Poll

Will Mars One Succeed in Their Goal of Landing Humans on Mars?

Yes
Yes, but not by 2023
No

Author Topic: Will Mars One Succeed in Their Goal of Landing Humans on Mars?  (Read 66224 times)

Offline ClaytonBirchenough

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 777
  • ~ 1 AU
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 348
He said that the colonists could easily put duct tape across the cameras and there wouldn't be a thing that tv execs back on Earth could do about it.

Yikes, if a reality show is the main funding, those colonists might not be alive too longer if they put duct tape on the cameras!
« Last Edit: 07/04/2013 01:59 am by ClaytonBirchenough »
Clayton Birchenough

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Mars-One assert that they can furnish, install, and populate this initial base for $6B. As is well known, a US lunar lander alone, will cost $12B, which is completely unaffordable for the well, greatest spacefaring nation on Earth, according to the polls that I've read.

These two cost numbers cannot both be true at the same time.   

I read Damian's blurb on their site.  I considered, over the last hour, whether or not I wanted to apply.

As is well known, I think they should use Luna as a stepping stone to Mars; rather than a stunt, they should attempt to establish a sustainable private base on Mars.  This approach would have been what I would have suggested in the small text window allowed.

I checked out the Privacy, Terms & Conditions for the online astronaut application process of Mars-One, before applying.

There is no termination clause therein.

The information about the applicant will include all the video rights, as could be expected.  A quick read of the terms indicates that the applicant maintains few, if any, personal rights, which only comes as a surprise to older readers.

Either the words of the terms have meaning and legal standing under Danish law, or they do not.  "The Applicant waives any and all the moral rights in and to the Information" of the applicant.  The applicant will have no legal personal rights, should they find themselves on that planet, after having signed the extensive sequence of aggreements thruout the process. 

Morality in the end game of their experiment is suspect, but the filming of the final conditions should draw many viewers.  Six billion dollars will not go far towards sustaining human life up there.

*********************************

I do like the light gray text on white background, featured on most of their site.  It makes it much easier for older people to read what they have to say.

*********************************

http://mars-one.com/en/faq-en/21-faq-selection/251-do-i-qualify-to-apply

Of my qualifications, in all honesty, by my own assertion, I got 'em all, except for these important categories:

Quote from: M-O
You are open and tolerant of ideas and approaches different from your own.

For one thing, the morality issue plays into this category.  Will you do "whatever it takes" to succeed?  Particularly at the end game.

Secondly, and more pragmatically, other ideas and approaches might very well be non-pragmatic.  I would avoid those had I choice.

Quote from: M-O
You trust in yourself and maintain trust in others.

The problem here is trusting others to honor your best interests and morality.  And I do trust myself.  Yeah, there's the copperhead incident.  I know, you're not supposed to pick 'em up.  I trusted in myself; things got a little hazy after that; and we'll talk about it some other time.

Quote from: M-O
Your humor is a creative resource, used appropriately as an emerging contextual response.

Of course, they reserve the right to define "appropriately".  If they don't get it, then it would be inappropriate.  It's their way of saying that they don't have a sense of humor, that I can tell. 

I'd talk about it with Lansdorp over a drink after work on Friday, but he probably wouldn't consent.  Interestingly enough, that "humorous" concept is considered "inappropriate" on this forum.  It's only funny if they say it is.

Dang.
« Last Edit: 07/02/2013 02:08 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Vultur

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 184
Mars-One assert that they can furnish, install, and populate this initial base for $6B. As is well known, a US lunar lander alone, will cost $12B, which is completely unaffordable for the well, greatest spacefaring nation on Earth, according to the polls that I've read.

These two cost numbers cannot both be true at the same time.

I don't believe the $6B number... but there's no actual contradiction as Mars One is talking about doing it with all private industry.

Just because it would cost NASA $12B doesn't mean that's the cheapest possible... or even close.

Quote
As is well known, I think they should use Luna as a stepping stone to Mars;

I don't see the advantage of the Moon as a stepping stone, it's a worthy destination in its own right.

Quote
rather than a stunt, they should attempt to establish a sustainable private base on Mars.

I believe they do in fact intend this - at least that's what they claim to intend.



Quote
  "The Applicant waives any and all the moral rights in and to the Information" of the applicant.  The applicant will have no legal personal rights, should they find themselves on that planet, after having signed the extensive sequence of aggreements thruout the process. 

I don't see how you conclude that second sentence from the first. It seems to be talking about their ability to use your information to promote it, and so on (and you're basically signing up for a reality tv show, so not surprising at all) -- what does it have to do with human rights on Mars?

Quote
Six billion dollars will not go far towards sustaining human life up there.

