?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just read and fully understand Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality"

Re:what are the entertainment options like?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would imagine they would pay the RIAA billions to put copies of all known music and video onto a few huge SD cards and hard drives, and they'd have plenty. Could even beam them new stuff, could be part of the "package".

Re:what are the entertainment options like?

[Anonymous Coward]

The same thing we do every night, Pinky—try to take over the world!

Re:what are the entertainment options like?

[Anonymous Coward]

In your off time you could film the sequel to Capricorn One.

Re:what are the entertainment options like?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't they have a dedicated data-link between Earth and Mars?

That, and torrents.

Yes, I realise it's laggy as hell, but seriously had to get that out.

Re:what are the entertainment options like?

[Errol backfiring]

Enjoy the same boring reality show that is broadcasted on earth I guess.

Re:what are the entertainment options like?

[ignavus]

if i move to mars for the rest of my life what are the entertainment options?

Cable.

Really long cable.

Re:what are the entertainment options like?

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch "Big Brother".

Gender of Volunteers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is one gender preferential over the other? Should all participants be of the same gender or should they be mixed?

Re:Gender of Volunteers?

[TheCycoONE]

This was in the FAQ, they want mixed gender. Supposedly because mixed gender groups tend to fair better - I think also for ratings.

Pioneers

[tmosley]

It seems to me that a mission of this type which is meant to be permanent must by necessity focus on the production of those things which are necessary for survival on Mars. This means that your colonists, and they should be called colonists, will need to focus on the production of air, water, food, living space, and manufactured goods, in that order. Media spectacle or no, that is the order that things must take, prior to wasting time with research (wasting time in the hunter-gatherer sense).

I think that the only way you are going to be able to get your colonists to do what you want them to do will be to have them earn money with their scientific research/media nonsense such that it funds resupply missions.

That said, what is your business plan with regards to production of goods on Mars, and resupply missions?

Re:Pioneers

[tmosley]

Keeping it to one question per post: how will you avoid the pitfalls of early American settlements, where those the desires of those funding the colonization conflicted with the basic psychological needs of the colonists, ie how to avoid depression which could quickly lead to death in such a hostile environment?

Re:Pioneers

[tmosley]

Further question: how will you deal with the inevitability of childbirth on Mars? Note that if you don't send women, the men will be much more likely to fall into depression and refuse to work, even if it means their death.

Re:Pioneers

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd imagine the women could have their tubes tied and/or the men could get vasectomies.

Re:Pioneers

[raydobbs]

I'd imagine they'd deal with it like people deal with the inevitability of childbirth here on Earth in the absence of modern medicine. It's gonna happen whether a doctor or midwife is present or not - all you can do is have someone who is moderately trained in the basics of it, bring along medical supplies to deal with common medical issues such as this - and perhaps bring along a little more to deal with this particular medical situation should some of the more common complications arise.

The nature of this kind of exploration would mean that you take the risk that something horribly unforeseen or preventable can happen; and if it does in this case - you face the possibility of having someone die in a pretty unpleasant fashion (I'd imagine death in childbirth to fit this qualification) in close quarters. Hell, people die in childbirth here on Earth, surrounded by the best medical care we, as the human race, can provide in the 21st century. Humans still have babies, and people still have them without a doctor or modern medicine around even.

Of course, the ethics of conceiving and bearing a child into a situation like this would be debatable - especially if it's a death sentence. But in the case where this is a planned expedition with a planned return trip after a period of colonization - then it's a risk some may take.

Re:Pioneers

[Anonymous Coward]

At least at first, no resupply missions= death of colonists.

Mars is the definition of an inhospitable world. Optimism aside, humans are well integrated into the bio-net of our planet. I personally think it is naive to think that away from our food chain, and our close interaction with the other life forms on earth from the plants and animals we consume to the bacteria that colonize our bodies that we can survive without problems for long on a relatively sterile planet.

Next, how many human abstractions even have meaning on Mars? Politics? Economies?

I think people underestimate how dependent we are upon Earth, we're programmed with millions if not billions of years, of adaptations shaped by this world. I think there is a real danger of repeating The Jamestowne Settlement.

Re:Pioneers

[Anonymous Coward]

it's not as if they'll be sending uneducated people

At least one would be a competent doctor, there are a variety of temporary through to permanent surgical, chemical and physical contraceptives available.

Re:Pioneers

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should they be called "colonists"? There's nothing to colonize over there as you pointed out yourself. Might as well call people who want to live in a volcano's caldera "colonists" as long as they bring giant air conditioners and everything else they need to live there. It makes no sense, but then again, expecting sense in a Space Nutter story is futile.

Re:Pioneers

[tmosley]

An entire planet of untaped mineral resources==nothing. Gotcha.

Re:Pioneers

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right. For one thing, we don't have any presence there. None whatsoever. There's no magnetosphere for one, we'd need to redesign pretty much every piece of equipment we use to work there. It's also an effective vacuum, so that also adds to the materials issues.
For another, you'd need to carry every single thing you need to work over there. There's no local industry. None.
And for what? The same exact chemical elements we have here. You can't compete on an economic level. Ever. That's why all you have is ideology.
If you're so concerned about untapped resources, why don't you make a machine that filters ocean water?
You'd have the resources of an entire planet right here to back you.
So, go ahead. Show me. It should be trivial next to mining Mars.
When can I expect my first ocean gold nugget?
Show me that, and I'll revise my opinion about you delusional fruitcakes.

Re:Pioneers

[spire3661]

I'm having a hard time grokking this......

Re:Pioneers

[ewieling]

Further question: how will you deal with the inevitability of childbirth on Mars? Note that if you don't send women, the men will be much more likely to fall into depression and refuse to work, even if it means their death.

The solution is obvious: only send gay men or lesbians.

Re:Pioneers

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the ethics of conceiving and bearing a child into a situation like this would be debatable - especially if it's a death sentence./quote

OR guaranteed to produce even BETTER ratings, generating more revenue to continue the project...

In all seriousness, it sounds like a fabulous idea to me - we spend so much on entertainment as it is, why not combine entertainment with a little exploration and science making? Self-sustainability will be a huge factor here, it isn't going to make sense to ship food between planets.

Prepare the site with robots, and keep the contamination of terrestrial microbes within the colonization site. The astronauts/colonists will be able to further explore Mars once they have established their short- term and medium term survival. The astronauts win immortality. We win science and entertainment. The only thing left is to balance the books. If things go really wrong there, you can be assured ratings will go UP and UP and UP. Who wouldn't want to tune in to a project like this?

Re:Pioneers

[Sperbels]

There's nothing to colonize over there as you pointed out yourself. Might as well call people who want to live in a volcano's caldera "colonists" as long as they bring giant air conditioners and everything else they need to live there. It makes no sense,

I know. Where are you going to get food if there aren't any grocery stores? How are you going to build stuff if there aren't any hardware stores? If we're going to colonize space, we must first find a planet with these basic necessities of life.

Re:Pioneers

[Khashishi]

If what you want them to do is survive, then I don't think you need to worry about them doing (or trying to do) what you want them to. Well, until they go insane.

Re:Pioneers

[raydobbs]

...in what way? People have kids, life happens - be prepared.

Re:Pioneers

[tmosley]

I love how you are so anti-space biased that you can't see that it is possible for the people of Earth to do more than one thing at once. As if, somehow, everyone in the world only works on the single most productive thing at any given time, rather than pursuing multiple paths, ensuring supply in the face of any and all forms of disruption.

See, one thing you utterly fail to understand is that filtering seawater takes an ENORMOUS amount of energy applied on a CONTINUOUS basis. It's not worth it, or so the market says. People have crunched the numbers and found that it doesn't make sense. But there are vast mineral resources just sitting on the surface on Mars, and one could build a space elevator there to cheaply extract them and return them to Earth, nevermind using them THERE to support a new colony.

But hey, you feel free to continue being the guy who says "you can't". You will look exactly as stupid as every other idiot in history who said the same thing.

Re:Pioneers

[Skal Tura]

birth is death sentence. Don't get born if you don't like it.

and babies are going to be must for them, they will eventually get old, even if they are self sustainable now, does not mean they will forever remain self sustainable. Self sustainability is their goal eventually in any case

Re:Pioneers

[Spy Handler]

Mars is the definition of an inhospitable world

No it isn't. It's just about the most hospitable planet we know of except for Earth. You want inhospitable, see Mercury or Uranus.

To offer a counterpoint to your general pessimism, I'd say that with enough power you can live pretty much anywhere. Want oxygen to breathe? Just crack CO2 from the Martian atmosphere and you can have all the O2 you could want. Want food? Set up shop like the indoor pot growers use and farm your own. Need water? There's tons of it if you just dig in the right place. Or vaporize the Martian soil and extract water. All it takes is power to run the machines (which we can already build easily) and power (in the form of Falcon Heavies) to get everything there.

Re:Pioneers

[Anonymous Coward]

As a woman who is considering applying, I take issue with the 'inevitability' of childbirth on Mars. It's entirely possible to be a woman and not have children. In fact, some of us choose this option on Earth so I don't see an issue finding women who don't want to bare children on Mars. We even have sex on occasion.

Sputnik

[MickLinux]

If you're talking about a one way trip, wouldn't a single dog or monkey be even lighter?

A huge PR high-tech group suicide seems extremely Jonestownsian to me.

And it wouldn't get the support of any right-thinking people. Suicide is not a rational solution. Ever.

Re:Sputnik

[ZeroSumHappiness]

Well, the goal isn't to go there and die. The goal would be, I assume, to go there and set up a base of operations. Dogs and monkeys are not too skilled in that department.

Environmental Questions

[Reality Master 101]

I've always been of the opinion that once a private Mars mission gets close to becoming reality, scientists and the government will go in league to shut it down because of environmental contamination. The question of whether there is life on Mars is still open, and once you have a group setting up a settlement, the planet is potentially contaminated forever with Earth bacteria, which might even kill off native bacteria, if any.

My question is, are you concerned with the contamination question and do you think you might be prevented from going if scientists get the right politicians to listen? You sort-of have a FAQ question about this ("Will the mission be harmful to Mars' environment?"), but you don't really answer it.

Re:Environmental Questions

[spire3661]

Ive thought about that a lot. Its a valid concern, but not enough to stop us from going. Who is to say we arent to be the seeders of the Cosmos?

Re:Environmental Questions

[GameboyRMH]

Mars looks pretty dead. No earth life will survive on the surface. If there is any life, it's eluded us so far. At this point I say go for it and if you happen to find dead alien bacteria in the mars buggy's oil spot consider it a plus. I almost think it's fair game for terraforming at this point, place is DEAD.

Re:Environmental Questions

[Reality Master 101]

For what it's worth, I agree with you. I highly doubt there is life on Mars, but our opinion doesn't matter to the big picture that there are a lot of people who believe there might be. And really, we're just guessing. The point is that once we have contamination, it might kill off something that was there.

Re:Environmental Questions

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is life more than likely the local bio organisms would infect and kill the earthlings (of all kinds) since they are better adapted to the environment

Re:Environmental Questions

[Sperbels]

The question of whether there is life on Mars is still open, and once you have a group setting up a settlement, the planet is potentially contaminated forever with Earth bacteria, which might even kill off native bacteria, if any.

A ridiculous argument if you ask me. Any place the least bit hospitable to man could potentially harbor life. The more suitable to humans, the more likely there "could" be life. If there is life, it's most likely far under the surface and probably won't be found until well after humans have been there a while. Let's face it, the search for life of Mars is just an excuse to keep sending probes up there. It's probably not there. The small chance that it is there is no reason to stop colonization.

Re:Environmental Questions

[Agent0013]

Why wouldn't the planet be contaminated from the rovers and probes we have already sent? Do you think we have been 100% perfect in our sterilization process?

Re:Environmental Questions

[Reality Master 101]

Of course our sterilization wasn't perfect, but at least we did it, and there wasn't an easy way for them to grow and spread into the environmental soil. That's a far cry from putting dirty humans there along with hydroponics with literally quadrillions of bacteria actively growing, not to mention the living space located within the ground and tapping the native water supplies.

Like I said in another post, I highly doubt there is native life there. But doubt is not the same as proven, and the fact is that contamination from a colony is a real possibility. The point isn't really about the factual question of life or no life, the question is whether there are sufficient scientists who believe it's likely enough to be an issue, and then it becomes a political issue.

Re:Environmental Questions

[Foogle]

Native bacteria? Ooookay.

Re:Environmental Questions

[Reality Master 101]

Don't know why you're putting the scare-italics on bacteria. I probably should have said microorganisms to be as general as possible, but are you thinking bacteria requires oxygen? Anaerobic bacteria evolved on Earth, so I would think it could possibly evolve on Mars (assuming there isn't trapped oxygen in the soil, for whatever reason).

Re:Environmental Questions

[Anonymous Coward]

Why on earth would you care about contaminating Mars? Seriously.

Re:Environmental Questions

[Skal Tura]

Are you saying, we humans, shouldn't have colonized even this planet fully?
Sounds like you are.

Re:Environmental Questions

[angel'o'sphere]

This is incorrect. It is proven since the 1970s that earth live can survive on Mars. E.g. lichen.

Internet access

[stud9920]

Why would you live with a ping time measured in minutes until you die, however short after arriving ?

Also, they don't have peanut butter and meat croquettes on Mars, so how do you plan to survive ?

Are you taking Snooki?

[tekrat]

First of all, I'll contribute to any project that gets reality TV stars off the planet, and then kills them.

My question is: Which reality stars are you shooting into space? Snooki? Kim Kardashian?

Or is it going to be a series like "Survivor", where 7 start out, and eventually at least 4 are voted out the airlock during the trip there? We all know reality TV is fake though, so is this really 'Capricorn One'?

Re:Are you taking Snooki?

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the idea! Can we have a cliché plot, like the computer going mad and killing them one by one?

