Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mars One Does Not Renew Contracts For Robotic Missions

Posted by timothy on from the first-one-was-good-enough dept.

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.

19 of 110 comments (clear)

  1. This Just In! by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This just in - Getting humans safely to the surface of Mars is way wicked hard and totally expensive.

    1. Re:This Just In! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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!
    2. Re:This Just In! by sg_oneill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    3. Re:This Just In! by AC-x · · Score: 2

      Reality TV space mission? It's not rocket science!

  2. News Media by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:News Media by penguinoid · · Score: 2

      The objective of most news media is not to spread the truth, but rather to attract eyeballs. Hence the number of intentionally misleading headlines and reporting, and especially the choice of topic.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    2. Re:News Media by Beck_Neard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So far there's no evidence that it's an outright fraud; it's just REALLY wishful thinking. But that's almost equally bad, because when it inevitably fails it's going to hurt the space community because they will be permanently associated with failures and scams. This is why I think the onus is on the space community (The Planetary Society, the Mars Society, etc.) to quickly refute and bury Mars One as fast as possible.

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    3. Re:News Media by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      Every scientist in the field who does not have in interest in Mars 1 who have commented have commented negatively about the project. Take a look at this paper from some MIT students.

      The only thing preventing that to happen is either political will or money.

      You are absolutely correct. The big problem with this scheme is money. They have no viable plan to gather the money to do it. Sorry but selling media rights to watch people die on another planet is not going to bring in the billions of dollars necessary to keep things going. Have you ever heard of a reality show pull in over $4.5billion? No country in their right mind would back this as all it will be is a drain on taxes money. Yes, money is a huge issue and Mars 1 has not solved that problem.

      Accusing them right now for scam is lible and insult.

      Considering they are no longer even using the cover of contracts with legitimate companies I say now is a great time to call scam.

    4. Re:News Media by itzly · · Score: 2

      We have the technology to send people there and let them build up their own homes since decades. The only thing preventing that to happen is either political will or money.

      Please show the technology that can land people safely on the surface.

    5. Re:News Media by khallow · · Score: 2

      So far there's no evidence that it's an outright fraud

      Sure there is. I see two repliers who noted both the application fee (classic scam warning right there) and making false claims. To this I'd add the elephant in the tent: they completed astronaut selection for the alleged mission to Mars before they started any physical manifestation of the project. Where's the working prototype spaceship these astronauts will fly in? Where's the working prototype habitat these astronauts will stay in on Mars?

      Even on their unjustifiably aggressive schedule, they picked the astronauts at least 15 years before they'll fly them. Even if all the current recruits are young, that's still going to result in huge attribution just from changing circumstance. But OTOH, if you're just looking for appearance rather than substance, astronauts selection is cheap (and profitable with those application fees). "Bending metal" is expensive and cuts into the profit margin.

      This is why I think the onus is on the space community (The Planetary Society, the Mars Society, etc.)

      Nah, I think the best way is to let the suckers get parted from their money. Gullible people aren't good for business and this is a life lesson for those involved.

    6. Re:News Media by itzly · · Score: 3, Informative

      Mars has significantly stronger gravity than the moon, so the little rocket engine that they used on the moon lander wouldn't be able to reduce much of the orbital speed until it slammed in the surface. Also, the moon lander was operating in a vacuum. Designing a rocket engine that works against supersonic atmospheric flow is an entirely different matter.

      And while parachutes are an existing technology, a parachute big enough to help with a Mars landing is not. You can't just scale up existing technology that's already at the edge of what we can do.

  3. Mars one has now by invictusvoyd · · Score: 5, Funny

    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 ..

    1. Re:Mars one has now by Kjella · · Score: 2

      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 ..

      Wow that should double their change of success. Probably even triple it too. At the same time.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Mars one has now by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately quantum effects only work on the quantum level, not on the macroscopic level.
      So the chance that Mars quantum leaps closer to earth is not only zero, it is in fact minus zero.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  4. What will really happen by 7bit · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!

    1. Re:What will really happen by Kjella · · Score: 3, Funny

      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: (...) 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.

      So what you're saying is ditch the space tech, invent resurrection tech? Because if you die on reality TV you're dead. Or have you got it confused with fake scripted "reality" shows played by actors pretending to be ordinary people?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  5. time to learn from history by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Interesting

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

    The Darien Scheme was an unsuccessful attempt by the Kingdom of Scotland to become a world trading nation by establishing a colony called "Caledonia" on the Isthmus of Panama on the Gulf of Darién in the late 1690s. The aim was for the colony to have an overland route that connected the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. From the beginning the undertaking was beset by poor planning and provisioning, divided leadership, lack of demand for trade goods, devastating epidemics of disease, and failure to anticipate the Spanish Empire's military response. It was finally abandoned in March 1700 after a siege by Spanish forces, which also blockaded the harbour.[1]

    As the Darien company was backed by 25–50% of all the money circulating in Scotland; its failure left the entire Lowlands almost completely ruined, and was an important factor in weakening their resistance to the Act of Union (completed in 1707). The land where the Darien colony was built is virtually uninhabited today.

    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
  6. Re:safety by jklovanc · · Score: 2

    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.

  7. Plenty of circumstancial evidence of fraud by geekpowa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.