Slashdot Mirror


Mars One Delayed 2 Years, CEO Releases Video In Response To Criticism

CryoKeen writes It's interesting how different news sites spin #marsgate. From Yahoo News: "The private colonization project Mars One has pushed its planned launch of the first humans toward the Red Planet back by two years, to 2026. The delay was necessitated by a lack of investment funding, which has slowed work on a robotic precursor mission that Mars One had wanted to send toward the Red Planet in 2018, Mars One CEO Bas Lansdorp said in a new video posted today... 'We had a very successful investment round in 2013 that has financed all the things that we have done up to now. And we have actually come to an agreement with a consortium of investors late last year for a much bigger round of investments. Unfortunately, the paperwork of that deal is taking much longer than we expected,' Lansdorp said in the video." This Astrowatch article is a lot more scathing and to the point: "Mars One, the Dutch company planning to send people on a one-way trip to Mars, that recently selected a group of 100 hopefuls, struggles with criticism. In a Medium story this week, Mars One finalist Joseph Roche presented multiple reasons as to why he believed the entire operation is a complete scam. In response, the company published a video Thursday in which Bas Lansdorp, CEO and Co-founder of Mars One, replies to recent criticism concerning the feasibility of Mars One's human trip to Mars. He also revealed that the mission will be delayed for two years. Roche said that the 'only way' to get selected for the next round of the Mars One candidacy process was to donate money. 'My nightmare about it is that people continue to support it and give it money and attention, and it then gets to the point where it inevitably falls on its face,' Roche told Elmo Keep for Medium."

89 comments

  1. Scam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our completely scamming overlords.

    1. Re:Scam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scam. Just like the stock market, but less liquid.

    2. Re:Scam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scam. Just like the stock market, but less liquid.

      You one of those idiots who lost all his money shorting the market the last few years?

  2. Similar to pay-upfront job scams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you have to pay a fee to get the job -- it's a scam. Except in this case, they're not even bothering to guarantee you the job. Because it's so exciting, they need only promise you the opportunity. And then further down the road, they'll likely ask for more money, "to get further up the ladder, still".

    http://www.scamwatch.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/694333

    1. Re:Similar to pay-upfront job scams by rudy_wayne · · Score: 2

      If you have to pay a fee to get the job -- it's a scam. Except in this case, they're not even bothering to guarantee you the job. Because it's so exciting, they need only promise you the opportunity. And then further down the road, they'll likely ask for more money, "to get further up the ladder, still".

      http://www.scamwatch.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/694333

      Maybe Mars One should partner with Amway.

    2. Re:Similar to pay-upfront job scams by rickybobby12 · · Score: 1

      1999 called. It wants it's horribly designed website back. Look at the page source. It is hilarious.

  3. delay by itzly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In other words: the scam is working nicely, and we'd like to milk this cow for another 2 years.

    1. Re:delay by crashumbc · · Score: 2

      Exactly, the whole fact that they are doing the "selection" process first is classic scam.

      Why the fuck do you need select people BEFORE you've even proven you can put robots on the planet.

    2. Re:delay by burtosis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well I can think of three reasons.
      1) you want to popularize reality snuff tv shows
      2)You want to embezzle the funds and flee to a country with no extradition laws
      3)You want to blow investor money on pseudo legal expenses like corporate bentleys and 'business trips' where the per diem includes hooker and blow expenses.

    3. Re:delay by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      taking a wage is not embezzlement. they can take in wage and try to look for investors when on said wage and it's all nice and legit.

      of course it would be nice to have more money, so you offer a chance to get on the 100 list for more money.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:delay by taiwanjohn · · Score: 0

      I can certainly understand the skepticism, but I think a lot of the skeptics are not up to speed with the latest in NewSpace. For example, SpaceX is on the verge of proving the viability of reusing booster stages... that alone will drop the cost-per-pound to orbit by an order of magnitude.

      There are dozens of companies such as Masten, Sierra Nevada, Armadillo, XCOR, MoonEx, Bigelow (etc) some of which have been profitable for many years, working on various aspects of the overall project (for their own purposes of course), such as RCS thrusters, GNC avionics, spacesuits, hab modules, etc.. So a lot of the stuff Mars-One will need is already available off the shelf, and at a much lower cost than NASA has traditionally paid in the past.

