Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Private Mars One Mission Contracts Lockheed For Exploratory Mission

Posted by Soulskill on from the faster-than-taking-the-bus dept.

coondoggie writes "Private Mars mission planners said today that Lockheed Martin is on board to build the spacecraft that would land a technology demonstration robot on the Red Planet by 2018. The Mars One group ultimately wants to establish a human outpost on Mars. The lander robot would use technology Lockheed previously built for NASA's Phoenix lander, which touched down on Mars in 2008. The Mars One lander will evaluate the use of the Phoenix design for the Mars One mission and identify any modifications that are necessary to meet future requirements. In addition, the mission would go a long way toward determining the cost and schedule of future missions."

8 of 35 comments (clear)

  1. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  2. Without money... by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Without funding, this is all just more smoke and mirrors from Mars One - and they don't have the money to even do a decent set of concept studies.

  3. Can you imagine.. by Havokmon · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I think if they get enough people up there, and things go to hell, all of a sudden we'll have an 'emergency disaster relief' effort to get supplies Mars - and all of a sudden many of those hurdles we're fretting over (including costs) will become speed bumps.

    It's like a Trial by Fire combined with forced capitulation. Like when a (real) hurricane strikes and (justified) conservative concerns about welfare are overridden by the (relatively) immediate need for support.

    --
    "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
    1. Re:Can you imagine.. by Defenestrar · · Score: 2

      Personally I always thought Mars Direct was a much better plan. I heard Zubrin talk about it once - seemed reasonable, not dependent on TV ratings, and you already had some proof of concept and a base of operations before you ever launched people at the big red rock. Of course the details is where you keep the devils and I think Murphy would be all over this one.

      I can see a place for heroic leaps for science - including the possibility of a one way trip off the planet, but I'd have my doubts about the sort of people who would sign up for less than even a one cheek effort just to walk around a bit before needing a rescue which would never happen on time

      What's worse is the precedent. Sure, as a culture we may be willing to put in a moon-shot effort if some legitimate (but corporate) Mars colony suffered disaster (which could be corrected by prompt Earth action). It's far less likely that we'd mobilize the effort if we're already practiced at letting "space junkies" die on their own recognizance.

    2. Re:Can you imagine.. by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      A Martian outpost is nothing like a hurricane strike. A hurricane strike is a natural disaster and natural disasters can happen anywhere. Volunteering to go on a dangerous mission to Mars is a conscious choice to go in harm's way. I, for one, am not going to foot a billion dollar tax bill because someone's hair brained scheme fell through. There is a point at which a "rescue effort" becomes too costly. To me, Mars is beyond our Search and Rescue obligation. My response to things going wrong on Mars would be "Sucks to be you. Looks like all those people, including me, who said you would die fairly quickly on Mars were right."

  4. GM Tree! by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 2

    Put a tree up there! And a webcam! I will totally use it as my background!

  5. Re:Will they pay them with Bitcoin? by roc97007 · · Score: 2

    That the mega-rich have mega-toys seems as good an explanation as any.

    Whatever works.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion