Slashdot Mirror
Mars One Selects Second Round Candidate Astronauts
First time accepted submitter techfilz writes "The Mars One Project has selected 1058 second round candidates out of more than 200 000 applicants from over 140 countries. There are another two selection rounds to go before the lucky few get a one way trip to Mars. Starting in 2018, four astronauts will leave for Mars every two years to begin a human settlement partly funded by crowdsourcing and a reality TV show."
I know, I know, everyone is going to be dogpiling Mars One for feasability, but...
The shoestring budget they'll get out of crowdsourcing and a TV show will launch people into space just long enough to kill them.
From TFIndiegogo: "This 2018 mission will be the first in preparation for human landing. The first Mars One crew is scheduled to land in 2025, with additional crew landing every two years. Before that, Mars One will have established a habitable, sustainable outpost via multiple missions scheduled between 2018 and 2022."
You know, I want to believe this will happen, but I really can't. I don't mean the Mars One thing, in general, just the timeline of it. 2018 is crazy.
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
Why not a nice round number like 1024?
They are not going to be sending people starting in 2018. The 2018 trip, if it actually happens, will be an unmanned demonstration flight. I'm not sure how realistic the whole idea is but I'll wait to see if they actually do that unmanned trip before getting excited about Mars One.
"Starting in 2018, four astronauts will leave for Mars every two years to bury the previous four..."
Fixed.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Realty show has a bad connotation to it. It's more like a documentary program.
Anyway, I'll never understand why people are such naysayers about Mars One, especially on sites like Slashdot. At the very least, they are keeping extraterrestrial colonies in the public consciousness, something we should be celebrating. Even if this project ends up with some fatalities, name one human migration that didn't result in some deaths, or one exploration mankind has undertaken that wasn't risky. Early efforts of course are going to be dangerous, perhaps unwise, but if we were too scared to take risks we'd still all be living in African treetops.
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
"Starting in 2018, four astronauts will leave for Mars every two years to bury the inedible parts of the previous four..."
Fixed^2
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
What I don't understand is the people saying they shouldn't even try.
The problem isn't that someone shouldn't try. The problem is that we know a fair bit about how difficult an endeavor this is and what a credible effort would have to look like. We know that the technology to do this just isn't there yet and there is no credible evidence that it will be in the next 5-10 years. Sending even an unmanned probe to mars costs billions of dollars. These people are claiming their are going to send people there inside of 12 years? And they are going to do this by crowdsourcing what amounts to a suicide mission? Your bullshit detector should be in high alert.
This just reeks of a scam to separate gullible people from their money.
According to the Mars One website, the first crews leave in 2024. As in *not* 2018
http://www.mars-one.com/mission/roadmap/2024
Lansdorp himself is a successful entrepreneur, here is a ted talk about his last company. He sold his stake and has been using the profit he made there to get Mars One off the ground for the past 3 years.
Among the people supporting them are:
- Gerard ‘t Hooft, Nobel Prize winning Theoretical Physicist
- Dr. Robert Zubrin, President of the Mars Society
- Terry Gamber, worked on the lander designs for the Viking mission
- A very large number of experienced people (see their website Advisers, ambassadors)
They don't plan to develop much of the technology themselves, they're planning to buy it from other companies mostly such as SpaceX. Most of this technology exists already. They have written statements of the companies that they are willing and able to supply these things.
List of the technology they want to use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_One#Technology
The total cost is estimated at $6 billion. Technology has come a long way, this combined with the privatization of space has caused costs to drop significantly. The falcon heavy for example costs only $77-135M to launch (2013).
They plan to get this through sponsorship deals. They're going to broadcast the entire thing on TV. Which makes sense, the olympics receives 6 billion dollars for 1 billion viewers. The moonlanding in 1969 had 500 million viewers. The population of the earth was only 3,5 billion back then and people weren't as well connected as they are now. So imagine how many viewers a colony on Mars would get?
No one says it's guaranteed that they will succeed, but i think they should try, and we should support it.
More information can be found on their website and IndieGoGo campaign:
http://www.mars-one.com/
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/mars-one-first-private-mars-mission-in-2018
The campaign is just to help pay for the Lockheed Martin study and to convince sponsors there is enough interest. I have donated myself, and advise people who think space exploration is important to do the same. It's risky, but it's high impact.
Humankind will learn a lot more from a Mars One failure, even now, in this early stage, than from all of us remaining seated on our butts. In the unlikely case that Mars One does not fail, we'll collectively learn even more. Where is the problem ?
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Except it doesn't work that way. The spacecraft doesn't move in a straight line and while mars and earth might be that close instantaneously, the rocket will need to head for where mars WILL be when they get there. They want to launch to minimize travel distance and time, not minimize the distance between the two planets.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Going on ANY ocean voyage before the 20th century was risky in a whole bunch of ways. The food might kill you. The weather might kill you. The ship might kill you. Someone else you run across on the water might kill you. The crew might kill you. Whatever you run into wherever you go might kill you, be it people, animals, or geography.
Why the hell would we hold launching a rocket across the solar system to another planet to elementary school safety standards? Of course you could be killed. Climbing into a metal tube filled with 7 million pounds of rocket fuel and lighting it is inherently dangerous, even more so when you plan to travel across 40 million miles of space.
If we wait until it's as safe as riding an elevator we'll never get there. Exploration should never wait until it's proven safe.
Starting in 2018, four astronauts will leave for Mars every two years to begin a human settlement partly funded by crowdsourcing and a reality TV show."
[cough]Bullshit[/cough]
Eventually the pile of corpses will provide sufficient material to create a viable biosphere.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
Critics of Mars One are not criticizing the notion of human colonization of Mars purely from a "danger" perspective...
It's everything about ***how*** Mars One plans to do this...from the funding to the equipment they use to what they'll actually do when they get there. It just makes no sense to do it that way.
Sure there are some critics of human space exploration that think the whole notion of humans colonizing other worlds is just too dangerous, *no matter how it is done* but they are in the distinct minority, especially here on slashdot....this is much different.
It's that the mission is all wrong in its conception.
Think of it in terms of dinner, Mars One is hyping themselves like they are a steak dinner with all the trimmings, but in reality they are giving us reconstituted soy in the shape of a steak, giving us some survey data that says it tastes just like real steak, and expecting people to pay for a T-bone.
It's hype...some unscrupulous "entrepreneurs" launching a business project...because they are coming from that perspective everything down the line comes out wrong...and it doesn't take a NASA scientist to see that it's essentially a suicide mission.
In this case empty-headed, wild-eyed hype that takes advantage of people's dreams.
Thank you Dave Raggett