      Comparing Mars-One's plans to past experience is an apples-to-oranges comparison. You have to evaluate their plans according to what can reasonably be expected within the next half-decade or so.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    5. Re:delay by itzly · · Score: 2

      Reusable boosters are nice, but they don't even have a realistic plan for the landing stage, which is much harder. The Curiosity rover used a complex landing procedure using the 'sky crane' concept, and that thing was only 1 ton. To keep a few humans alive for a while, you'll need a much more massive lander, and you need to set it down very gently.

    6. Re:delay by taiwanjohn · · Score: 2

      Remember Viking I and II? They didn't need complicated airbags/sky-cranes and such because they used a "brute-force" powered landing just like Apollo. But SpaceX now claims to have a Super-Draco thruster that can ignite under supersonic conditions... IOW, SpaceX claims it's Dragon.V2 capsule can land propulsively on "any surface" in the solar system, including (especially) Mars. Based on recent performance in the last few years, how much money would you be willing to bet that Elon Musk is wrong about this?

      This is where the reusable booster comes in handy... if your limiting factor is fuel, then just use multiple cheap launches to assemble the hardware and fuel on orbit before trans-mars injection.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    7. Re:delay by itzly · · Score: 1

      Did you ask yourself why NASA didn't use the successful Viking I and II landing system for Curiosity ?

    8. Re:delay by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      SpaceX claims it's Dragon.V2 capsule can land propulsively on "any surface"

      Alright! I'm sick and tired of winter. Let's land on the sun.
      "You can't it's too hot!"
      We'll go at night.

      It can't land on Jupiter, either. 30 miles of clouds, then 13,000 miles of hydrogen and helium that changes from a gas to a liquid. Ditto Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Might want to start calling Pluto a planet again.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    9. Re:delay by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Elon Musk wants to build a Mars Colony too, but he has a rocket factory (SpaceX), and several other businesses that can earn lots of money *and* supply hardware for Mars: Tesla (electric cars on Earth, electric rovers on Mars), Solar City (home roofs, and soon high efficiency cells for Earth and Mars), and the Gigafactory (batteries for vehicles *and* nighttime backup for solar panels). So his plan is a lot more feasbile than Mars One's.

      The real question is where is Mars One going to get the $6 billion they estimate for their project? If they have that money, they can hire the right aerospace companies and engineers to build real hardware. But without it, they just have pretty pictures on a website, and aren't going anywhere.

      And as someone who helped build the Space Station, and written a book on Space Systems Engineering ( http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/S... ), Mars One isn't being innovative *enough* to really bring down costs.

    10. Re:delay by taiwanjohn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Obviously they didn't have SpaceX's capabilities available when they approved the Curiosity mission over a decade ago.

      Having a rocket thruster that can ignite in supersonic mode is a game-changer, especially for Mars. Most people in "the business" didn't think it was possible until SpaceX proved them wrong. This is just another example of folks not realizing how much the game has changed while they weren't paying attention.

      We are on the brink of massive changes in aerospace... I just hope enough people will "tune in" before it's too late.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    11. Re:delay by quantaman · · Score: 1

      In other words: the scam is working nicely, and we'd like to milk this cow for another 2 years.

      As the saying goes don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

      There are countless harebrained startup ideas launched everyday, why can't Mars One be one of them?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    12. Re:delay by jandrese · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a classic advance fee scam. You promise the suckers something awesome if they'll just front a bit of cash to handle processing fees and transportation fees and whatever other fees the scammers can think of. It works because after the people invest money they don't want to lose their investment and are more willing to handle further fees. In some cases they are trapped because they took out a loan with the promise of the future payout as collateral and they can't afford to pay the loan back unless the deal goes through.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    13. Re:delay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how many people they're offering the opportunity to cough up some cash, er, I mean become one of the "100". Could be in the thousands, who knows, it's not like they're being audited.

    14. Re:delay by burtosis · · Score: 1

      taking a wage is not embezzlement. they can take in wage and try to look for investors when on said wage and it's all nice and legit.

      of course it would be nice to have more money, so you offer a chance to get on the 100 list for more money.