Re:Are you taking Snooki?

[Jason Levine]

Best part: If ratings are low, you can just kill the stars... I mean the series.

Re:Are you taking Snooki?

[Anonymous Coward]

One third of earth gravity + Kim Kardashian ? That has potential.

Re:Are you taking Snooki?

[Anonymous Coward]

Capricorn One - The Next Generation

legendary

[Anonymous Coward]

whoever steps foot on a planet other than earth or moon like it or not will be legendary for quite some time to come. that is not going to be an opportunity that is going to come around frequently for anyone.

Re:legendary

[spire3661]

Only fools and Achilles worry about their name resounding through history.

Re:legendary

[Anonymous Coward]

Worked for Achilles. Just sayin'.

Can I Apply?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm really interested in doing this. What sort of people are you looking for? I may be starting Medicine at university next year. Does this put me at an advantage?

Re:Can I Apply?

[TheCycoONE]

Again with the FAQ, they are looking for anyone of any nationality over 25 in good physical health, particularly people with niche and useful skill sets like doctors and engineers. All that said they are going to have the public vote on who actually goes, which means you also have to be good looking and have a quirky personality.

Enjoy the journey.

Re:Can I Apply?

[GameboyRMH]

I think all the world's nerds could vote at least one nerd onto the crew. Although it would be horrible to live the rest of your life among typical reality TV drama queens.

I'll bet you

[Anonymous Coward]

$10000 that you don't see this project through to the end.
I'll even give you an extra 10 years.

Re:I'll bet you

[dev.null.matt]

Ohai, Mit. Shouldn't you be working on your campaign?

Suicide options?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will the astronauts be supplied with the means to end their lives if they find themselves facing hopeless circumstances (e.g., slow life-support failure, debilitating depression)?

Re:Suicide options?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will the astronauts be supplied with the means to end their lives if they find themselves facing hopeless circumstances (e.g., slow life-support failure, debilitating depression)?

Yes: open the airlock.

Re:I have a list of people I'd love to send to Mar

[MyLongNickName]

The extra fuel for the two of them would be prohibitive.

Re:I have a list of people I'd love to send to Mar

[Anonymous Coward]

Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump - together! Now that's reality TV.

April Fools..

[Anonymous Coward]

By April 1, 2023 some space agency will actually have put a man on mars and this won't be so funny.

Can I Apply?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm really interested in doing this. I may be doing Medicine at university next year. Will this put me at an advantage?

Selection criteria

[RDW]

Will you be using the same selection criteria as this previous space-related 'media spectacle'?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Cadets_(TV_series)#Audition_process

Not Impressed

[mfh]

I was not at all impressed with this guy. He has no real plan other than sending people to die while getting the footage of it because he's a greed-monster. This mission might even set back human space exploration by causing generations of people to fear space.

Re:Not Impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

If that were true then we would fear war, drinking and driving, texting while driving, etc. But we keep doing things that kill us and others.

Re:Not Impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

So we should just accept Idiocracy as the only end result and just embrace the electrolytes!!!! :)

Put your lives where your mouths are

[Lanfranc]

I just have one very simple question: I understand that Mars One intend to send four people at a time to Mars. I also note that the Mars One team currently consists of four people. So are you and your three business partners willing to be the first group to go, and if not, why not?

Re:Put your lives where your mouths are

[Anonymous Coward]

What??

People design and build all sorts of things only for OTHER people to use, not themselves. People parachute out of aircraft - bet you most of the people who build that aircraft and that parachute never want to do that. They build the stuff for other people to use, not for themselves.

Just because the members of this team might not want a one way trip to mars, it doesn't say anything about what other people might want. With 7 billion people in the world, there will be plenty of people who'd LOVE the chance to do something like this.

Re:Put your lives where your mouths are

[plover]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The parachute was first tested by its inventor because he wanted to use it. Montgolfier flew his own balloon. Did the Wright brothers hire a test pilot? And of the engineers at NASA who built the manned rockets, do you believe there wasn't a man or woman among them who wouldn't have jumped at the chance to fly in them?

Don't paste your cowardice badge on other people.

Re:Put your lives where your mouths are

[Anonymous Coward]

Beeeeecause they don't want to? How in the world did you get modded insightful?!?

That's like if I happened to come up with an awesome idea for a video game or something. Are you going to be all "Oh, well are you going to be the one to program it?" No... I'm not a programmer.

Or if I somehow come up with the cure for aids, will you so smugly ask "Are you going to be the first one to test it?" No... I don't have aids. If I DID have aids, yes, I'd be the first to test it. Just like with these business partners, if they WANTED to go, I'm sure they'd be the first to get on board.

But they're idea people. They don't want to go, but they have an awesome idea.

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF ASKING OTHER PEOPLE IF THEY WANT TO GO! Otherwise they wouldn't have bothered.

Idiot.

Depends

[Anonymous Coward]

Depending on the supplies & equipment they'd be willing to send with me I'd go. If it's just a couple years worth of food and a 8' (interior space) diameter capsule then the answer would be no. If it was a 8' capsule, a small inflatable greenhouse, seeds, building equipment, space suit (and repair equipment), construction gear & free communications (internet & telephone) to earth for life then I'd do it in a heartbeat. Just going there to sit around waiting to die would not be worth it, going to try to build the first (small) self sustaining colony would be.

Re:Depends

[slippyblade]

Yes. This.

Full agreement.

My wife and I have already discussed something like this and would be willing to do it once the kids move out. Hell, the kids want to try it as well!

ask mr heinlein

[ImSoConfused]

not true. your offspring might make it back. groke it ?

Re:ask mr heinlein

[spire3661]

ahem..... 'grok'

ascii filter

space psychosis not a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of people are worried about these astronaughts going insane from the thought of never again seeing fresh air, interesting people, their family, their hometown, etc. But really, if they are going to save money by not packing fuel for a return trip, why not save more by not including landing gear, or more than enough food to get them to Mars and a few weeks of orbit? I can see this being interesting television during the launch, and during the first few orbits around Mars, and maybe the 6 months journey there, but other than that, not so much.

Actually, the last few days, where they are starving to death and cannabilizing each other, that I might watch.

Shipwrecking rather than Emigration

[fantomas]

"Emigration" supposes the potential for returning: previous emigrants have always known that they have the possibility to walk back to their place of departure, or pay for passage on a ship going back home. They have the capacity to achieve a return if they really want to do this. Mars One strikes me as more similar to a shipwreck, where participants know they do not have the ability to return home even if they want to. How will you manage their psychological well being?

Also, what resources do you have in reserve to keep providing your participants with resources from Earth if their own resources fail and they are completely dependent on Earth supplies? How long can you supply them for? Can you provide support for up to 50 years / their natural lifetimes?

Re:Shipwrecking rather than Emigration

[Jason Levine]

And can they keep sending supplies even if their reality TV show is canceled? Or will the show's cancellation mean cutting all communication with Mars One?

Re:Shipwrecking rather than Emigration

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, what are you on? Many of the first settlers (and I'm not talking about the Oregon trail where they know there's people on the other side) had no idea where they were going. Many of the first ships to cross the ocean had no idea if there WOULD be land on the other side... they were hoping they'd make it entirely around the earth and end up where they started. But they had no actual knowledge that this would happen.

With some of those early ventures, they went in blind, crossing their fingers that it'd turn out. I can't recall the specific expeditions, but some of them used the lumber from the ships to build shelters, thus literally disassembling their means of return.

The Moon

[Githaron]

Why don't we focus on colonizing a easier target before we start colonizing Mars. Baby steps.

Re:The Moon

[ceoyoyo]

My question also. The moon would be a potentially more useful target: large telescopes could be set up in vacuum, manufactured and mined products could potentially be returned to Earth or near Earth space projects, and the trip wouldn't necessarily be one way. Sending people one way to Mars seems to be of little practical value.

Re:The Moon

[spire3661]

A moon based telescope would be a downgrade from what we have now and what we have coming up next.

Re:The Moon

[Githaron]

What about the technologies we would develop to make a moon base? We could use many of the same technologies that we would use on a moon base in Mars. Also, what about making moon based mining, refinery, and manufacturing facilities. It is easier to fly off the moon than it is to fly off Earth or Mars. Mars should be the eventual target but the Moon should be the testbed.

Re:The Moon

[pscottdv]

Like really, really, really BIG baby steps.

Re:The Moon

[Anonymous Coward]

Because mars completely lacks atmosphere, its a hard vaccuum. You WILL die of radiation poisoning before long. Mars, still pretty likely, but further from son, and it has an atmosphere (though only 1% as thick as earth, it does at least exist).

Re:The Moon

[ceoyoyo]

A moon based optical telescope combines the ease of construction of a ground based telescope (your mirror doesn't have to fold up into a rocket) with the no air to look through advantages of a space based telescope. A moon based radio telescope can be sheltered from the Earth's interference by the bulk of the moon.

Really, your statement doesn't really make any sense.

Re:The Moon

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't build up any atmosphere on Moon, whereas Mars is a bit better about that because of higher gravity.

Re:The Moon

[angel'o'sphere]

Fuel, air (oxygen) and water can be mande much easier on Mars. However likely there is water in some moon craters, then that issue is not so different.

Radiation

[zrbyte]

On the surface of Mars, which lacks a magnetic field (such as that of Earth) and a thick atmosphere, the inhabitants would have to endure much higher levels of ionizing radiation in comparison to the background radiation on Earth. How are you going to shield the people on the surface? Or will this kind of danger be just another part of the risks that the "astronauts" take, like burning up on entry in the atmosphere? How much fun will it be to watch cancer patients die on Mars?

Re:Radiation

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of science has been don e on this and the soil of Mars can easily be dug into, and sprayed with a fixative so that underground rooms can be built. It only requires a few metres of Mars soil to shield people from most of the radiation. So the solution would be to live mostly underground. .. and the trip to Mars could be shielded from most radiation by bringing water with you, stored as an outside layer of the craft itself to absorb solar radiation.

Robert Zubrin's The Case For Mars goes into radiation protection quite in-depth.

Re:Radiation

[Dr. Spork]

This is in the FAQ, almost exactly like you asked it.

Re:Radiation

[pjt33]

I saw the instruction in the summary to read the FAQ before asking questions, so I had a look at it. (I know, I shouldn't RTFS, but occasionally I make an exception).

As a result of looking at the FAQ, the big questions I have are "Why oh why have you split the FAQ into one page per question? Is the ability to get an extra ad hit or two (at least, I presume there are ads on the page) worth more than having people actually read the thing?"

Re:Radiation

[Khashishi]

Simple solution. Send people who already have cancer.

Re:Radiation

[Anonymous Coward]

On the surface of Mars, which lacks a magnetic field (such as that of Earth) and a thick atmosphere, the inhabitants would have to endure much higher levels of ionizing radiation in comparison to the background radiation on Earth. How are you going to shield the people on the surface? Or will this kind of danger be just another part of the risks that the "astronauts" take, like burning up on entry in the atmosphere? How much fun will it be to watch cancer patients die on Mars?

Read the FAQ, they talk about this.

14 mins to load a web page...

[Anonymous Coward]

... think about it. That alone would kill me.

Re:14 mins to load a web page...

[plover]

... think about it. That alone would kill me.

No more first posts! That DQ's just about everyone on /.

Red Mars

[ravenscar]

Seems like I've already read a hypothetical account of this in Kim Stanley Robinson's 'Red Mars'. That trip to Mars involved more than 4 people and included many of the items necessary for the infancy of a new society, but one can still draw some parallels. I have a feeling, however, that the real life story proposed above would grow rather macabre toward the end.

Rather than watch real people in a downward spiral I'd suggest that people read Red Mars and use their imagination. A manned mission can be sent when there is some hope of long term survival or an eventual return.

Re:Red Mars

[arthurpaliden]

Are you kidding the more macabre it gets the higher the ratings will be. Toward the end it will be the most watched program on TV ever. They are going to make millions if not billions in advertizing.

Re:Red Mars

[ravenscar]

No disagreement here. I'm simply suggesting what I think would be the preferable alternative. TV ratings and advertising dollars don't carry a high weight in my determination of what is preferable. Clearly I'm not cut of the right cloth for the media industry.

Funding sources

[Katatsumuri]

Are you considering a mix of different funding sources, like Kickstarter, private donations / investors, government / corporate sponsorship? TV show alone may not be sufficient. Maybe accept free hardware / volunteer labor / services like rocket launches as donations, too?

On a related note, are you going to start the selection and training as soon as you have enough money for that first step? Or do you think it only makes sense if you have secured the funding for the actual trip? I personally think once this starts rolling, it will be easier to attract more funding.

Truman Show

[goombah99]

Could this be a reality show where the inhabitants could vote another player off the capsule as resources dwindle? Also why not just fake this like the moon landings if it's all about the media?

Re:Truman Show

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that would be entertaining reality TV. Forget Survivor, the biggest loser, etc. I want to watch someone colonize Mars, for real! Yeah except instead of the inhabitants voting, they could have the viewers voting. It would be interesting. Very interesting! And the REAL part of it would be way ahead of any other reality tv show.

Nominations

[cadeon]

Can we, by popular vote, chose who needs to be sent to another planet? I have a few ideas...

Re:Nominations

[Megane]

Is it still too late to name this "The B Ark"?

Not suicide. think colonist

[DrYak]

They are not sent there to commit suicide upon arrival.
They are colonist.

They are sent there to live there until :
- a future mission brings them more company, from which point onward the colony will increase
- they can manage to produce fuel on mars it self, or
- technology advance to the point where it becomes feasible to bring back some of the early colonist who got bored of the mission
- they die of natural cause
Probably in this order.

