Slashdot Mirror
Mars One Does Not Renew Contracts For Robotic Missions
braindrainbahrain writes Mars One is, of course, the highly speculative, low credibility project to land humans on Mars after a one-way trip. In 2013 they had announced that two contracts had been awarded to the aerospace industry to develop a Mars orbiter and a Mars lander to carry a science experiment payload to the surface. Both contracts have been completed, but so far, Mars One has no immediate plans to renew the contracts and pursue further development of the crafts.
When will the news media wake up to the fact that this is a scam and stop giving Mars Zero (zero because they have zero chance of actually going to Mars) free advertising?
And a bad reality TV show is much cheaper, safer and offers at least theoretical returns on investments. Bad reality TV shows don't need rocket scientists either.
3. Profit !
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Yep.The funny thing about reality TV shows is they don't really rate that well in the scheme of things. They don't rate poorly either, but not great. But they are *dirt cheap* to make, so TV companies just bulk order them because its low investment for medium returns. Star trek shows consistently topped ratings charts, but they where ridiculously expensive to make. So they stopped making them. "Duck tamers vs Nazi skinheads season 19" on the other hand won't get barely half that rating, but because it costs next to nothing, its the safer bet.
The end result however is that TV is dying. People are increasingly just reading the net, and at most maybe keeping up with a few well made cable series. The short term pursuit of profits have killed TV in the long term.
And this is the environment Mars One wants to base the future of space travel. I don't think so somehow.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Firstly, their claim on their website "While complex, the Mars One Mission is feasible. The science and technology required to place humans on Mars exists today. ", is provably false and it is reasonable to expect authors of this statement know this to be false. First thing that always comes to my mind is delivery configuration for soft land something closely resembling required tonnage on the surface, including the 4 meat bags they claim they are able to send. Simply put, no viable configuration currently exists. When you look at tonnage Apollo landed on the moon, vs what government space agencies have successfully landed on Mars so far, vs what NASA is currently developing, there is an enormously absurd leap of faith to say landing ppl on Mars is feasible with today's tech.
Secondly, a document like this : http://www.mars-one.com/images..., just stinks of handwaving with overuse of technical flourishes, fails to deal with funadmental issues, i.e. the weight issue, and seems to be created with an intent to deceive and create false assurance that mission profile is both well defined and accessible.
Accepting that proof of fraud is far from conclusive, the whole thing just reeks to high heaven of fraud.