      That's why i separated 2/3. But no self respecting CEO just takes a wage. They spend millions on shit like bad deals, which on closer inspection are you rub my back ill rub yours methods of fleecing investors - completely legal and extremely difficult to prove its fraud. Or millions on expenses where they benefit directly, but it's of little or no value to the shareholders.

    15. Re:delay by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      Looks like a very interesting book, thanks for the link.

      Mars One isn't being innovative *enough* to really bring down costs.

      My point was that Mars-One doesn't have to bring down costs because the industry is already doing that. Lansdorp is just betting that the costs will be within reach by the time he has to start bending metal. That gives him a few years, realistically, to ramp up the TV show and start generating some revenue. In the meantime, SpaceX will have upended the launch industry with the advent of reusability and Dragon.V2 will have flown astronauts to the ISS. You have to view it in that context, not the current one.

      Do I think Mars-One is a bit "too visionary" to ever become reality? Yeah, of course I do. But that doesn't mean it's impossible. It's not possible today, certainly, but I think it is possible -- just barely -- in the long run, and I'm sure Mr. Lansdorp agrees.

      Also, I'm sure I don't have to remind anyone here what most folks thought of that wooly-headed visionary Elon Musk about 13 years ago...

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    16. Re:delay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the satellite factory they're setting up to help build the 400 satellites for their constellation. Talk about economies of scale.

    17. Re:delay by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Why the fuck do you need select people BEFORE you've even proven you can put robots on the planet.

      So you can pipeline training the people with the robot work?

      (Don't get me wrong, plenty else seems scammy..)

  4. next you will be an Independent contractor and hav by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 3, Funny

    next you will be an Independent contractor and have to pay for all your tools and other stuff needed to do the job. And once on mars you can't go to court.

  5. Lack of funding by wiredlogic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The delay was necessitated by a lack of investment funding

    Maybe because they don't have a rocket, a ship, a way to land, a way to ferry supplies, a way to fund those supplies, or a way to live on another planet long term. Only a fool would dump money on this adventure.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    1. Re:Lack of funding by burtosis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Only a fool would dump money on this adventure.

      ahh so its a perfectly viable business plan with a wide consumer base. I was worried there for a minute.

    2. Re:Lack of funding by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Funny

      come on, they only need couple of months for the paperwork to go through and then the nigerian space program will transfer the funds.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Lack of funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well.... Twitter and Amazon still aren't viable either.

    4. Re:Lack of funding by Bo'Bob'O · · Score: 1

      Or a way to get this supposed reality TV from mars to earth. Much less in any way 'live', which was supposedly central to all this.

      And they aren't even talking to the people actually doing this, despite that even 10 years from now this will still all be new, if not prototype technology. All their promotional materials still show what's basically scaled up gen 1 Dragon spacercraft. Meanwhile SpaceX has changed plans, shifted it's roadmap, yet aren't in any sort of talks with SpaceX.

    5. Re:Lack of funding by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Well.... Twitter and Amazon still aren't viable either.

      Twitter isn't a business in any non-insane sense of the word, and Amazon is a business that is based on an eternal "jam tomorrow" model. Apart from blind faith in The Future, there is no reason to invest in either of them, nor this Mars scam.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  6. Who'd a thunk by burtosis · · Score: 2

    The potential for scamming is out of this world!

    although it would make for a great survivor sequel, albeit a single episode.

    1. Re:Who'd a thunk by ishmaelflood · · Score: 1

      The title of the episode is : We export idiots

      sadly, we don't have enough spaceships

    2. Re:Who'd a thunk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we export all the idiots, who's going to clean all the public telephone booths ?

    3. Re: Who'd a thunk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better title. The B Arc Sails.

    4. Re:Who'd a thunk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the number of investors, I think you'll find plenty for a few more seasons and spinoffs.

  7. Costs? by joe_frisch · · Score: 2

    Mars one claims $6B to put 4 people on mars.
    On one side -how do they plan to raise that amount of money? They use the Olympics as an example,but that is an event with an enormous viewership. Are they claiming they can get anything like a similar number of viewers for a bunch of guys living (or slowly dying) on mars?