Only its less similar to new world colonist (who moved in big groups to build towns in a place where human life was already possible and happening) but more similar to polar scientific bases (move into a rather harsh world. Although this time, they don't merely wait 1 year until the weather is good enough again to have a plane bring them back, but several years until fuel is produced or technology advances enough for a return mission. Probably also still relying on some supply to be regularily sent in. Once colonist are there, Mars missions, in addition to sending robots and scientific experiments, could also send small supplies for stuff which can't be made there).

Re:Not suicide. think colonist

[GameboyRMH]

They are sent there to live there until :
- a future mission brings them more company, from which point onward the colony will increase
- they can manage to produce fuel on mars it self, or
- technology advance to the point where it becomes feasible to bring back some of the early colonist who got bored of the mission
- They die due to an accident leading to a medical problem or lack of resources
- they die of natural cause
Probably in this order.

FTFY

Resupply Drop Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

How accurate will the resupply and next batch of explorers drop to the original crew?

I would volunteer for this in a heartbeat!

[vw_bob]

My wife and kids might have something to say about it, but I swear, if I had any realistic chance of doing this, I would do my utmost to find a way! Death or not, to travel to another world? To travel in space? To set foot on mars? To see what no person has ever seen before? To experience a different gravity.

And hell, I don't mind making a fool of my self in public, so a reality show would be fine too!

Where do I sign up?

Re:I would volunteer for this in a heartbeat!

[slippyblade]

My wife wants to volunteer with me. =) I'm right there in line with you.

Willing but able?

[HarryatRock]

In spite of all of the posts implying that any volunteers must be "insane", I would be quite willing to go, for the reasons below. The important thing is that they are reasons, i.e. I am sane and have thought about them logically.
I am unlikely to live more than 5 to 10 years more even if I stay on earth, in fact reduced gravity might give me longer.
I have a good knowledge of science and engineering and a practical turn of mind that could let me make a real contribution to the project. I, like most humans, would like to have a chance to "make a mark" and leave a lasting memory, so what better than "third man on Mars"?
I have had a good life, and worked on some interesting projects, but other than /. all I can do now is "play". I help a few local organisations with IT related tech, but I would love to do "meaningful" work again. Don't tell me about Open Source projects, unless of course you are a planning an SST :), I am just not interested enough in the content of projects I've seen. A Mars colony, now that has to be a good gig.
Now for the bad news. I probably would not be acceptable as a candidate because of my health problems. I have limited mobility and have already received a "life time doze" in radiation therapy, I do not rely on drugs, but I have a restricted diet which might cause problems in supply and/or production.
I am probably too old, and although I see this as "having good experience with limited technology", some might see me as "past it".
And finally the game stopper. I don't think I would make interesting TV. I am not "handsome" (downright ugly is closer), I am straight, but the fires burn very low (it's true, I'm old :( ), so no romantic lead for me. I get along with most people (guess we wouldn't be likely to have a young earther along), so probably no exciting arguments, I am British and white , so no points for ethnic origin. And I have no dependents, so no back story, no family problems to pull the heart strings.
All in all then I guess I'm not going to get the trip, and the real sad thing is that I have a feeling that many if not most of those who would go and would have sane reasons for doing so, fall into the same category. Catch 23?

Re:Willing but able?

[coinreturn]

In spite of all of the posts implying that any volunteers must be "insane", I would be quite willing to go, for the reasons below. The important thing is that they are reasons, i.e. I am sane and have thought about them logically. I am unlikely to live more than 5 to 10 years more even if I stay on earth, in fact reduced gravity might give me longer.

If you RTFA, you'll see that the launch of people isn't for 10 years.

Re:Willing but able?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are only likely to live 5-10 more years, what are the chances you think you can survive a 9G acceleration to leave earth?

Re:Willing but able?

[Anonymous Coward]

That was nice to read, thanks. You're a good man to want to go.

For the record, I am 24, an engineer with a practical bent of mind and a well-paying gig, with a family and in good health. I would go in a heartbeat, even if it meant dying before I was 27.

Re:Willing but able?

[DerekLyons]

I have a good knowledge of science and engineering and a practical turn of mind that could let me make a real contribution to the project.

That's where most, if not all, of the volunteers here on Slashdot get it wrong. They don't need scientists and engineers - they need mechanics and technicians. They don't need retirees with only a 'few good years left', they need twenty and thirty somethings that not only have the endurance and strength to remain in condition all the way to Mars - but also to be able to put in a fulls days worth of once they get there.
 
This isn't going to be colonization like you see on Star Trek where everyone spends their days staring at screens and nights hanging about their luxurious quarters. It's going to be work, and a fair amount of it physical and technical.

Re:Willing but able?

[Tharsis]

You have a very good point and I'm sorry for you that you will not be able to join, but I think you misunderstand their goal. Their goal is to actually send a small group of people that can work in harmony and succeed in getting and living there. In that view I think their selection criteria would not be based on possibilities of romance, how people look, and ethnicities. Unlike other reality shows they will strive to reduce disharmony and conflict among the group, that will only lead to failure.
I think the only limitations that would hold them back from selecting you are practical. You can probably not be too picky on your diet overthere, and also any special equipment you might need (eg wheel chair) will be a big problem.

Return fuel

[Megane]

That means dramatically less fuel on board, because unlike typical Mars voyage plans, there would be no need (or ability) to carry the mechanism or the energy storage to return to Earth

Because there's no other way to do a return flight than to return on the same rocket you arrived on.

Pre-Positioning Is The Answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that people think everything for a trip to Mars needs to be carried by a single ship?

Even before a Martian journey is underway, we can easily pre-position an abundance of fuel and supplies by sending unmanned rockets to the planet. When the human crew finally arrives, most of the resources would be in orbit around Mars. Standard docking maneuvers, well tested for several decades already, would provide the mission with everything that it needed for a return trip. Some of the orbiting supply capsules could even be programmed to drop to the surface when needed to maintain the surface habitation.

Going to Mars is a big journey and we need to think big.

Space for growing food?

[Mr. Theorem]

Your FAQ, in the "sustainability" question, states

The first four will also be carrying a device similar to a portable greenhouse, that will allow them to grow their own food.

If we take 2000 calories per day as a baseline human need, that's 730,000 calories per [Earth] year, or about 3 million calories per Earth year per four-person crew, and the total need will grow by 3 million calories per Earth year every two years as more missions arrive. The diet would need to be varied, both to guard against catastrophic crop failure and to provide an appropriate spectrum of nutrients, and a reasonable estimate (e.g. based on a combination of corn, beans, and squash) suggests that 1 acre on Earth can provide such 3 million calories. But Mars gets, on average, only about 44% of the insolation as Earth does, so the first-order estimate suggests you'd need about 2.3 acres per mission-load of astronauts to grow a subsistence diet. This presumes that radiation won't negatively impact the crops, that the yield throughout the Mars growing season scales comparable to the Earth's, that your soil is comparable to Earth's, and many more things. You'll also need enough additional carbon and water to make the non-edible parts of the plants and soil, and you'll need to make sure there exists a suitable microbial community to decompose crop waste and turn it back into a useable food-growing medium (i.e. compost).

I don't see in your concept drawing anything that approaches the size of land that would be needed to come anywhere close to such sustainable food production. Do you even have a back-of-the-envelope plan for sustainable food production, or is the bulk of the astronauts' calories going to need to come in perpetuity from the Earth?

Re:Space for growing food?

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that:

* 2000 Kcal is based on a reasonably active lifestyle. Martian colonists could use more or less on a given day, depending on what they're doing (current pressure suits require lots of work to do anything in, but any day they don't go outside is probably a day they spend most of sitting down) -- I'd expect lower, but I suppose outside activities will be more glamorous for TV, so maybe it's correct...

* A Martian greenhouse, using current plants, has to be pressurized anywhere from 0.1 to 1 Earth atmospheres (not Mars-pressure, which is a bitch structurally), but would most likely have much more CO2 (or rather, compressed atmosphere), and only enough O2 for the plants to get by on. This sort of atmosphere makes plants grow much better.

* A greenhouse properly designed for the local climate means good growing temperatures year-round (though still reduced insolation in winter).

I'm not saying it's easy to feed four, or that there plan does include being largely self-sufficient, but your "question" contains a lot of assumptions and assertions based on them, which are just not valid.

Re:Space for growing food?

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess is they will be using a sort of hydroponic setup. Highest yield, full control of nutrients. Makes the most sense.

Re:Space for growing food?

[bughunter]

Replying to undo a mistaken mod.

This is an excellent question, and is going to be one of the biggest hurdles to maintaining *any* extraterrestrial colony, whether it's in a gravity well or not.

I'd reframe the question as this: what is the crossover point (in terms of weight and fuel expenditure) at which it becomes more efficient for the colony to carry the means to produce its own food rather than simply carry consumable supplies? There will be a lot of factors to include in this tradeoff study including of course mission duration, number of colonists, and available resources (water, O2, soil, etc) at the destination but also a lot of nonlinear and fixed-cost considerations such as the economy of scale, the number of different kinds of "seeds" and "mothers" (not just stock for germination, but starter cultures for soil biome, compost, and any fermented/cultured products like tofu or beer).

And this trade may need to be performed separately for different kinds of dietary and medical staples. For instance, foods like tea or coffee may never be able to be grown on Mars but will be a valuable resource for the colony.

Re:Space for growing food?

[pepty]

so the first-order estimate suggests you'd need about 2.3 acres per mission-load of astronauts to grow a subsistence diet.

How do those calculations work out if the greenhouse is hydroponic or aquaponic rather than soil based? Also, reflectors could allow earth-normal levels of insolation.

Re:Space for growing food?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets see,

Hydroponics,
Aeroponics
Aquaponics (aka hydroponic fish )

Any of these would provide more calorie density per growing area, eliminate the need to "fix the soil", and would require significantly less water than trying to dirt farm on mars. Agriculture technology has advanced too you know.

If they get really crazy they can grow some beef, Shmeat

Why not the cast of Jersey Shore?

[Provocateur]

They get a chance to redeem themselves this way, despite their most vehement objections. We will send these, some of our best(looking) specimen and speciwomen, to represent us, expendable they may be. For all knowledge, for all mankind.

And lo,

[virgnarus]

a new Australia is born.

point of no return

[Mr. Theorem]

How is it possible to demonstrate that there are any sort of psychological evaluations that can determine if a potential Mars astronaut is actually ready for this sort of mission? This mission promises to set up a sustainable and growing community, but for an individual astronaut, there is also going to be a complete and final separation from damn-near everyone they know, and everything they've known, and all the millions of things anyone has come to take for granted after living on Earth for at least 25 years. So there is a sense in which this is comparable to a suicide mission, because of the separation. We also know from survivors of suicide attempts that if there is time for contemplation after the point of no return, there is nearly universally regret of the attempt. Those who jump off a bridge, and survive, nearly universally report that mid-air they had immediate regrets of jumping. How can it be possible to ensure that, once the astronauts are past the point of no return in the mission, there won't be a similar feeling of regret?

How about crime?

[chord.wav]

How will you prevent the colonizers from killing each other until only one remains and becomes the ultimate psycho-killer?

False analogies

[JDG1980]

Every time manned space exploration is discussed on Slashdot, we usually see false analogies to the Age of Exploration on Earth. These analogies are false because they fail to account for the vast, vast difference between traveling to a foreign (but inhabitable and, in fact, already inhabited) continent on Earth, and traveling to a hostile desert in outer space.

Christopher Columbus made not one trip to the New World, but four. It wasn't a one-way journey and he didn't die there; he died back in Spain, a successful and wealthy man. People who went to the New World didn't do it for shits and giggles; they did it because they calculated they could be more successful there, because they thought they would be freer in America than in Europe, or in some cases because they were expelled there as convicted criminals (this latter instance was even more common with Australia). And for the most part these were rational beliefs; America had a lot of good land available, while in Europe it was mostly in the hands of a few wealthy aristocrats. (And in an agrarian society where most of the population consisted of farmers, this was a big deal.) There were plenty of natural resources in America, and once the first communities got settled, people could have a decent life there for themselves and their children. It was far enough from Europe that the European countries couldn't meddle too deeply into local affairs, but near enough that there could be an import/export trade, communication, and a return to the homeland if need be.

The same was true of America's Western frontier expansion - yes, there was an ideological element (Manifest Destiny) but the average pioneer did so because they thought they could better make their fortune out West, either by homesteading land or by prospecting for valuable minerals. And again, the land was livable and the native people had in fact been living there for thousands of years already.

None of this applies to a mission to Mars. There is literally nothing for us out there. It's a vast desert worse than any on Earth - at least in the Sahara you can breathe. How could anyone plausibly think that going to Mars would mean greater material prosperity, or more actual freedom? (Yes, there are no governments on Mars, but remember you'll be relying on supply ships from Earth, and if they don't like what you're doing up there, you can easily be cut off.)

This absurd proposal has more in common with Jonestown than with Jamestown.

Re:False analogies

[spire3661]

His first trip was almost a one way journey and it would have been if the Americas didnt happen to be there. If the Americas didnt exist, Columbus would have died somewhere around where St. Louis is, trying to reach India.

Re:False analogies

[bughunter]

Agreed. The "final frontier" is unlike anything else we've ever faced, and the analogies to anything that we have already faced quickly break down.

The nearest analog of such a mission is to the kind of terrestrial expeditions that early Antarctic explorers made. Pain, suffering and unpleasantness were multiple and continuous, many horrors were faced and not a few forgotten, and the only thing that kept the survivors going was sheer stubbornness and obsession.

And it still doesn't hold a candle to what we will face when we try to colonize the Solar System.

And you know what? Despite all that, people will try.

And I will think no less of them for trying.

Re:False analogies

[YttriumOxide]

How could anyone plausibly think that going to Mars would mean greater material prosperity, or more actual freedom?

Or maybe those who would go value things other than material prosperity and freedom?

I myself would've gone had you asked me before I became a father. Now there's someone depending on me to be around and help her our for the next 20 years or so (and probably to a lesser extent for the rest of my life), it's no longer an attractive proposition.

