Slashdot Mirror
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.
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?
My work here is dung.
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."
My work here is dung.
Just one question: Wait, what?!
"Living on Mars cannot be considered entirely risk-free, in particular during the first few years."
Ya think?
What do you mean "let"? Why on Earth can't some people go to Mars if other people pay them to go?
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.
We all gotta die somewhere.
rewriting history since 2109
will i still be liable for child support if I move to Mars?
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?
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?
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.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
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.
No sig today...
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'?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
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.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
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)?
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.
The extra fuel for the two of them would be prohibitive.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
You could go at night!
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.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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. /. 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. :( ), 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.
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
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
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?
nec sorte nec fato
Your FAQ, in the "sustainability" question, states
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?
*** Work like a king, command like a slave, create like a dog.
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.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
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.
Because by international treaties, the planets belongs to humanity, and are not subject to exploitation.
So go there and arrest them.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
No media spectacle in the history of the Earth has garnered 6 billion dollars.
Why should we believe that your mars landing would?
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?
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
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.
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.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
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
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
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!
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.
I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.