    On the other side, what technology do they have that makes a mars mission cost $6B, not the hundreds of billions that NASA estimates? Sure they may be able to do for somewhat less money, but a factor of 100??? Where is their demonstration of technical expertise to support such a claim?

    Its just a scam.

    1. Re:Costs? by itzly · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On one side -how do they plan to raise that amount of money?

      After the selection process, the candidates will enter a "rocket" that's really a cardboard prop with hidden cameras. During the journey, they'll face some challenges that will force them vote for the next candidate to be pushed out of the airlock.

    2. Re:Costs? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      actually, I think they would get similar viewership.

      but who would foot the bill in advance? friggin nobody.

      would they get to mars with 6 billion dollars? probably not.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Costs? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Mars one claims $6B to put 4 people on mars.
      On one side -how do they plan to raise that amount of money? They use the Olympics as an example,but that is an event with an enormous viewership. Are they claiming they can get anything like a similar number of viewers for a bunch of guys living (or slowly dying) on mars?

      Not that I really want to defend Mars One, but... the huge event would be the actual Mars landing, which would have the whole world watching. The first trip and the first establishment of a base would keep people interested for many months all the way from launch until they're settled, for no other reason than it's the first time ever like the first moon landing. The second biggest thing is the selection process, who gets to go. Who will be the next Neil Armstrong, the competition for first man on Mars would be rather epic. The runner-up years would be about who would join them, using clips from the Mars colony as filler and publicity bait.

      The base itself has very little news value, it will be a bunker stuck in the same barren landscape and the activity consisting mainly of the same routine maintenance. Alone it would be roughly as popular as NASA TV, which isn't exactly pulling in the crowds. It's not an entirely implausible concept which is why they've got so many people's attention, but the figures don't add up. My guess is you'd be raising 1% of your expenses. It's like a game show "Who wants to be a billionaire?", it sounds good except that that you need a billion dollars in prize money and it won't draw 1000x as many as "Who wants to be a millionaire?".

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:Costs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "SpaceX spends 320 times less to build Dragon than NASA to build Orion"

      http://mic.com/articles/11354/spacex-spends-320-times-less-on-building-the-dragon-than-nasa-does-on-the-orion

      Yes, when a government institution is not behind the engineering, then costs are dramatically less.

      That said....I don't think they could do it for 6billion but maybe 20 or 30 billion. Still not feasible from the reality show perspective they are trying to make it, i.e. they want a Survivor in Space show where nobody will survive, I can't imagine they'd make 30 billion in advertising/subscription revenue over the time it would take all the 'colonists' to die.

    5. Re:Costs? by Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You know, this gets me thinking... what's really the minimum necessary for a person to stand a chance of making it to the surface of Mars alive? Let's say:

      1) 150 days transit
      2) Passenger remains drugged out of their gourd during the whole voyage so that they don't go crazy in the ridiculously small amount of space they're allocated, nor burn more than a minimal amount of consumables.
      3) No extra radiation shielding; craft keeps its thickest end toward the sun and puts its consumables around the passenger but otherwise does nothing special
      4) Landing hardware done as an exact duplicate of MSL, no re-engineering. MSL used a 4 tonne spacecraft to deliver a 900kg payload to the surface. An incredibly cramped capsule may fit that payload profile.
      5) No attempt to get back or even survive for any significant length of time. Passenger has to be someone who wants to die on Mars.

      Normal O2 consumption is 0,9kg/day; let's say 0,7 due to #2. Consumption of pure fat for say 1500 calories per day is 166g; let's say 300. I don't have numbers on CO2 scrubbers, let's put it at the same as O2. Let's say 3 liters (3kg) water consumption per day, 2kg recovered from the air via a chiller, 1kg lost to excretion, so 1kg total per day. Let's say 1kg other consumables per day. No complex recycling systems or anything that could seriously inflate your costs. We're at the ballpark of 3.7kg per day, so 555kg for the journey there, which doesn't need to be landed. Give them 600kg for some margin and a little time alive. These figures probably wouldn't size your spacecraft out of an affordable launch vehicles.

      So yeah, if you really wanted to, I bet you could have a moderate chance of delivering a suicidal human alive but very ill to the surface of Mars to live for a short period of time for only a couple billion dollars in development + launch costs.