My reasons for going would be that like everyone, I will die one day - whether it be here on Earth in 40 years or there on Mars in 12 (given I leave 10 years from now). In the span of time from my birth to the end of human civilisation, my life itself is pretty darn short. Therefore to be remembered for a significantly longer period through doing something as awesome as landing on Mars (even if it turned out to be practically worthless to do so) would be worth it.

Like I said though, I have a daughter now, so there's other priorities.

Re:False analogies

[bdabautcb]

How do you explain the quest for a northwest passage, then?

I'd go.

[Fzz]

I'm in my mid 40s, already got kids, am reasonably fit, have a scientific background, and I've probably got the right sort of technical skills for such a trip. I'm half-way through a pretty successful academic career at this point in my life. In 15 years time (when such a trip might be feasible), I'll be 60. My kids will have left home, and I'll be looking forward to retirement.

Trouble is I'm not the sort of person to settle down and play golf. If, instead of retiring, I could do something really amazing with the last few years of my (productive) life, I'd jump at the opportunity. Assuming I'm still fit enough, I'd jump at the chance to go to Mars on a one-way trip. Likely it would shorten my life significantly. But I'll have already lived most of it anyway - what a way to go out!

The tough part wouldn't be missing Earth, or spending 6 months in a large can, but missing my family. Video conferencing isn't the same, especially with the time lag. But even so, I reckon I'd still go, if they gave their blessing. I think they'd probably understand, even if they weren't happy about it. Some things are just worth devoting the rest of your life to, even if it turns out to be short.

Re:I'd go.

[GodInHell]

The really tough thing would be watching us Nuke each other from 2 years away and realizing no more food and water was going to follow. So sayeth the Mars Chronicles :D.

Re:I'd go.

[KiloByte]

34, no wife, no kids, count me in. Too bad, software engineer is one of least needed backgrounds for this kind of a trip.

Seriously, if you don't have any commitments, and wouldn't want to go, what the hell are you doing on Slashdot?

Re:I'd go.

[cc_pirate]

The tough part wouldn't be missing Earth, or spending 6 months in a large can, but missing my family. Video conferencing isn't the same, especially with the time lag. But even so, I reckon I'd still go, if they gave their blessing. I think they'd probably understand, even if they weren't happy about it. Some things are just worth devoting the rest of your life to, even if it turns out to be short.

The thing is, this isn't '6 months in a large can', this is 'the rest of your life in a large can'. I am fairly sure that this mission, if ever constituted as it is documented here, will end in an orgy of violence as at least one of the 'astronauts' goes postal and offs himself and everyone else.

Human beings aren't built to live in a small structure that they can never escape from without dying. Even prisoners in MaxSec prisons get 1hr a day 'outside' to exercise.

  I am fairly sure even 'normal' people will go batshit crazy insane if confined like this for years and years and years.

Re:I'd go.

[networkBoy]

My kids are my only dealbreaker. I am an electronics guy by profession, but a jack of all trades (repairs and bodging is something I really enjoy, as is hydroponics/gardening). I think I would be ideal for this mission except I would not be willing to go.

Part of me honestly lusts after the glory of being one of the first 4 on Mars, but I refuse to leave my kids. It really is that simple.
-nB

Re:I'd go.

[Skal Tura]

Fortunately the colony will be self sufficient quite soon for the most basics! So they can keep rolling their thumbs in agony waiting for message if anyone of us survived, and if we are still able to send them some spare parts for the lifesupport pods.

Re:I'd go.

[Skal Tura]

they can go outside, just in a suit.
Wonder tho what kind of atmospheric dangers there are other than low press and being cold, if just a simple respirator and good clothing would be enough.

Also they plan on building large enough habitat to even have trees quite soon, so that provides some open space to avoid the batshit crazy phenomena.

Re:I'd go.

[Skal Tura]

Further, as shipping alcohol, and initially making it on site, is a no go due to costs involved, i just hope they give them some ganja seeds too (and at the go to see if it grows outside - being a damn resilient plant), for a way to relax etc.
Plus it's a damn good all around medicine.

Those guys will need someways to vent

Re:I'd go.

[nekad]

Even if you're qualified, you certainly should not go on a one-way trip to Mars. I believe the rule of the cowboy should be applied when selecting participants in such a journey. First and foremost, eligible candidates should NOT have living family, especially children and/or a spouse. These types of ties are major problems. Candidates should probably also possess an naval or air force background (like astronauts did in the 1960's) as this type of training prepares one for the type of rigorous mental challenges such a trip is sure to present. A science background would help but I would not think it particularly necessary. Scientific equipment training should satisfactorily compensate for the lack of a science background somewhat (teach them to use the equipment and send the data back here). I honestly hope we're able to explore Mars further using robots before we send a manned mission there. My fear is that men will contaminate Mars before we've (adequately) ruled out the possibility of native life.

Re:I'd go.

[0111 1110]

I may be biased, but I think highly intelligent scientists are a far better bet than military guys who are only good at following orders. I'd still want maybe one or two aeronautics guys however who would be trained to fly the spacecraft. Even if takeoff and landing are fully automated it is always nice to have the possibility of manual control as a backup.

Re:I'd go.

[Thiez]

> i just hope they give them some ganja seeds too (and at the go to see if it grows outside - being a damn resilient plant)

It wouldn't.

Re:I'd go.

[HapSlappy_2222]

Right!? Geez, it's good to hear from another one of the non-existent people who'd have to be batshit insane or suicidal to want to do this. People just don't see the parallel that exploration into the unknown has NEVER been (or included the promise of survival).

Re:I'd go.

[mug funky]

do you have >= 3 kids?

Re:I'd go.

[angel'o'sphere]

Well, the experiments regarding such missions indicate people are quite capable of doing stuff liek this.

Responsibility for public opinion

[Anubis IV]

Challenger and Columbia's disasters led to 32 and 29 month hiatuses in shuttle launches, respectively, and in both cases the general public was not heavily invested in the crews or missions prior to the catastrophes. In contrast, you're talking about a reality show that will doubtless thrive or fail based on how much emotional investment you can produce between the crew and the viewers. As a result, if your show succeeds, it's likely to have a large impact on how people perceive space travel and missions, possibly helping or hurting the industry in a significant manner.

How are you handling your responsibility in shaping public opinion towards space missions? In particular, what steps are you taking to mitigate a negative turn in public opinion should something go wrong?

Re:Responsibility for public opinion

[spire3661]

Challenger and Columbia were GOVERNMENT run programs, funded with taxpayer money, this is a private venture. Public opinion is FAR Less influential on this then the cluster fuck of the NASA-Congress relationship. Vast sea of difference.

Re:Responsibility for public opinion

[Anubis IV]

I won't deny that there's a vast difference, but if there's a prominent disaster here it may scare people away from an industry that will hopefully be blossoming around that time. And unlike NASA, which is government funded, private corporations need to solicit money from people and corporations, who do have a tendency to vote with their pocketbooks.

Re:The Sickness of Western Society

[Jason Levine]

The solution is clear. We take the bankers, seize their assets, and send them to Mars. Use the seized assets to shore up Greece's economy and use ad revenue from the Bankers on Mars reality show to finance the sequel: Politicians on Pluto.

How to sustain interest (and funding)?

[Attila the Bun]

People get bored easily: even NASA's Apollo programme had trouble sustaining public interest after the first few missions. And yet you will be far more dependent on audiences than Apollo ever was. What do you expect the Mars colonists' lifespans to be, and how will you maintain funding for that length of time?

How to guarantee the participant's cooperation ?

[zzyzyx]

The project relies on reality TV for funding, but once the participants are there, or maybe after a few years when the station is complete, they can decide to stop the video stream and there's very little you can do about it. How do you prepare for such a risk?

Re:The Sickness of Western Society

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the worst "Get some PRIORITIES!" troll ever on Slashdot.

Escape plan?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is your exit strategy when this ridiculous venture fails to meet its funding goals?

Kickstarter

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't they just create a Kickstarter account for this?

What is the expected lifestyle?

[Reeses]

I've been a space nerd since I was a little kid. I remember watching the space shuttle going up when I was in elementary school. I remember being glad that I stopped growing at 5'8" because it meant I could fit in the shuttle cockpit without issue. But, alas, space was not meant to be in my youth. This idea intrigues me, and I have some questions.

Will there be an age limit? Say I get to 65, and decide to give my remaining living years (which could be as many as 30), to helping this project succeed, would I be able to do so? What would be the physical requirements?

Will there be projects for the Mars inhabitants to do to grow the colony (methods of creating some sort of atmosphere in a controlled space, growing crops, etc.)?

How often do you plan on refreshing the project with supplies, and more importantly will you be sending the supplies first? Will you send a housing unit beforehand? How long can one survive off of the supplies?

Will the transport module be something that can be scavenged and repurposed? Will the launch vehicle be designed to be reused as housing on Mars easily?

Will any medium equipment be sent so the creation of Martian cement/bricks can commence immediately upon landing? Mainly, a cement mixer and a laser to melt water from the poles? Will you be sending a shipment of tools, piping and other construction materials beforehand?

If I were to go at the age of 65, will there be any sort of designated funeral area that will memorialize me as a starter colonist to future generations of Mars inhabitants?

Or is this trip really just a ruse to send a bunch of DNA and organic material to a new planet in the hopes that as we die, our bodies will decompose and start terraforming the planet the slow way?

-RT

Why not a phased approach?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not use robots first to build a much more habitable environment? After 20 years of robotic missions, then send humans. It seems to me that this could reduce the psychological risks associated with the project.

Endorsement, "ambassadors"

[Katatsumuri]

Can you do something to recruit Elon Musk and Peter Diamandis as "ambassadors", as you call them, even if temporarily? They could do wonders to establish your credibility and popularity. And it's in their best interest to promote bold efforts like this, which can bring space industry to the new level. Teamed up together, you can gain much more publicity than each project on its own. And publicity helps to attract funding and influence the political choices.

Will the producer mess with them?

[trout007]

I wonder if the producers of the show will screw with the people like say the supply ship isn't coming when it is? Or do other things since the producers will be their only line of communication?

Re:Will the producer mess with them?

[Skal Tura]

producers won't be the only people they can communicate with. read the FAQ. They have full unlimited communications and internet access available.

Treatment of deceased colonists

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems wasteful to cremate a deceased colonist, depending on why they died might not some 'recycling' of their bodies be more practical?

What technology still must be developed?

[coldsalmon]

Which components of the mission depend entirely on existing, proven technology, and which components require new technology to be developed?

Will the colony be self-sufficient?

[coldsalmon]

Will the Mars colony depend upon re-supply missions from Earth, or will it be able to sustain itself (and replicate itself) indefinitely? If it is not self-sufficient, which elements must be re-supplied from Earth?

Physiology of breathing doesn't work that way

[Latent Heat]

Even if you breathe out as much as you can, there is still a lot of oxygen in the residual volume of your lungs. Your ability to hold your breath, I am told, is not limited by oxygen but by your ability to toleerate buildup of CO2, which triggers certain reflexes.

Exposed to vacuum, I would think that even your residual lung volume gets vented. A similar thing occurs with asphyxiation with inert gas, say the pure nitrogen atmosphere in the X-15 cockpit outside the pilot's pressure suit. Milton Thompson wrote about how guys would lift their faceplate to scratch their nose, but they held their breath -- breathe in an you are dead. This inert gas asphyxiation danger has taken lives of farmers entering silos, where fermentation displaces the oxygen.

That is also why they train pilots in altitude chambers to give them some measure of the symptoms of oxygen starvation and how to react. Exposure to low pressure is not like retaining your residual lung volume, although the first instinct would be to think otherwise.

I am also told that Project Mercury had a fatal accident in a ground test of a pure nitrogen atmosphere, hence the switch to pure oxygen in the cabin, which in turn created the risk for the Apollo fire.

Now with regard to the passing of consciousness and then life, Stephen Jay Gould wrote about how Lavoisier, if I have this right, was condemned to the guillotine during the Terror of the French Revolution for being a stinkin' aristocrat (Gould suggested that Lavoisier was a stinkin' "tax farmer", i.e., a middle class person who set up shop as a tax collector, where under the King, the tax collector would get a percentage of receipts -- kind of like the hated tax collectors in the Bible). Anyway, Lavoisier was curious how long a person could stay conscious/alive after having their head sliced at the neck, and we worked out some kind of eye-blink code for his last seconds of consciousness, for the good of science as they say.

Re:Physiology of breathing doesn't work that way

[fahrbot-bot]

Now with regard to the passing of consciousness and then life, Stephen Jay Gould wrote about how Lavoisier, if I have this right, was condemned to the guillotine during the Terror of the French Revolution for being a stinkin' aristocrat (Gould suggested that Lavoisier was a stinkin' "tax farmer", i.e., a middle class person who set up shop as a tax collector, where under the King, the tax collector would get a percentage of receipts -- kind of like the hated tax collectors in the Bible). Anyway, Lavoisier was curious how long a person could stay conscious/alive after having their head sliced at the neck, and we worked out some kind of eye-blink code for his last seconds of consciousness, for the good of science as they say.

Can we test this on a few Wall Street bankers? You know, in the name of Science... (Blink once for Credit Default Swap...)

Re:Physiology of breathing doesn't work that way

[Joce640k]

Milton Thompson wrote about how guys would lift their faceplate to scratch their nose, but they held their breath -- breathe in an you are dead. This inert gas asphyxiation danger has taken lives of farmers entering silos, where fermentation displaces the oxygen.

You can breathe a couple of lungfuls of nitrogen, no problem. Maybe it's not a good idea but it won't kill you by itself.

The real problem is that your brain has no mechanism to detect when you're breathing stuff with no oxygen in it. The brain only knows about CO2 buildup in the blood, that's what causes the desperation to breathe when you hold your breath. When you breathe pure nitrogen you're still getting rid of the CO2 so the brain assumes everything is normal. You won't have any warning at all before you pass out due to hypoxia.

