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.
The giant space goat is getting closer!
We could make this the B Ark.
This just in - Getting humans safely to the surface of Mars is way wicked hard and totally expensive.
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?
abandoned it's plans to build a vehicle and are now building a giant horeshoe magnet to pull the planet closer to earth so that they can board it with wooden planks ..
If the funders are really serious about creating a Reality TV experience about volunteers taking a one way trip to Mars then this is the only way they can do it at this time:
1. They will publicly do exactly what they have been doing so far, all the while screening the applicants for those most likely to buy in to what they are being told.
2. Once they have the final applicants sequestered and completely removed from the public and communication with the outside world they may or may not give hints to the public about what is really going to happen:
What will really happen:
The "Winners" will be totally isolated from communication with the public with the exception of very carefully screened media and family communications etc.
They will be constantly filmed documentary style, which they already expect.
After the Training "Season" and drama they will be boarded onto what is described to them as a top secret craft built by the Russians or whoever and carefully told that space travel technology is actually far advanced of what the public has been told and that they will be Pioneers in space exploration.
They will actually be entering an expensive yet economically viable simulated ship (ala Ascension http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... where they will then spend a number of months "traveling" to Mars with cameras in every room.
After that season they will have a dramatic yet fright-filled arrival and landing at Mars. I assume at this point that they will pull a Capricorn One in some desert. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... ).
At some point, as each person dies for some reason, the truth will be revealed to each one and we will have the Drama of them having their 'Second Chance' at life.
-- If done successfully and done right I would actually watch this drama. So everyone, please, shush! Don't tell those final 100 anything!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
history lesson:
some time in the next few centuries, there will be an interplanetary exploration/ colonization pyramid scheme that will bankrupt millions of people, maybe even a nation or two
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
so setting up a system where there is an even chance for some heroes to live out their lives and explore the planet would be good.
Too bad that is not what is happening here. There is only a very small chance that the plan will ever get people to Mars. There is little chance that there will be enough money to send subsequent supply missions. There is a zero chance that an outpost will survive a few missed supply missions. Anyone sent to Mars will have their lives cut very short. The difference between Mars One and Age of Sail exploration is that there was some expectation that in worst case scenarios the explorers could live off the land. On Mars that is not possible.
If it is ok for someone to climb mount Everest even though several people die every year, but not to explore another planet?
Here are a few differences between Everest expeditions and Mars One.
1. Everest expeditions do not cost billions of dollars.
2. Everest expeditions do not require continued support for decades
3. Everest expeditions do not sidetrack billions of dollars from actually useful endeavors.
4. There is a chance of continuing to live after an Everest expedition. Mar one is a suicide mission.
Allowing a few hundred people a year to waste their money and risk their lives is acceptable. More than 4,000 people have climbed Everest and 256 have died. That gives a 94% chance of survival. The Mars expedition has a 0% chance of survival. Bilking millions of people out of "application fees" and other promotions to fund an organization to plan an expedition that the organizers know has no chance of success is not acceptable. Lining the principal's pockets with the money from gullible people is not a noble pursuit.
I don't think we are going to be able to explore other planets in person without higher risks than we have accepted thus far.
Certain death is a very high risk indeed.
All very good points except #4. Life itsself is a suicide mission. Many people would be willing to cut decades off their life to advance scientific knowledge and establish a foothold for humanity on another world - remember the alternative is to simply die at a later date, a lone statistic, soon to be forgotten and having achieved nothing of note. Death is inevitable, but it doesn't have to be for nothing.
If I thought Mars One has a snowball's hope in Hell of actually getting there, I'd even be tempted myself. I'm good here for another seventy years, perhaps. Seventy years of ordinary menial life, or ten years pioneering and constructing the first long-term settlements on another world, and seeing the first wave of idealistic hopefuls come to start new lives beneath the radiation shields I helped to build, sustained by the machines I set up and maintained, bringing the promise of a new civilization and a safety net against the possibility of global disaster back on the old world? There would be no shortage of volunteers, and some of them will even be qualified in science and engineering.
I don't think Mars One has any hope of pulling this off. Maybe China will some day - they have the long-term commitment to a project like that, and are on their way to becoming the world's number-one economy.
Going to Mars is no more a suicide mission than going to Thailand or Bali to spend there 'the rest of your life'.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Many people would be willing to cut decades off their life to advance scientific knowledge and establish a foothold for humanity on another world
Again, too bad that is not what is happening. Scientific knowledge can be advanced much more economically with rovers than with an outpost. It is not a "foothold on another planet" when all the inhabitants will be dead withing 20 years. I doubt there will be any followup missions.
Do you realize how many rover missions to Mars could be done for the cost of having one team of 4 people live in a hole on Mars? Do the math. You would rather spend billions on a pipe dream rather than spend much less for much more scientific understanding.
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.
Can't you see the difference between "the rest of your life" being ten years and it being 70 years? And another thing, if you get to Thailand and change your mind you can go somewhere else. Mars? Not so much.