      Who wants to sign up? ;)

      --
      "TAMS shouldn't be destroyed. They should just tag us before releasing us into the wild." -- Maeglin
    6. Re:Costs? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      1. We don't have the ability to keep someone in a coma for 150 days in zero-g conditions.

      2. Infections from the foley catheter - who's going to diagnose and treat it when the patient can't complain?

      3. Blocked foley catheter - who's going to flush it?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    7. Re:Costs? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      The chance of getting to land on Mars is pretty much zero given their "plans" - which seem to be mostly making it up as they go along and not answering embarrassing questions. So no tv rights for the "first landing on Mars."

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    8. Re:Costs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if we're going whole-hog on the 'dying on mars' angle, we could just remove all the unnecessary organs and openings on the.. subject. Would make plumbing a bit easier I guess. Not that I'd volunteer. Ha!

    9. Re:Costs? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      I'd like to put this whole thing in perspective. If they had called it Moonbase 1, do you think $6 billion wouldn't have been enough to establish a permanent colony?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    10. Re:Costs? by Rei · · Score: 1

      I did not say "in a coma". I said "drugged out of their gourd". This does not imply "comatose". No catheter.

        If they were comatose, their consumables would be even less.

      --
      "TAMS shouldn't be destroyed. They should just tag us before releasing us into the wild." -- Maeglin
    11. Re:Costs? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      So what you're proposing is that they should still be able to get to the washroom and work the zero-g toilet, wash, wipe, etc. If they can do that, they can also do other things, things that will cause problems. It also won't help keep them from being bored out of their mind - expect psychosis in such situations.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    12. Re:Costs? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Actually it's much worse than "who wants to be a billionaire." A show like that actually is plausible and wouldn't need to have 1000x as many viewers as the millionaire show.

      You don't need an actual billion dollars on-hand, you need insurance for a billion dollars. The premium for which needs to be lower per episode than the revenue for each episode, but that can be arranged by limiting the number of questions per episode, raising the number of questions before reaching the grand prize, and increasing the difficulty of the questions. It's entirely possible to arrange things so that the risk of a payout is low enough to have a profitable show.

      Of course.. you wouldn't be able to have a winner most years, so that might be a negative for viewership, but all of the factors are within your control, and you could have such a show at pretty much any budget level (that an insurance company will bother with) by tweaking the conditions.

      A space mission's costs will be what they will be. If you're definitely going to do the mission, you can't get rid of them by something as simple as tweaking a number of dice rolls.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    13. Re:Costs? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Yeah, coming out of a ketamine tranq state to a zero grav toilet with six pages of instructions ought to be good for at least one episode.....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    14. Re:Costs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go back to arstechnica where you're surrounded by all the losers there that are just like yourself, ok?

    15. Re:Costs? by Trogre · · Score: 1

      That's a boldface lie and you know it. You clearly have no understanding of the Mars One project and should refrain from further participation in this discussion.

      The prop will be styrofoam.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    16. Re:Costs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your O2 Consumption estimate is way too high, since most of that can be reprocessed from CO2.

    17. Re:Costs? by Rei · · Score: 1

      A person can be hopped up out of their gourd and still manage to use the restroom. It happens every day on this planet already.

      We're talking a mix of drugs that make a person happy, content, and sleepy, which won't kill them in under half a year. There's no shortage of possibilities.

      --
      "TAMS shouldn't be destroyed. They should just tag us before releasing us into the wild." -- Maeglin
    18. Re:Costs? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Which takes extra hardware and power, the two of which would be heavier than the O2 needed for a single person. It'd also raise your development cost.

      KISS.

      --
      "TAMS shouldn't be destroyed. They should just tag us before releasing us into the wild." -- Maeglin
    19. Re:Costs? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      In zero g? It's bad enough when guys aim is "off" on earth. In space, you don't want to be breathing that stuff.

      Yes, this too happens every day on the planet. And others urinating in bus shelters, elevators, their pants, on cars, and pretty much everywhere the "mood takes them." And take a dump in the subway car in front of other passengers.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  8. Why select people so early? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the point of selecting the astronauts 10 years in advance?
    It's not like they will receive continuous training until they depart.
    They will age. Some might even die. Some might change their mind.