Re:Physiology of breathing doesn't work that way

[Anonymous Coward]

oxygen displacement is probably one of the most painless ways to die.

Re:Physiology of breathing doesn't work that way

[networkBoy]

Has happened at NASA when the large tanks are purged with N2 and someone goes in.
IIRC there was a double fatality when a co-worker went in to rescue the first.
-nB

Re:Physiology of breathing doesn't work that way

[Raenex]

oxygen displacement is probably one of the most painless ways to die.

I always thought it was silly that it's so hard to execute somebody these days. I did a quick search and found this:

http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2011/02/reconsidering-the-gas-chamber.html

Re:Physiology of breathing doesn't work that way

[tbird81]

Even if you breathe out as much as you can, there is still a lot of oxygen in the residual volume of your lungs. Your ability to hold your breath, I am told, is not limited by oxygen but by your ability to toleerate buildup of CO2, which triggers certain reflexes.

Indeed. If you're keen to do an experiment (or win a breath holding competition) here's what you do.

Firstly, time yourself holding your breath without any real preparation. That's your baseline.

Next you'll try it again after hyperventilating. Before you start, hyperventilating means ventilating MORE than usual. So fast but still deep breaths - as deep as possible and as fast as you can. Do this for a 30 seconds- if you do this well you might feel tingling in your hands and lips - that's the pH of your blood changing as you blow off all the CO2.

Make sure you're not in the house alone before proceeding.

Now, try to hold your breath again. It's eery how long you'll be able to do it for. This is because your body has so much "room" for the CO2 that your body is generating. Unfortunately, you can sometimes do this long enough for your oxygen to become low and even blackout without much warning. So be careful, and don't do this to impress the kids when you're driving the car through a tunnel.

Re:Physiology of breathing doesn't work that way

[Joce640k]

There's actually opposition to nitrogen execution because it's not nasty enough.

People should be afraid of the execution method, ask any Texan.

Mars One plan to obtain the necessary funding

[AnotherBlackHat]

No media spectacle in the history of the Earth has garnered 6 billion dollars.
Why should we believe that your mars landing would?

Re:Mars One plan to obtain the necessary funding

[Anonymous Coward]

No media spectacle in the history of the Earth has garnered 6 billion dollars.

Harry Potter Film series had 7.7 Billion in revenue.

Re:Mars One plan to obtain the necessary funding

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you out of your mind? Everybody in the world is going to watch a Mars landing.

Re:Mars One plan to obtain the necessary funding

[Anonymous Coward]

No media spectacle in the history of the Earth has garnered 6 billion dollars.
Why should we believe that your mars landing would?

Actually, even the follow up Apollo landing missions failed to bring in the ratings, until we nearly lost the crew. Why do they think that a mission to Mars will hold media attention longer than a month? TV watchers are known to be a fickle bunch.

Re:Mars One plan to obtain the necessary funding

[Anonymous Coward]

The Apollo missions recovered ratings when the crew was in danger. Here, they're starting off in danger. "Are they dead yet?!" should do quite nicely for ratings.

Re:Mars One plan to obtain the necessary funding

[Anonymous Coward]

No media spectacle in the history of the Earth has garnered 6 billion dollars.
Why should we believe that your mars landing would?

Because no media spectacle in the history of the Earth has captured the first man landing on Mars yet. And before you talk about Neil, that's 50 years ago, have you noticed how much commercials, television and globalization has changed the world?

should be banned

[SuperDre]

As a dutchie I read about this a few weeks ago, and even then I thought this is a bad Idea and should be stopped by law.. Going one way to mars isn't the thing I have a problem with, but the thing I have a problem with, is the media-spectacle, as I read it they want to make it a 'big brother on mars' and that's really bad..

I hope our politicians are gonna stop this, but knowing our politicians they won't do anything..

the other aspect is, what are they gonna do there? you'll certainly need qualified people, so you'll need a technician, a medic, a biologist, a militair and a real mulit faceted leader..
To me this all sounds like nothing but getting his 15 minutes of fame..

Selecting astronauts idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if it would be helpful to have a pool of astronauts, perhaps the top 100 candidates, all do a bunch of stuff together (party, games, problem-solving exercises, etc.) with the goal of finding out who gets along well together. I mean instead of simply selecting the top four based on popular vote and/or qualifications, you also want them to not drive each other nuts! So basically see which astronauts work well with and form friendships with which other astronauts. Map out friendships and good work partners, complementary and well-combined personalities, etc. Use that information to help guide the selection process so that you have all of the skills you need plus these four get along great, and these four get along great, and these four, etc. Imagine the difference between that and, say, four mismatched personalities that require lots of effort on their parts to hack it in space. I mean put 4 best friends on Mars, not just 4 astronauts.

Re:How to guarantee the participant's cooperation

[SuperDre]

I think it's rather what happens to them if funding is stopped because it's too expensive to send supplies because the show is stopped (it's fun for a few weeks, but after that it becomes boring)..

Question

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Given the need for many acres of land for food production, the practically non-existent atmosphere, the intense amounts of radiation that fall on the surface of Mars, the bleak landscape that makes Antarctica look vibrant, the perchlorate ridden soils, the incredible deep cold Every Night, the diurnal mismatch between human body clock and the rotation of Mars, the lack of fossil fuel or nuclear fuel or readily available oxygen, and then with the lack of food, the certainty of televised cannibalism, and the stupendously tacky addition of a reality TV structure I would like to ask you what made you think that that was even a remotely vaguely good idea, but a more accurate question would be, why are you such a third rate publicity whore?

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd summarize that post in much fewer words: are you seriously considering this?

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

what are you talking about einstine, mass can't equal energy, shut up mr armstrong you'll never suvive in space or on the moon, your crazy coloumbus you are going to fall off the edge of the world. I blame the poorly writen submission, but they are taking most of your consideriations into account. For example continuous one way rockets will bring supplies from earth (although eventually they plan to be self suffcient, that's after an extra 10 years and the other 40 people rock up), they are provided with robots that can build bricks and structures for food and housing. solar power will provide majority of the power for the site (which will be less than on earth because of the increased distance but the thinner atmosphere will help close the gap). water has been found on mars but recycling is more likely same goes for oxygen.

Open source?

[Katatsumuri]

Given the public nature of the project, would you consider making all your software / hardware / construction / other plans open source? It could give you some additional publicity, free input / reviews, and a lot of 'cred' in communities like Slashdot, which seem to be your target audience. And you probably don't have to worry much about someone copying your designs.

Desired skills list

[wierd_w]

What is your desired skills list, and what other outstanding criteria would you consider when selecting participants?

Careful screening of participants to be polymaths with extensive skills in multiple disciplines, including the hard manual labor that will be involved in establishing a martian base camp and collecting water from chemical deposits and rock ice will be of paramount importance if the mission is to be a success. What specific skills do you consider the most important to screen for, and why?

Since you mention that the venture is to be supported via media hype, I should presume that you desire fit and attractive participants as well.

It has been my experience that usually the most useful and practical people for dealing with harsh environments and challenging circumstances are not the aesthetically pleasing variety. How do you intend to rectify this situation?

Why not just resupply missions?

[BlueCoder]

Surely we could provide enough supplies to maintain a dozen people on mars indefinitely. Any missions going into space could have extra payloads and bigger rockets to lift supplies to escape orbit. The supplies could more or less take their time in getting to mars and they could wait in orbit when they get there to be brought down where they were needed. Seed supplies such as technical gear and material to build machine shops and smelters and hydroponic greenhouses. Without a doubt there is metal and raw materials to be found on mars and a couple small fission reactors would be easy enough to assemble and dismantle and moved as needed.

Once there chemicals propellants can be made with the excess energy from the fission reactors. Twenty years later a return rocket might possibly be assembled to take them into orbit and rendezvous with a return vessel. Retirement.

Re:I have a list of people I'd love to send to Mar

[canadiannomad]

The extra fuel for their egos alone would be prohibitive.

FTFY

Bet you don't realize why Kennedy made that choice

[DerekLyons]

I mean, seriously - they claim to have identified "potential suppliers" for equipment... when most of the technologies involved are barely at the "laboratory bench prototype" stage... (And keeping in mind that "things get heavier and more expensive is practically a law of nature in aerospace.)

I know! I mean, when Kennedy had the audacity to say we should send a man to the moon, he already had the Saturn V sitting on the pad at the cape with every system fully developed and tested and ready to go.

No, they didn't. But both the F-1 and J-2 engines were already in development and had been since 1956 (F-1) and 1960 (J-2). The studies that lead to the Saturn family of rockets got underway in 1957, and hardware engineering was underway as early as 1960. Studies for what became Apollo started in 1959, and the contracts for the CSM were awarded in 1961...
 
Kennedy didn't choose the moon landing as a goal in a vacuum. He wanted a project that was both audacious and could be completed withing a reasonable time frame - and of the various things proposed, Apollo had a huge leg up because significant development was already underway.
 
By comparison, most of the requisite technologies for the proposed Mars mission are somewhere around 1952...

Return Trip Plan

[canadiannomad]

For those that haven't heard about Virgin Galactic's Spaceport.... I wouldn't consider a return trip too far off... Such a base might actually start making Richard Branson's baby useful and profitable. http://www.virgingalactic.com/

Marketing

[meta-monkey]

The marketing opportunities cannot be undersold. Imagine.

The Hershey landing module (a big F You to the Mars Chocolate family of brands) breaks off from the Orbitz.com Orbital Station and begins its descent, brought to you by American Airlines, where you're flying ALL the friendly skies. After 20 harrowing minutes of commentary, uninterrupted thanks to a generous grant from Microsoft (well uninterrupted except for two brief blue screens), the lander touches down within sight of the majestic Coors Mountain range on the VISA plains (where they don't take American Express).

The Chevron chevrons unlock, and the capsule door slides open. The first man on Mars, Captain Mike "The Situation" Sorrentino descends the CareerBuilder.com ladder and says those immortal words that will ring throughout history: "That's one.smallstepfor a Nikeone, giant leap, thanks to Five Hour Energy."

I'm tearing up just thinking about. Thank goodness I have a bottle of Clear Eyes handy.

Re:Marketing

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the commercial break.

nominations?

[Anonymous Coward]

it sounds like they plan on creating a reality tv show similar to Survivor or The Bachelor...except, in this case, the winners are sent on a suicide mission.
i nominate the entire cast of jersey shore.

money saved can be used to send other ships

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not send them on a one way trip with enough supplies present to make it livable for lets say 10 years. And keep resending unmanned supply ships to keep them sustained for their natural lives.

Biology

[J05H]

How are you going to deal with potentially hazardous forward- and backward-contamination and the pressure to conform to bioethics principles in the face of "go fever"? Two planets are at stake.

We have barely scratched the surface of Mars and do not know if there is bacteria or larger life there. I ask everyone else that is working on humans-to-Mars this question. Almost everyone that is pro-space has a cowboy attitude about it but the facts are that the first footstep on Mars begins the terraforming process and if Mars has any life that anyone going there is never coming home. "We'll deal with it later" does not work in planetary protection and spoils a lot of the bio-science that can be done virtually on a living Mars.

The MarsOne project will have a lot of "go fever" or pressure to execute because of the funding model. Any human mission to Mars needs to take the time to do the biological research before committing a crew to the surface. Four people dying from something hostile on the surface of Mars makes for a great movie but terrible reality TV.

Also every Mars one-way mission proposed has faced immense negative public pressure because they always are labelled as a suicide mission.

FYI my argument boils down to needing extensive realtime ops from Mars orbit in support of surface development and a need for an orbital forward base. Producing this resource is my long-term plan.

Why no artificial gravity??

[taiwanjohn]

I posted this question to Mars-One, but never got a reply: Why are you NOT using artificial gravity in your mission profile?

Actually this was one of the biggest "red flags" for me regarding this project. Every true Mars geek knows about Zubrin's (et al) proposal to use a tethered booster stage as counterweight in a centrifugal "gravity" scheme. How TF could you be talking about all the "intensive exercise" needed to counter the bone loss of long-term weightlessness? The fact that you don't even address this idea tells me that you haven't done your homework. Therefore, why should I take your project seriously?

Re:Why no artificial gravity??

[Spy Handler]

A 9-month weightless journey is not really that long-term. We already had people in orbit for *years*, they did fairly well after returning to Earth.

Just call it lunar Australia and send the smart

[Joe_Dragon]

Just call it lunar Australia and send the smart criminals there.

All really moot

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Here's the problem. The so-called plan these people have is so utterly, completely, and totally ludicrously unrealistic it is not even funny.

They're planning to spend $6 billion to design something like 10 different spacecraft, which will perform entirely novel missions in a largely unknown hostile environment. Their budget alone is easily 1 and maybe 2 orders of magnitude short of what is required. Their timeline is so utterly naive as to be simply some sort of fantasy.

Yes, I know all about "oh, those government dinosaurs can't do squat blah blah blah..." but the truth is that the public space agencies, when they're given a specific goal that doesn't change constantly and is realistic, work pretty well. It cost well over $100 billion to put a man on the Moon in today's dollars. It cost an equal amount to figure out how to get the ISS up there and run it. Now, albeit you can CERTAINLY do those things more cheaply now, the things that are going to be done in this proposed mission to Mars are vastly different. To just pass off life support on the Martian surface as "Oh, its just like the ISS but easier" for instance is UTTERLY LAUGHABLE!