I have no trouble going to Mars for the rest of my life.
If it is so unfortunate so, that we rely to long on earth to support us, and I die there on lack of food, or what ever, I have no trouble with that either.
I like the beautiful skies there, the sunrise, the desert ...
Even if it was just the trip through space and I would die in flames during the landing, it would be worth it.
Dying in flames during lift off, that would suck, though.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
If there was no money involved I would have no problem with that. There is money involved and it is billions. Spending billions on a few suicides is just moronic.
Hmm... I see very little chance and even limited desire for "the rest of my life" being 70 years. Hopefully there is a small chance of it being just 10 years but, being human, its not out of the question. As it happens I have some responsibilities on this planet I am not willing to step away from. But I fully understand people whose personal equations are different,
You don't know if it is suicide. :D
And if they don't even start, as you imply, it certainly is not
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You don't know if it is suicide.
Sending people to Mars without sufficient funds to keep them alive makes it a suicide mission. They may get off the ground but they will never be able to do the follow on missions.
And if they don't even start, as you imply, it certainly is not :D
Then it is a scam.
I thought they dropped the plans for a remake of "Capricorn One" back in 2010. Looks like they're back on the table again.
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
Again, Mars One is not likely the best vehicle for human space exploration. Again, it may be that some highly indemnified commercial project is going to be the path to human exploration outside of the local area. The question asked is if Human Exploration provides some huge benefits that justify huge costs. I do not believe the answer is an absolute no. It could be that there is a path to paying for this in a productive manner. When we regularly spend half a billion dollars on a movie, including advertising and distribution, a couple billion on a space mission is not hard to think of. As far as competing manned and unmanned mission, this is where the commercial venture comes in. Where government tax dollars are often seen a zero sum sort of situation, the free market is not. A commercial human project to Mars does not exclude robot missions any more than humans climbing mountains precludes aerial tours of the same.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Lets look at big budget movies. Notice that most of them returned much more than the investment.
Where government tax dollars are often seen a zero sum sort of situation, the free market is not.
Every public company in the free market has a legal obligation to make a profit. There is no multi-billion dollar return for putting people on Mars. It is a money pit. Why would any responsible company throw money at Mars with little or no hope of profit? They would have a better chance of getting their money bay by buying a lottery ticket. Company board members would be sued for investing in manned Mars missions. Mars 1 is a nonprofit that has no way of actually making money. All they are doing is soliciting investment from people and companies.
Perhaps we shouldn't look at everything in terms of financial return on investment. There are lots of non-financial reasons to set up a manned mission - the advancement in technology such a venture would bring, taking the first step towards the more distant goal of a perminent settlement, the cultural impact as a new generation are inspired towards science and engineering much as the moon landing inspired their grandparents. It's a money pit, yes - but not everything in life is about money. Man did not go to the moon to seek wealth: That mission was driven by dreams for the future, patriotic international rivalry and (more cynically) the chance to develop a few military technologies on the way. There is your reason for a manned mission to mars. Not money. Plus you'd get some science from it too - rovers can barely scrape the surface, literally.
The technology isn't there to start such a mission yet - launch costs are too high, mars-suitable landing technologies are still not well tested, and essential technologies still unrefined. This is not the time to go to mars, but it is the time to start developing the means to go in future.
You Space Nutters are seriously mentally ill. You *CAN* LIVE in Thailand! You CAN'T on Mars!
Why is this BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS fact not registering in your tiny Space Nutter brain!!!!!?????
Well, when it gets down to it, you CAN GET to Thailand. They CAN'T TRAVEL to Mars. There's a 100% chance of survival through Mars One Program because nobody is actually going to go anywhere. But, if they are going to play at having the tech to get four people and a long term space habitat into space, on its way to Mars, and able to land reliably, then playing at having the needed tech to let them live there till they die of old age is relatively trivial. Of course, for that matter, the tech to get them back to Earth would be even more trivial.
> There is no multi-billion dollar return for putting people on Mars.
Actually, there almost was, in the 1980's. A major TV network came to Boeing, where I worked at the time, and asked us how much for a Mars mission. We worked out a mission concept, and gave them an estimate. The network figured they could sell as much advertising for the mission as an Olympic games, but spread over a couple of years. Unfortunately the mission cost we came up with was twice the ad revenue, so it died at that point.
If you can boost the revenue with things like "Mars, the video game", and "Mars, the branded merchandise", and cut costs with modern technology, you *might* get it within reach of break-even. Throw in some government-funded science payloads, and it might work a profit.
Back then, there were only three TV networks, and they could command a big audience. I'm not sure a network could front that much these days, although they still compete for the Olympics.
I can not find a reference to such a TV network/Boeing mission. Do you have any?
The media rights for Sochi were sold for $775M. Using the MIT estimate of $4.5B for the initial outpost that would still leave it only 17% funded. This mission cost is over five times the revenue from an Olympic Games.