    1. Re:Why select people so early? by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      "That's where the money is."
      --Willie Sutton

    2. Re:Why select people so early? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      What's the point of selecting the astronauts 10 years in advance?

      They get ten years of fleecing the deluded would-be Martians with a never-ending series of requests for additional training costs and "donations", obviously.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  9. Oh, please, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Stop posting thinks about this Mars One bullshit scam.

  10. Re:next you will be an Independent contractor and by tomhath · · Score: 3, Funny

    And once on mars you can't go to court.

    That would be Martian H1-B status, since you are an alien there.

  11. Worse than Biosphere2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Biosphere2 scam from the late 80s, early 90s was embarrassing enough - but this seems to be even worse.

    1. Re:Worse than Biosphere2 by Rei · · Score: 2

      Biosphere 2 was pretty flawed but it actually did something. Even had some educational value.

      This is just a scam. I think the only unknown is whether the founders believe it to be a scam or whether they're truly convinced by their own BS.

      --
      "TAMS shouldn't be destroyed. They should just tag us before releasing us into the wild." -- Maeglin
  12. They're Dutch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... of course it's a scam!

  13. Capricorn One 2: Electric Boogaloo by sracer · · Score: 1

    How much does it cost to stage a Capricorn One-like scam? Doesn't seem so difficult to me: buy a remote island, build a sound stage on it, stage the lift off, have the "astronauts" live there while continuing to rake in the dough on subsequent missions to send supplies, after a while "build" the technology to bring them back... book/movie deals for the "astronauts", scammers get paid.

    1. Re:Capricorn One 2: Electric Boogaloo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd get caught from the video - gravity is different.

    2. Re:Capricorn One 2: Electric Boogaloo by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      You could probably do it - with enough computer graphics and skill. But that would cost a buttload of money (which they don't have) and require the expertise of hundreds of people (like a modern movie). Wouldn't be a secret for very long.

      Besides, after a month or so, one of the stars would be photographed at a Burger King in Honolulu and that would be the end of that....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Capricorn One 2: Electric Boogaloo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worked for the Apollo Landing

  14. There is no evidence Mars One is not sincere by Simon321 · · Score: 1

    "It's interesting how different news sites spin #marsgate"

    That's because there are quality news sites and there are blogs. There is no evidence Mars One is not sincere in their attempts.

    Here's another medium article by the Mars One applicants refuting the conspiracy theory: https://medium.com/@oscarmathe...

    1. Re:There is no evidence Mars One is not sincere by burtosis · · Score: 1

      I read the article. The nasa engineer has a point, you need to be able to land gear on the surface first. 40 tons may be more than you need (possibly) but you will need a hell of a lot more than a moon mission lasting hours. For permenant settlement you will need many redundant systems and replacement parts as any resupply based on need is 8 months to a year away minimum. Companies like spaceX worked for 10 years before they could achieve low earth orbit. Plus they leveraged and copied existing technology. The technology to move humans interplanetary distances does not exist and people are not even seriously working on it. The whole thing is a scam, or best case just idiocy.

      If they actually did manage to land humans alive on the surface they would likely die in weeks with the planning and support i see so far.

    2. Re:There is no evidence Mars One is not sincere by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Current Mars100 Finalists refute Elmo Keep’s Mars One “conspiracy theory.”

      Suckers are always the last ones to see they're being scammed.

      The article is horse turds. Appeals to authority, such as #6, the lame excuse for limiting interviews to 15 minutes max online (#8 - either take the time to do it right or don't do it), speculation of what the training "might" include - example - "might cover emergency manual control of spacecraft if applicable." as a way to justify 10 years, even though the author can only speculate as to what this training may be - nothing has been released to the public (or even the "candidates", obviously).

      The "explanation" for the 200,000+ figure (#2) is absolutely post-hoc to cover up the fact that they misled the media.

      #9 - the "explanation" that the initial funding is to be from an investment firm was only made after the TV company pulled out of the deal. No such deal is in place, nor is a deal in place for a replacement TV broadcaster.