Just a small few things that instantly spring to mind as likely mission busting issues:

1) How do you land a large payload on Mars? This sounds like a stupid question but actually Mars is VERY HARD TO LAND ON. The reason is you're coming in from a fairly high velocity transfer orbit into a VERY thin atmosphere. This is NOT like landing on the Moon at all where you approach from a rather slow orbital velocity in a low gravity and just touch down with thrusters. Look at the MSL, which in order to get to the surface with a fairly small rover has to resort to a hypersonic parachute followed by a sky crane, a totally untested system that IMHO has maybe a 25% chance of working. How many billions will it cost just to get one of these landers (that are cavalierly passed off as "oh just a minor variant of the Dragon Capsule, ROFLMAO!") onto the surface. You can't do it with just rockets, takes too much fuel on Mars. Can't do it with a parachute, payload is WAY too heavy, etc. There have been MANY engineering studies done on this and it is NOT a solved problem. Just this ALONE could (and probably would) eat up the whole time frame and a large chunk of the proposed $6 billion budget...

2) Someone has actually sailed through interplanetary space? Yeah, probes have gone this way and that, but I'm sorry, nobody has sent a large manned spacecraft 100's of millions of miles through the void to another planet. Just living in orbit for 6 months is a pretty good feat which few people have accomplished, and only at huge cost. Nobody has ever done it without resupply and it is at best a very dicey proposition to operate such a craft autonomously for 7 months. Nor are we really certain what the effects of such a journey would be on the crew. While one could say that "no new technology is required" there is a lot of very serious engineering that IS required, billions of $ worth of it.

3) God only knows what happens to you when you land on Mars. The Moon is one thing, but Mars is far harsher than the Moon. It is covered in caustic and probably toxic dust. The air may be thin, but it is still thick enough to blow dust into every crack and crevice. It will be tracked into your habitat, etc. And what about this water? It is going to be magically just nice and drinkable? Really? We know that? There are 1000's of easy ways to die, and Mars almost certainly holds quite a few secrets in that department.

4) Lets just estimate the chances of success based on how many missions need to be successful for the whole thing to work. LESS THAN HALF of all the spacecraft ever sent to Mars have arrived there intact and functioned AT ALL. Here we're talking about A DOZEN different landers. What's the actual probability that you get enough of them onto the ground intact in the right place? Surely they'll be more reliable than past missions, but there are also surely going to be quite a

Re:All really moot

[BMOC]

So you're saying my chances of even getting into to a life-threatening situation as their primary astronaut are good? Sounds like a gravy train job with built-in health care.

/Your estimates are fine if you're thinking like a NASA project manager. The private sector tends to be more efficient.
//Though I still agree with you they're underbidding their costs.

Re:All really moot

[BMOC]

oops, meant chances are bad.

Re:All really moot

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Yeah, your chances are bad. hehe. There are just a lot of really huge unknowns. The real problem is you spend a lot of money and you then find out you're at a dead end because of whatever, and then you have to backtrack, and then you have to spend MORE money, etc. It all sounds nice and simple when you lay it all out and assume all your assumptions are going to work out. Sadly many of them don't. You can throw $6 billion down a rat hole real fast in aerospace, believe me. I've seen it happen. It sounds like a lot of money, but it really isn't. Their timeline is truly an awesome exercise in naivety as well. Some of the stuff they're talking about is 5-10 years of engineering, and you can't just throw money at it to make it go faster. If they had a 30 or 40 year timeline then they might be starting to get into realistic territory. The idea that the stuff they want to do can be done 'off the shelf' is frankly just total wishful thinking. I don't disagree that the basic means exist, but people grossly underestimate just how hard it is to put this kind of stuff together. Every ounce matters. Every little detail is the difference between life and death. The most trivial thing kills you dead in space every time and you never get second chances. Study Apollo 13 very carefully, you'll see what I mean. That was a 1 in 10,000 miracle.

Re:All really moot

[BMOC]

I would think specifically on their number of space vehicles designed they're making a large mistake. If they pared that down to a single launch vehicle and a single type of interplanetary trip vehicle, I'd say they could do something with $6 billion. They likely would not get more than a single launch, but it would be something.

Also, yes, COTS electronics doesn't work for space, at least not something that is going to last 30 years with no one around to maintain it. It might work for something that's only supposed to last 2-3 years and have people around that might fix/bypass fault elements. I don't know of much else in spacecraft that is generally COTS other than electronics. Isn't basically everything else custom in spacecraft? Certainly the structures are custom, the engines aren't always custom, but when they're not they generally come from established designs. Help me out here on what else on a spacecraft might be off the shelf.

Re:All really moot

[Giant Electronic Bra]

EVERYTHING is custom in spacecraft. Actually when I said "COTS" what I meant was "existing aerospace hardware" vs 100% entirely bespoke design. So for instance say you use a Dragon Capsule and customize it to do X, Y, and Z, that's at least roughly "off the shelf." As for electronics used in space, the chips and whatnot are of course manufactured, but they are all entirely space qualified rad-hardened designs. Boards, software, etc and all the "system level" stuff (which trust me is like 90% of the work) is all entirely custom one-of-a-kind design. One generation of a spacecraft might be based on a design from a previous generation or borrowed from another similar spacecraft to a certain extent. So for instance you might use a fairly standard design of guidance computer in a series of spacecraft and the software running on that computer might be 90% the same on each one. Still, EVERYTHING in aerospace is pretty close to totally hand-made unique custom parts. If you make 10 of a specific series of satellites or launch vehicles etc that's a LONG production run! Every one is made by hand by someone on a bench and there are engineering changes on each and every one.

The JWST cost more than $6 billion and that's an observatory that is meant to sit in space at a Lagrange point and basically do nothing for 10 or 15 years except orient in space on demand and turn a few instruments on and off. Now consider designing a spacecraft that has to carry 4 human beings, move from one planet to another, and (at least part of it) then has to land at the destination. It would be hard to say that said spacecraft is less than 100x more complex than JWST. Clearly it won't have a massive expensive telescope on board, but even without that just simple spacecraft are still QUITE expensive.

$6 billion buys you almost squat. I think that is one thing our Mars Mission friends just don't get. Sure, Thales will give you a wonderful sales pitch about how great their existing products are and oh sure you can buy one for cheap money. Sure, until you decide to do with it something a bit different from what they designed it for. Then the costs go WAY WAY WAY up. Part of the problem is that spacecraft have to be built on a razor's edge. It is really close to impossible to get into space in the first place. There's little or no room in these kinds of designs for generalized excess capability beyond exactly the one specific thing it was designed for, and those designs are so 'tight' in tolerance in all respects that seemingly small changes are actually BIG changes.

This is why you constantly see new designs for manned capsules for instance. Between NASA, ESA, and several defense/aerospace firms there have been EASILY 10 different designs for a manned vehicle in the past 20 years. I don't mean just pretty drawings, I mean stuff that big money was spent on and most of which could definitely have been built. Yet every time there's a new set of requirements they go back to the drawing board and start over. Why? Because by the time you ripple a bunch of modest changes through your razor's edge design it is just cheaper to literally start over with a fresh piece of paper. That's why statements like "well, we'll just use Dragon Capsules, but we'll make them slightly bigger and land them on Mars. That will be cheap, its off the shelf!" are ludicrous. "Slightly Bigger" IS A WHOLE NEW DESIGN, and it is cheaper to just start over in most cases. "Land them on Mars" is a WHOLE DIFFERENT SET OF REQUIREMENTS and no existing hardware, zero, is going to just be pulled off a shelf somewhere and land on Mars with a few tweaks. Sure, SpaceX or Thales or whomever will tell you great tales about how it won't be a big deal, but used car salesmen will tell you how Granny drove that '78 Pontiac once a week to Church and it REALLY has only 30k miles on it too...

Re:All really moot

[BMOC]

As for electronics used in space, the chips and whatnot are of course manufactured, but they are all entirely space qualified rad-hardened designs. Boards, software, etc and all the "system level" stuff (which trust me is like 90% of the work) is all entirely custom one-of-a-kind design.

Believe it or not, that ^^ is not entirely true. I know this from firsthand experience. Yes generally they throw mil-spec'd parts, and most of them are of pristine quality and appropriately spec'd for space. However, their screening processes are generally not great such that electronics suppliers (honestly or dishonestly) manage to sneak in (in some cases) completely unqualified parts, or parts for which there may not be any space-qual specification for. The short answer is, the contractors generally intend on putting only the best, and they will only ever tell you that they use the highest quality screened parts, but lots of things slip by the nets and make it into space that you probably have in your average cell phone. Fortunately these are not always showstoppers, and in many cases the error gets found before launch such that the vehicle users can mitigate any damage.

When I look at a trip to Mars, however, I would venture the guess that you could do it cheaply. Not for $6 billion obviously, but it shouldn't cost $600 billion either. I would venture a guess that it could be done for $30 billion, perhaps only enough for one trip.

Clearly you are correct when you discuss the ripple-down effect of requirements changes on any program. However, again, if they're smart they'll realize this and just drop the "slightly bigger" idea for something more cost effective. I have faith that private industry will learn quickly to avoid the re-design debacle you're so nicely describing that government programs suffer from heavily. The question is whether we can keep the private ventures alive long enough to manage it.

Re:All really moot

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Well, actually I'd say that most "space craft grade" stuff is pretty much exactly what it is advertised to be. Supplier relationships are pretty tight there. If you're ever found to be screwing someone, that will be the last time you're on anyone's vendor list... The markups are high enough on that kind of thing that it probably isn't much worth cheating. I'm sure it has happened, and I do hear about it happening with weapon systems and maybe commercial aviation stuff now and then, but the volumes there are a lot bigger. When I was in the industry our company made 90% of its sales off things like 747's and military jets. We also did space shuttle and other stuff, but those were so low volume that they were all literally hand-crafted parts, a whole production run might be 10 or 20 units, including spares.

But yeah, I really have little idea what the total program cost for a one-way to Mars like they're talking about would be. I suspect your right, $600 billion is probably high. It cost $100 billion to get to the Moon in the '60s (at today's dollars), but you might set up that program today for 1/10th of that cost, especially if you're not picky about who you partner with or exactly what the timeline is and money was the only object.

Mars it is just hard to say. Developing a landing system that could put a 4 man lander on the surface reliably might end up costing a billion or it might cost 5 billion, who knows? It depends on how many blind alleys you stumble down and how huge the redesign of everything else ends up being if you have to start over on that subsystem. Clearly things DO get cheaper as time goes on too. Certainly hardware will get cheaper, launch costs will go down, etc. At some point it may get cheap enough that launching a test to Mars just to try out a landing system technology is actually pretty cheap and you can do a more iterative and thus cheaper design process overall.

In 2050 a $6 billion Mars one-way program might even be reasonably feasible. At that point of course you might see private enterprise really get into the act. I could see the PR/IP licensing/etc value making such a project possibly a winner at that point, which seems like something this group has concluded as well. Those will be interesting times I guess, though probably a bit past my time on Earth, lol.

Re:All really moot

[gantry]

Someone please mod the parent up.

Resume

[AaronLS]

What kind of experience, education, and qualifications would you look for in a potential one-wayer?

Will you be going?

[THE_WELL_HUNG_OYSTER]

Are you a candidate for the trip? If not, why not?

pirate games and movies with no copyright laws

[Joe_Dragon]

pirate games and movies with no copyright laws.

The ISS can get first run movies still in the movie theaters.

vote a macgyver on

[Joe_Dragon]

vote a macgyver on

They will need someone with skills like that.

it's a differnt skill set to do differnt parts

[Joe_Dragon]

it's a differnt skill set to do differnt parts of a big mission like this.

Does colonization decrease the fuel required?

[ganv]

It seems hard to believe that sending all the equipment needed for long term colonization of mars is going to require less fuel than sending the fuel or equipment to make the fuel for a return voyage. It would be interesting to see them quantify the supplies required for each of these types of missions. I suspect that they are greatly underestimating the quantity of supplies required to initiate a colony on a planet where water is extracted from the soil at great cost and humans and their subsistence gardens require pressure chambers. If they can find enough financial backing to build and test systems for extracting large amounts of water from martian soil, that would already be a major contribution.

What name to choose?

[DarthVain]

Ship name: "Event Horizon" or "Elysium" or "Eden" or...

SCAM ALERT

[Anonymous Coward]

This is such a ridiculous scam. These guys just want to fleece starry-eyed investors.

The dead giveaway:
"The Life Support Unit collects 1500 liters of water and 120 kilograms of oxygen in 500 days." A fancy way of saying it produces 3 liters of water a day, which isn't enough for one person, nevermind four plus acres of plants!

Repeat after me: Mars is a cold, dry, lifeless rock utterly inhospitable to human life.

Foolishness, hoax, or scam?

[spicate]

I won't rehash all the posts here, but both Slashdot and Reddit have done a thorough job critiquing this project. My question for you is, do you honestly believe this is possible, or are you just planning to milk it for "sponsorships" and publicity as long as possible?

Mars Advantages

[Anonymous Coward]

...did Bas Lansdorp mention that the fact that Mars does not have any copyright laws and that you can torrent anything you want over the Galactic Internet Link without fear for prosecution?

Also a Sol is 24h 39m 35.24409s so you'll get almost 40 minutes of free spare time every day!

What am I saying? Buy 12 months, get another 12 months free!

Convinced? Cool! Get your ass to Mars!

Death vs. reality it seems

[fzammett]

It's kind of humorous to me to realize this of myself but...

I've always said I'd sign up for a one-way mission like this. This is coming from someone with a wife, kids and basically a good life. I'm not in any rush to leave my life in any way, shape or form, but I see a mission like this as being more important than that life, so much bigger and meaningful. I believe my wife and kids would understand that too and would accept my sacrifice just as I would.

Here's the thing though... as willing as I'd be to give up my life for this, to do it as part of a reality show?

No.

Yeah, I had to stop and laugh at myself for a minute- willingly give up my life, willingly give up seeing my kids grow, willingly give up hopefully many years more with a wife I love, all of that is fine... but let people watch be poo on a spaceship?

Nope, that's where I draw the line apparently!

If that doesn't say all that needs to be said about how I feel about reality TV then there exists no words in the tongues of Man that could do so!