      Now that the initial shine is off, nobody serious wants to be associated with this turkey, because everyone knows that turkeys can't fly.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:There is no evidence Mars One is not sincere by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      And then there's this further down the page:

      The most recent semi-final Mars100 selection occurred after being given multiple sources of technical and press release information about the mission and being told to memorize the knowledge elements for a personal 15 minute interview with Dr. Norbert Kraft, MD, JAXA initial candidate and NASA long-duration group selection expert. Once Dr. Kraft had interviewed all 663 candidates on technical knowledge retention and public speaking ability

      So, they're selecting 100 people for a one-way journey to Mars based on being able to memorize and spit back press releases and a few facts that go along with them, and look good doing it.

      Sounds more like the interview process for a Fox News reporter.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re:There is no evidence Mars One is not sincere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The technology to move humans interplanetary distances does not exist and people are not even seriously working on it.

      NASA and SpaceX are seriously working on it, but right now it's all still in early stages and planning to piggy-back on other technologies that are closer to being realized (Orion/SLS, Dragon/Falcon Heavy).

    5. Re:There is no evidence Mars One is not sincere by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      There is no evidence Mars One is not sincere in their attempts.

      How about this quote from an article dated March 16 2015.

      So, here are the facts as we understand them: Mars One has almost no money. Mars One has no contracts with private aerospace suppliers who are building technology for future deep-space missions. Mars One has no TV production partner. Mars One has no publicly known investment partnerships with major brands. Mars One has no plans for a training facility where its candidates would prepare themselves. Mars One’s candidates have been vetted by a single person, in a 10-minute Skype interview.

      What more evidence do you need?

      Lets look at the article "refuting" the criticisms.

      This is simply a polite request asking them to continue their support of Mars One, as they are now very close to being part of their project.

      The subtext being that if they do not donate they will become less " close to being part of their project".

      Even though it would be desirable that Mars One corrected every false statement, they cannot be held responsible for how the media interpret and phrase their reports about Mars One.

      For statements like this it is the responsability of Mars One to correct such big misconceptions. But they will not as te false information helps them.

      Whether they completed the application process to the video stage may be where you begin to see different numbers.

      So anyone who clicked on "apply here" is counted in their numbers. That is completely skewing the numbers and they know it.

      It would have consumed inordinate amounts of time and money to go through rigorous testing for 660 Round 2 candidates.

      It is strange that the couple of million dollars to interview 600 candidates is too high but the 3,000 time that amount to get to Mars is not. They also told round 2 candidates there would be interview and then changed. That is a classic bait and switch.

      The primary source of finance is to be an investment firm in the first stages of the mission (leading up to and including the first manned mission).

      Where is this investment firm? Why won't you name them? Do they even exist?

      The $6 billion in revenue was never stated to be entirely funded from one source.

      While this is factually true, it plays on the use of absolutes. If even 0.1% of revenue comes from other sources that statement is true. According to the Mars One site their major sources of income would be Media and IP. Notice they never say just how much they expect to receive from each source. They just show the numbers for the Olympics. Had they shown the number for Big Brother it would be more accurate.

      Scam implies profit. If Mars One is a scam, show who you think is getting rich.

      The executives running Mars one are getting paid an unknown amount.

      Show who is being cheated/harmed when all of the candidates are participating voluntarily and are aware of the low probability of success?

      Here are some things and people being harmed;
      Other space programs who's funding is being wasted on Mars One.
      Future similar projects will always have to deal with the "Mars One" stigma.
      Any future large crowd funding will have to deal with the "Mars One" stigma.
      Anyone who was ever on the list will be ridiculed for falling for the "Mars One" scam.

    6. Re:There is no evidence Mars One is not sincere by burtosis · · Score: 1

      The technology to move humans interplanetary distances does not exist and people are not even seriously working on it.

      NASA and SpaceX are seriously working on it, but right now it's all still in early stages and planning to piggy-back on other technologies that are closer to being realized (Orion/SLS, Dragon/Falcon Heavy).

      References? Because NASA is not seriously working on it. They have this but no real funding at the moment. They are half assed working on it. Plus they won't consider it for 20 years, so I call bullshit on mars one doing it 10 years out in anything resembling a safe manner.

    7. Re:There is no evidence Mars One is not sincere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when will police step in?