First!

[Anachragnome]

If I bring a flag of my own design, can I claim Mars as my own?

Re:First!

[SuiteSisterMary]

Under the Larkin Decision, yes, but only so long as you or your people stay there and maintain physical ownership.

Re:First!

[Anachragnome]

"Under the Larkin Decision, yes, but only so long as you or your people stay there and maintain physical ownership."

Excellent. I can simply charge landing fees, payable in food, water and oxygen. That combined with the fees I plan to collect from cleaning the solar panels of rovers should make this work.

Re:First!

[SuiteSisterMary]

The problem is, Mars is an awfully big place, and you'll have a hard time policing all of the available landing sites. Also, what will you do with ships that refuse to pay the fees? Open fire? Glare angrily?

BLOG that!

[Anonymous Coward]

How many $$ could be generated by the hits on the colonist's blog alone?

If I recall correctly, some movies out there have generated to the tune of $90 million in ONE weekend alone. Add up lifetime profits of that movie, combined with copyright to toys, games, donations to the colonists and their families, tv show dvd sales, movie sales, product placement ads (nike sign on the inside door where it is always visible = ?? Million per year that the show continues to air).. I have a hard time believing they COULDN'T make the money they need for this. LOTS of people would tune in, even those not particularly interested in space at all. Look at how much baseball or racing generates for an example. This is a whole NEW sector of entertainment.

I want some guarantees from governments NOW that they aren't going to kill this thing the day before it launches though, depriving all of those investors or their potential return. These fellows will be taking a risk to make this happen, and the colonists are going to be signing up for a very significant, likely terminal risk to their selves. They will deserve to be allowed to launch the mission, if they are able to get the machines built and revenue generated. The biggest problem I can see with it all will be much of the cost will be borne up-front, before the mission can launch and begin getting people REALLY interested.

Most of the tech needed to make this happen already exist; just need to be built, it all exists as ideas, and previous implementations, using the moon missions as a basis, and modernizing the machinery. It should be doable. We just need the will. This type of thing is what NASA was made to accomplish, but they're too busy building fancy pens that can write upside down - let them be, and let those with the will to explore, do it!

Captcha: hitching - a ride into History

immortality!

[j2.718ff]

Sure you'll die out there, but it's a chance to live on forever -- people remember that Buzz Aldrin was the first person to set foot on the moon - they'll remember the first person to go to mars too!

PLEASE TAKE ME!!

[Anonymous Coward]

for the love of your GOD i must leave this planet as soon as possible!!

Details of Dragon variant

[Anonymous Coward]

In http://mars-one.com/en/mission/technology it says:

      "We ... expect to use a Lander built by SpaceX. It is likely to be a special variant of the company's Dragon capsule ... slightly larger than the current version."

Please provide details of the dimensions and capacity (both volume and mass) of your Dragon variant and indicate any other special features it will posses.

Many thanks.

I would do it.

[BMOC]

Call me insane all you want. The reality I'm faced with is an indeterminate amount worthwhile life to then die of some disease that is incurable, or in some meaningless accident, or in some further meaningless criminal action. In the time I spend until that end of my life I may perhaps barely move myself up a single notch in the middle class of America to gain some wealth. My death will be mostly meaningless to 99.99999% of humanity, and for the tiny fraction to which it means anything, their childre'ns children's children in only about 30 years on from my death will only have archaic media of which to remind themselves of who came before them, and no direct contact. That's effin bleak already. There is definitely a percentage of humanity that would jump at the chance for an adventure likely ending in a more meaningful death, and that's not insane.

Livestock and experimental animals

[Anonymous Coward]

In http://mars-one.com/en/faq-en/19-faq-health/246-can-the-astronauts-have-children-on-mars it says:

          "...This will be an important point of research on Mars."

On which mission (year) do you propose to first send experimental animals (eg mice) to Mars to begin this research?

And on which mission do you plan to start sending breeding pairs of small farm animals (eg poultry, fish, rabbits) to supplement the settler's initial vegetarian diet?

Many thanks.

To make things interesting

[dilvish_the_damned]

will we have the ability to vote anyone off [Mars]?

The irony!

[Anonymous Coward]

The irony of it all would be the mission succeeds in that the colonists survive for years in a self sufficient manner but their radio equipment fails in the landing process and nobody finds out.

salary?

[itchybrain]

Do successful applicants become employees of Mars-One or mere contestants to a reality space show?
Do these people then earn salaries plus other benefits? I am sure some of them have to support their families

will history repeat

[itchybrain]

According to your (Bas Lansdorp) LinkedIn bio, you founded Ampyx Power upon graduation and left the company three years later to start Mars One.

Maybe you can share with us what compelled you to leave Ampyx Power to branch out into something new?

Mars One's first mission won't start until 2022 as I understand it and as a founder, I am sure you want to see this thing through. Dare I ask what circumstances would make you walk away from this project?

Liaka the dog says...

[gatkinso]

...up yours with your one way space trips!

it seems obvious that you need Vegans to do this

[decora]

Why isn't this an obvious fact to everyone else? You cannot raise domesticated animals in a space station - it is asking for all kinds of problems. You either have to send a life time supply of meat, or a lifetime supply of Vitamin B12, and one of those things is hugely more expensive than the other.

fame seeker

[itchybrain]

I can see the allure of fame for people to apply to Mars One to be the first to reach Mars.

I can see the allure of wonder for tv audience to gaze at Mars from its surface.

But what would bring other potential applicants and viewers back for the second or the third time since the scenery on Mars, interaction between rational people, etc. do not change so much?

If part of your funding is predicate on viewership, is this not problematic for future mission?

Prison Planet

[Eupheme]

I was having a discussion about this with a group of friends. Who would volunteer when they are most likely to die or suffer unhappy lives probably riddled with unknown ailments? What about at first, sending people on death row to Mars as an alternative to, well, death? The way I see it, the first couple attempts at colonization, call me me pessimistic, will be unsuccessful. But from them we will learn a lot about what living on Mars does to humans. There's only so much we can guess until we finally just jump in there are really see.

slashdot submissions

[Dr Max]

I know it's probably out of your expertise, but any idea why when i and many others wrote and posted stories about mars one which got voted on quite highly in recent submissions, never made it to the front page, this being about month old news now.

Trivialization of Human Endeavour

[geekpowa]

The Apollo mission represents an inspiring and extraordinary human achievement; a significant positive legacy of USA's post war boom and technological confidence.

In contrast, Mars One seeks to breach the next obvious formidable human frontier by making the endeavour a reality TV show. Do you feel this approach trivializes and cheapens the human endeavour or are you personally at complete peace and comfort with this? Assuming you are successful, do you think your historic achievement will reflected upon an in a negative light in generations to come?

Re:Trivialization of Human Endeavour

[Spy Handler]

Maybe a Mars landing cheapened by commercials is better than no Mars landing?

I don't see the government of (wherever it is you live) spending any money on a manned Mars mission, do you?

Re: Mars Survivor

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not incorporate a goal into the Mars reality show. The survivors have to execute a plan to harvest enough energy to return to earth for a cash prize. The finally would be epic.

Re:what are the entertainment options like? Pron

[Anonymous Coward]

Pron, and lots of it. Cause you know any chicks that volunteer for Mars tv will be dogs.

I'm definitely interested

[Anonymous Coward]

I do have a few questions:

1. Have you looked into Ad Astra's VASIMR engine? They claim it would reduce the trip from the standard 6-8 months down to 39 days.

2. I know liquid-fueled thorium reactors are still not viable, but if they become viable would you consider building one on Mars?

3. What are the upper age ranges you are looking at for astronauts? I know you've mentioned that the lower age limit will be about 21, but I will be pushing 40 by the time the first trip to Mars is planned.

4. You have said that you will encourage the astronauts not to have children when they get to Mars due to health and safety concerns, but accidents happen. What would it take for you to consider it safe for astronauts to start having children? Short of taking lab rats and other animals and studying the reproductive effects of microgravity or the low gravity of Mars, how are you going to determine the safety of procreating and raising children on Mars?

5.Are there any plans to intentionally introduce Terran lifeforms to the Martian environment, or attempt to breed organisms that can survive on Mars (e.g. photosynthetic single-celled organisms, high altitude or high latitude grasses, etc.)? In other words, what about beginning the terraforming process?

6. You have said you want the astronauts to be training during the ten years leading up to the missions. For the first mission in 2023, I will probably still be in school for at least six of those ten years, and may have to do further training after that (all of which would be in training that could be incredibly useful skills for a small crew living on Mars). How would that affect my ability to qualify for the first mission?

7. Current astronauts are limited to being no taller than 6',3" (190 cm). Is there going to be a similar height restriction for this mission?

8. What about internet access and other forms of electronic communication/data transfer, especially for research and entertainment? Will they be available on Mars?

9. If a properly designed spacecraft were built that could be easily refueled, it could be left in orbit and the lander could touch down. That way the only thing needed for a return trip is a way to get into orbit again, and someway to generate fuel for this. (The VASMIR engine could really be useful for such a plan.) Would this idea be something you would consider?

10. What about doing a smaller version of Biosphere 2 on Mars? It would be really nice to have something like this for comfort.

11. What about compost or other forms of recycling wastes?

I'm interested

[Anonymous Coward]

I do have a few questions:

1. Have you looked into Ad Astra's VASIMR engine? They claim it would reduce the trip from the standard 6-8 months down to 39 days.

2. I know liquid-fueled thorium reactors are still not viable, but if they become viable would you consider building one on Mars?

3. What are the upper age ranges you are looking at for astronauts? I know you've mentioned that the lower age limit will be about 21, but I will be pushing 40 by the time the first trip to Mars is planned.

4. You have said that you will encourage the astronauts not to have children when they get to Mars due to health and safety concerns, but accidents happen. What would it take for you to consider it safe for astronauts to start having children? Short of taking lab rats and other animals and studying the reproductive effects of microgravity or the low gravity of Mars, how are you going to determine the safety of procreating and raising children on Mars?

5.Are there any plans to intentionally introduce Terran lifeforms to the Martian environment, or attempt to breed organisms that can survive on Mars (e.g. photosynthetic single-celled organisms, high altitude or high latitude grasses, etc.)? In other words, what about beginning the terraforming process?

6. You have said you want the astronauts to be training during the ten years leading up to the missions. For the first mission in 2023, I will probably still be in school for at least six of those ten years, and may have to do further training after that (all of which would be in training that could be incredibly useful skills for a small crew living on Mars). How would that affect my ability to qualify for the first mission?

7. Current astronauts are limited to being no taller than 6',3" (190 cm). Is there going to be a similar height restriction for this mission?

8. What about internet access and other forms of electronic communication/data transfer, especially for research and entertainment? Will they be available on Mars?

9. If a properly designed spacecraft were built that could be easily refueled, it could be left in orbit and the lander could touch down. That way the only thing needed for a return trip is a way to get into orbit again, and someway to generate fuel for this. (The VASMIR engine could really be useful for such a plan.) Would this idea be something you would consider?

10. What about doing a smaller version of Biosphere 2 on Mars? It would be really nice to have something like this for comfort.

11. What about compost or other forms of recycling wastes?

I'm definitely interested

[LittleJohn657]

I do have a few questions:

1. Have you looked into Ad Astra's VASIMR engine? They claim it would reduce the trip from the standard 6-8 months down to 39 days. NASA will be testing it on the International Space Station in 2015 I believe.

2. I know liquid-fueled thorium reactors are still not viable, but if they become viable would you consider building one on Mars?

3. What are the upper age ranges you are looking at for astronauts? I know you've mentioned that the lower age limit might be about 25, but I will be pushing 40 by the time the first trip to Mars is planned. Will that be too old? Or by the time the last mission is going I'll be about 50; is that too old?

4. You have said that you will encourage the astronauts not to have children when they get to Mars due to health and safety concerns, but accidents happen. What would it take for you to consider it safe for astronauts to start having children? Short of taking lab rats and other animals and studying the reproductive effects of microgravity or the low gravity of Mars, how are you going to determine the safety of or true settlement size needed for procreating and raising children on Mars? For that matter, what if people going to Mars form intimate relationships?

5.Are there any plans to intentionally introduce Terran lifeforms to the Martian environment, or attempt to breed organisms that can survive on Mars (e.g. photosynthetic single-celled organisms, high altitude or high latitude grasses, etc.)? In other words, what about beginning the terraforming process? This doesn't really require any advanced technology that is not already commercially available to begin experimenting with introducing some organisms.

6. You have said you want the astronauts to be training during the ten years leading up to the missions. For the first mission in 2023, I will probably still be in school for at least six of those ten years, and may have to do further training after that (all of which would be in training that could be incredibly useful skills for a small crew living on Mars). How would that affect my ability to qualify for the first mission?

7. Current astronauts are limited to being no taller than 6',3" (190 cm). Is there going to be a similar height restriction for this mission?

8. What about internet access and other forms of electronic communication/data transfer, especially for research and entertainment? Will they be available on Mars?

9. If a properly designed spacecraft were built that could be easily refueled, it could be left in orbit and the lander could touch down. That way the only thing needed for a return trip is a way to get into orbit again, and someway to generate fuel for this. (The VASMIR engine could really be useful for such a plan.) Would this idea be something you would consider?

10. What about doing a smaller version of Biosphere 2 or the Eden Project on Mars? It would be really nice to have something like this for peace of mind, not to mention food production and oxygen generation.

11. What about compost or other forms of recycling wastes? This could go along ways to helping provide the nutrients needed to sustain plant growth. What type of facilities will you be sending to support this?

12. How are you going to ensure the long-term psychological health of the crews? Considering confined environment psychology and the issues that have arisen in the past with similar situations (accidental or intentional) here on Earth, how do you propose to protect against this on Mars? I know it would be good for TV drama, but this could be disastrous, possibly lethal on Mars.

13. Are you going to implement an exercise regime similar to what astronauts in orbit go through for those living on Mars? With the reduced gravity there is still a chance that there will be bone demineralization and muscle loss.

Re:Bet you don't realize why Kennedy made that cho

[Skal Tura]

Except the fact that everything has been done and tested in a scale or another atleast few times before.

they specifically chose only the kind of technologies that exists today and is purchaseable NOW.

Application

[Anonymous Coward]

In 11 years time i will be 26 in peek physical condition and would be a great addition to the team obviously i do not have any scientific history due to the fact that i am 15 but i would dedicate the rest of my life to this mission if i were asked.

Project details

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Bas Lansdorp,
When will the public be informed of more details regarding the execution of the Mars One initiative? I am particularly interested in hearing about the movement of modules on the surface of Mars, using the rovers, or otherwise. This would be a monumental challenge and I hope to see it properly addressed in the most immediate future. I also suggest that you take 1000 most commonly asked questions and answer them on the official website. The current FAQ is insufficient. Thank you and good luck!

Had you asked me 20 years ago..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd have had no hesitation, I'd be off

Had you asked me 10 years ago, I'd have thought about it for a couple of days, and would have gone.

Ask me today?, you wouldn't, I'm too bloody old..

The closest I'll get to my dreams of exploring Olympus Mons is firing up google earth, switching to Mars, going to flightsim with the F16 grabbing a bottle of whisky and setting off.

Re:Bet you don't realize why Kennedy made that cho

[DerekLyons]

Except the fact that everything has been done and tested in a scale or another atleast few times before.

Well, in the real world of engineering, scale matters. As does the difference between a piece of laboratory experimental equipment and a piece of reliable production equipment.
 

they specifically chose only the kind of technologies that exists today and is purchaseable NOW.

Um, no. The equipment required for in situ resource utilization doesn't exist. Long duration closed loop environmental control systems don't exist. Etc... etc... In both cases the *technology* barely exists, not having been seriously and rigorously tested.

Re:Bet you don't realize why Kennedy made that cho

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually Derek, you're a piece of shit because you use Facebook. All the cool kids use Google+ nowadays.

SpaceX Red Dragon timeline

[Anonymous Coward]

The Mars One plan will require SpaceX's proposed Red Dragon concept (and Falcon Heavy BFR) to land payloads (and latter people) on Mars. Since the initial NASA mission using Red Dragon is not planned until 2018, isn't your road map of a first cargo launch in 2016 a bit optimistic? Even assuming you had all you funding in place by 2016, wouldn't it be better to wait until 2018, or 2020, for the first cargo mission when NASA and SpaceX have retired any risk with the Red Dragon system?

off by a factor 1000

[Anonymous Coward]

You should correct to kcal (x 1e3)

What preparations should I start taking?

[dotancohen]

I am 34 years old, fit both mentally and physically. I get along with people but very much value my solitary time. I do not like having many friends, instead I prefer small groups of quality people. I served as a combat soldier and a medic, and did a few years of an engineering degree, but did not complete it. I already have two wonderful children, and both they and my wife have known for years that should the opportunity pop up for daddy to go to Mars, we will have a big party and say goodbye to daddy. It is a family dream to send daddy to Mars, I have full support of my family. Though, I never did believe that the opportunity would ever come up. I'll be 45 years old in 2023. Judging by my pedigree, that is a perfect age for me. I will still be in excellent physical health, and I will be acute mentally.

I would like to be as prepared as possible for the time when you start accepting applicants. I will start to brush up on my medical skills, but how else should I prepare? I am a handy tinkerer and fixer, and I don't really see where I can improve in that regard. Should I learn some electrical engineering? Should I practice soldering upside down? Minor self-surgery without anesthetic? Horticulture? Parachuting? Soldering while parachuting with a tourniquet on one arm?

Reality show gold

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, just think of the the "no return ticket" angle. Just give them enough material to build return crafts in arbitrary number, but only enough fuel to bring back 2 out of 4. Send a new craft every two weeks. Distribute fuel according to TV votes, but unknown the people boarding the crafts.

Air time for friends and relatives begging the viewers to give enough fuel to their father/daughter/fiancee. Film their faces as their loved ones get lost in space or ignite in the atmosphere.

And if you think that I am nuts, wait 50 years and see what kind of TV is out for capturing attention.

ten years to go

[HarryatRock]

Yes, I do RTFA. My point was that I represent a category with sane reasons to volunteer. The category will still exist in ten years, although sadly none of the people that now belong to it.

When the money runs out?

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is funded by Media interest - what happens when after say 5 years the media loses interest (most television shows do eventually get cancelled, no matter how good) - will the colonists be left to die or will the whole thing be self-sufficient from the start? i.e. no money is needed except the initial "start-up" cost to send them there.

Why this instead of a starship?

[master_p]

Why did you choose a one-way trip to Mars, instead of a starship that can make the trip from Earth to Mars and back a commodity?

A staship could be assembled in space, have artificial gravity via rotating sections, use nuclear power, have small craft that can land on planets, and be reused for travels in many solar system bodies.

With such a ship, many trips to Mars can be done, and there would be no need to sacrifice anyone.

How about non-suicide approach?

[Petersson]

Ok, and what's wrong with idea of rocket capable to return to Earth, carrying just one-way tank of fuel? The astronauts could refuel themselves directly on Mars, if there is really water.

Two months of melting the ice, electrolyzing water and compressing O2 and H2 could create enough fuel to return. First send supplies and equipment by unmanned one-way ship. After everything has safely landed, send astronauts next.

Anyway because of Mars lower gravity, less fuel would be necessary to return from Mars to Earth.

Deep sea exploration?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this is a little off topic and maybe it's not sexy enough because it's our little blue dot.

But it's staggering how little we know, and there's at least more or less the guarantee of encountering alien looking life down there.

Is the crew size viable?

[Rastl]

Are 4 people really enough to start the process? Yes the plan is to send up more people on a regular basis but what can 4 people really accomplish with very limited resources?

This project keeps reminding me of "Red Mars" with the one-way trip, the original settlers working to start the process, etc. However those fictional characters were experts in the fields necessary to the process and had a huge infrastructure behind them with more than sufficient equipment and resources waiting for them on arrival. Oh, and there were 100 of them.

My apologies

[DerekLyons]

Yes, you were supporting my point. My apologies, I was having a *very* bad morning.

Re:My apologies

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Happens to the best of us, not a bother!

First..

[Anonymous Coward]

.. make Cyborgs and then we can speak about sending some to Mars...

Sending animals & preventing pregnancy

[chadoh]

I will feel great sadness for the first settlers until a crew is able to bring along some cats (and maybe a small-animal vet to accompany and exercise them so their little bones don't deteriorate on their seven month journey).

Are there plans to eventually send pets for company or livestock for food?

Other than the much-needed companionship, I think sending animals might be a better way to test the viability of conception and gestation than having the humans test it.

Speaking of conception, will profilactics be sent along with the marstranauts? Will they be able to produce their own from local materials on mars? I know they're being encouraged to not attempt to have children, but how will that be prevented?

Establishing a healthy society & culture

[chadoh]

When European colonialists "settled" Oregon, they went with their families. Though they left most of their familiar lives behind, they still had the wonderful constance of their spouses, children, parents.

In the Mars One info, I've not seen it specified that preference is being given to married couples. To me, it seems that if we're going to start a whole new civilization (or even just a village) on another planet, the new colonialists would do best if they had at least some basic societal structures that are familiar to them (everything else will be so foreign for so long). Has there been consideration of trying to send committed couples, rather than heroic loners? The biggest challenge of settling a new planet will not be the technical aspects, but the social and mental ones (as other commenters have noted).

Also, I don't think anyone would thrive long-term on an entire planet devoid of music, art, sports, speeches, plays, poetry, dance, etc. The first crew certainly needs to be made up entirely of people who are great at medicine, geology, biology, research & science. But at least one of these people should probably also be a musician, or a painter, etc. No one will feel at home until cultural roots are also put down on the planet. Will there be room on the transport vehicle for a guitar and two years' worth of new strings? For two years' worth of paint and canvas? (Maybe an iPad with Paper would suffice, but best to leave that decision up to the artist).

Also! This looks to be shaping up to be a wonderful multicultural affair (though all of the people in the videos so far are white...), but will you also try to make it pluralistic? Send atheists, christians, muslims, hindus, pagans, anyone (and a variety even within the first crew). In part of their ten-year training, they should be taught to build relationships on mutual respect and open communication even with people of different creeds. It would be terribly depressing to see Mars end up with a whole starting village of one or two creeds. It would be worse to see them fight over their differences. Is this aspect of the human experience being considered in the selection of marstronauts?

Re:I'm definitely interested (more questions)

[LittleJohn657]

14. What is your plan if this mission should fail (e.g. the crew dies during their trip to Mars, somehow misses Mars and ends up going further into space, or dies during their time on Mars)? I know it's not nice to focus on the negatives, but having a plan of action would be appropriate considering the nature of this mission.

15. What is the reason the crew is limited to four people per trip? Some proposed Mars to stay missions were planned to have six crew members per trip.

16. What about building subterranean structures on Mars for the crews to live in as well as the structures provided to crews for habitat and work? (E.g. the homes of the people of Coober Pedy, South Australia, though with insulating and air-proof lining to maintain temperature and pressure, and structural support to prevent cave-ins.) This could help with expanding the living space, as well as increased protection from radiation.

17. Depending on the length of the trip to Mars (6-8 months with chemical rockets vs. 39 days with VASIMR), are you considering a form of artificial gravity for the trip?

18. How are you going to determine who will be the first to set foot on Mars? Or are you going to find a way for all four crew members to do this simultaneously?

19. How are you going to ensure a safe and stable supply of medications for the crews that may end up being needed? And what about medical procedures that may be needed?

20. Have you considered using some form of magnetic field shielding for the space craft to protect the crew from radiation during their trip to Mars?

21. What about the Founders Effect when it comes to genetic diversity (e.g. the original inhabitants of Trista de Cunha), how are you going to ensure genetic diversity and limited genetic diseases in the population?

22. What type of calendar and clock are you going to use for the colonists of Mars? The Martian year is almost twice as long as Earth's, and the Martian day is slightly longer than Earth's, necessitating a different form of time keeping than what is used on Earth.

23. Do you prefer to take married couples or couples in committed relationships to Mars, or do you prefer single people?

24. What would the diet of the Martian colonists be expected to be? I imagine meat will be hard to provide on Mars, so will it be vegetarian? Are crews going to be expected to take nutritional supplements, or will their diet be sufficient?

25. What types of science/research and exploration are you going to ask the crews to conduct while on Mars?

(In terms of organisms to breed and release on Mars to start the terraforming and greening of Mars that I referenced in question 5, another organism to consider is lichens; they have been found to survive in the vacuum and radiation of space, and survive in very harsh and extreme environments here on Earth.)

Re:I'm definitely interested (more questions)

[LittleJohn657]

26. What about pollinating of plants that are brought as food sources, such as fruits, berries, squash, etc.? Are the colonists going to bring any bees or other pollinators?

27. Are the colonists bringing only food crops with them, or are they also going or bring plants that are used for flavour/seasoning (i.e. crops for direct consumption vs. crops to flavour foods for consumption)?

28. What about wind power, or is the atmosphere of Mars too thin to support this form of energy production? A source of power other than solar would be useful considering that dust storms on Mars have the potential (on rare occasions) cover the entire planet and last for weeks to months; apparently, during Martian dust storms, the dust can make it almost as dark as night, but the wind speeds are high enough to turn a windmill and generate electricity.

29. For the crew members exploring Mars, will they be making use of some kind of stillsuit technology to help in the recycling and reclaiming of their water and processing wastes?

30. What about laws, charters, and constitutions for the crews as the founders of a Martian colony, are they going to be allowed to do this? No government is allowed to own Mars.

(In reference to my question 2, NASA has maps showing suspected thorium deposits on Mars http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/latestimages/PIA04257.html , and it is claimed that experiments with LFTR has shown the potential to produce enough energy from 12 gm of thorium to provide the energy needs of a US citizen for a decade.)

Re:I'm definitely interested (more questions)

[LittleJohn657]

31. You have said you want to bring doctors along for this mission, but what type of doctors are we talking about? Are they going to be limited to medical doctors, or are you also going to bring along dentists, psychologists, etc?

32. Are you only going to bring scientists/researchers, or are you also going to bring trades people? What about teachers for when the colonists start having children (they may have to revive the one-room schoolhouse)?

33. Are the crews going to be allowed to bring pets of any kind with them?

34. If the crew start getting married, having children, etc., what will be the legal authority/citizenship for this? Or will there be?

35. What about consumables, such as toilet paper, tissue paper, salt, soap, etc.?

36. What are the plans for grey water and black water treatment?

37. Will the crew continue to be paid/be employees when they are living on Mars, or only when they are on Earth?

Why it won't work

[gantry]

1. $6 billion is nowhere near enough.

2. It's completely impractical. Try a practice run in Death Valley, but without outdoor agriculture, and without going outside unless you are wearing a spacesuit. How many years do you expect your spacesuits and other high-tech equipment to last, especially in the high-radiation environment of a planet with no magnetic field?

3. If the whole thing is media-driven for TV viewing, it's an invitation to do Capricorn One for real - with $500 million - and pocket the rest of the investors' money.

Perhaps this is the plan. If you can make a good film by mashing up Abraham Lincoln and Buffy, then this scheme is a mashup of Capricorn One and The Producers. It would be very funny - unless they actually try to do it.

Is there anyone out there TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr lansdrop why don't you instead do this: place some high tech rotating cameras around mars sending back a live feed to an online tv channel site. You're target market is the UFO spotter ( there are lots of them out there!) make a big profiet and then use those billions to fund putting cameras in other places in the galaxy. Rosaly Stevenson UK