    8. Re:There is no evidence Mars One is not sincere by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      A couple of Fox news reporters tossed out of earth gravity wouldn't be such a bad start.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    9. Re:There is no evidence Mars One is not sincere by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      There is no evidence Mars One is not sincere in their attempts.

      There is no evidence that there is not an invisible, massless teapot orbiting the Earth at twice the speed of light. It's not impossible that all our scientific theories are incomplete.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  15. Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't wait for the movie,"Invaders from Earth."

  16. Re:Viking vs Curiosity by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Several reasons:

    * Curiosity has almost twice the landed weight of the Viking Landers
    * Rocket thrusters firing at ground level would contaminate the soil, which they wanted to analyze
    * Curiosity is a rover. You either are carrying dead weight from the propulsion system, or need a roll-off ramp
    * Curiosity's wheels and suspension allowed landing on rougher ground by landing on them directly. Rocket thrusters might have damaged the wheels by throwing rocks around

  17. 2226 is a better bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I only lay odds of 50:50 even in 2226.

    By then "Mars One" would likely have a launch-pad and technics to operate it. However, it's 100:1 odds that their "space ship" will blow up on the pad killing everyone.

    But the company manager would still be able to claim that the company didi send the 100-or-so people on their way to Mars. Its is just that they only reached 300 meters on the trajectory of the journey. This will however be very satisfactory to the backing insurance companies which will block any law-suit complaints by relatives of the deceased. And, returns on stock will be very favorable.

    Ha ha

  18. Re:Viking vs Curiosity by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

    Ditto.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
  19. National Research Council Report Disagrees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to a National Research Council with the National Academies of Science issued a report last year that indicated the USA will not have humans capable of travel to the Moon or Mars for at least 50 years. This is due firstly to the requirements of education and training, there currently is non, second, to the humans who will educate and train the humans to go on the voyages, there are non, and thirdly, the national economy and social infrastructures necessary to under-right the cost of of education and training of the humans who will train the humans for the voyages and fourthly these humans do not exists yet because they have not been born.

    Given the reality and economics of human space flight, a credible attempt at a mission to the Moon or Mars is at least 150 year away.

    This indicates the Mars One Organization is a fraud.

    Ha ha

  20. Even if it's not an *intentional* scam by msobkow · · Score: 1

    Even if it's not an intentional scam, the numbers, timeline, and science just don't add up. NASA has a lot more experience with this kind of thing, and they're suggesting numbers nearly 20 times as big for a project like this.

    I'd trust NASA's experience long before I'd trust some rich guy's wishful thinking. Especially if I were planning to put my life on the line. Not that an overweight 50 year old would qualify for such a project. :P

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Even if it's not an *intentional* scam by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I'd trust NASA's experience long before I'd trust some rich guy's wishful thinking.

      In case you're wondering why anyone here on slashdot is giving this risible fraud more than a second's thought, it's simple: NASA = government. And government is always wrong.

      It's the Ayn Rand school of argument. If it's Some Rich Guy versus The Government, SRG is always right.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  21. Psychos only by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    In my opinion, anyone who volunteers for a one way trip to a barren planet like Mars is certifiably insane, and therefore shouldn't be permitted control over their money to "donate" to this scam.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  22. Its not a scam stupid. by lucien86 · · Score: 1

    Gee the funny thing is that space is expensive, who knew? If you are planning to send humans to Mars on a pittance then you need to scrape that pittance together first. They are planning to do this for about $10 billion - some of NASA's (admittedly not very efficient) plans have budgeted for over $1 trillion for getting humans to Mars. $10 billion isn't Ryan air its more like the space version of 'boat people'..
    Saying all the above $10 billion is still actually a lot of money, and raising it and even spending it are not exactly easy, and cannot be done overnight. The thing that annoys me about this debate is that its the kind of thing that can actually make projects like this less likely to succeed. If you want to look at a real scam go and look at George Bush and the Iraq war - there was a trillion dollars spent .. and most of it was wasted... $1 trillion is enough to fill the pockets of every bent politician in America. (and that's a lot) Ultimate result : Saddam Hussein (Bad) --> ISIS (Worse)

    --
    Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..