Depends on if SpaceX can get the costs they seem to expect.

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Quote from: Vultur
Depends on if SpaceX can get the costs they seem to expect.

Right, a lot depends on whether SpaceX can supply the FH and the Mars lander in time and at low cost. For the FH there may be alternatives, at least for direct MTO insertion (A5 ME, D4H), but who else can promise a lander which puts 2.5t on Mars and simultaneously serves as a habitat?

Clearly a weakness in their "plan".

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Mars-One assert that they can furnish, install, and populate this initial base for $6B. As is well known, a US lunar lander alone, will cost $12B...

These two cost numbers cannot both be true at the same time.

I don't believe the $6B number... but there's no actual contradiction as Mars One is talking about doing it with all private industry.

Just because it would cost NASA $12B doesn't mean that's the cheapest possible... or even close.

I have no idea what you mean by "cheapest possible".  These are the only two numbers we can work with.

$6B and $12B are huge numbers compared to everyone's personal check book.  There's little doubt in my mind that NASA's $12B cost is way too high; after all, the people who made that estimate had been instructed to hi-ball the lander and lo-ball the rock heist.

But assume for purposes of discussion that NASA could indeed build, launch and land a four person lunar lander for $6B.

Mars-One is asserting, without any proof, that they can build, launch and land a martian lander for four people, for $6B.  And, they'll  throw in the additional launches, landers, habitats, power supplies, food, yada yada, to keep those people alive for two years.  At no additional cost.

Everybody on this forum believes that there will be a re-supply mission in two years, or that there will be a retrieval mission in two years, or that they'll let the four people die up there.

What do you believe?

Quote from: JF
As is well known, I think they should use Luna as a stepping stone to Mars;

Quote from: Vulture
I don't see the advantage of the Moon as a stepping stone, it's a worthy destination in its own right.

There are a number of people who agree with you on this.  Some destinations, by a special ju-ju, absolutely forbid all other destinations for all time.  Luna has this special ju-ju.

Quote from: JF
Rather than a stunt, they should attempt to establish a sustainable private base on Mars.

Quote from: Vulture
I believe they do in fact intend this - at least that's what they claim to intend.

So they claim.

Quote from: The Mars-One application
"The Applicant waives any and all the moral rights in and to the Information [of the applicant]."

Quote from: JF
The applicant will have no legal personal rights, should they find themselves on that planet, after having signed the extensive sequence of aggreements thruout the process. 

Quote from: Vulture
I don't see how you conclude that second sentence from the first. It seems to be talking about their ability to use your information to promote it, and so on (and you're basically signing up for a reality tv show, so not surprising at all) -- what does it have to do with human rights on Mars?

Most scientists agree that personal morality has no place in science. This is not my belief at all. 

It has not gone unnoticed by anybody observing this $6B project, that people might be putting their lives at risk.  The producers of the TV show are writing the new legal language to own the video rights to those final moments.

The Danish legal concept of moral rights to personal "Information" is a new one for me.  The applicants so far, as indicated by their age, have signed an "informed consent" to this new legal concept.

Pragmatically, most of the applicants aren't worried by that requirement.

Quote from: JF
Six billion dollars will not go far towards sustaining human life up there.

Quote from: Vulture
Depends on if SpaceX can get the costs they seem to expect.

Blame it on SpaceX.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Vultur

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 184
There's little doubt in my mind that NASA's $12B cost is way too high; after all, the people who made that estimate had been instructed to hi-ball the lander and lo-ball the rock heist.

But assume for purposes of discussion that NASA could indeed build, launch and land a four person lunar lander for $6B.

NASA might only be able to get that low, but how much do you think SpaceX could do it for?

How much does Golden Spike say theirs would cost? (OK, it's not 4 person...)


Quote
Everybody on this forum believes that there will be a re-supply mission in two years, or that there will be a retrieval mission in two years, or that they'll let the four people die up there.

What do you believe?

I believe it's most likely that they will never get $1 billion much less $6 billion, and the project will never get any hardware to Mars, much less people.

But IF they manage to get enough money to start launching stuff... and enough money to actually send people and habitats and stuff... they just might be able to make it work.

The big problem is probably funding not feasibility.


Quote
Quote from: JF
As is well known, I think they should use Luna as a stepping stone to Mars;

Quote from: Vultur
I don't see the advantage of the Moon as a stepping stone, it's a worthy destination in its own right.

There are a number of people who agree with you on this.  Some destinations, by a special ju-ju, absolutely forbid all other destinations for all time.  Luna has this special ju-ju.

Hardly - I just think that we don't need Luna first to go to Mars, so for a project whose goal is Mars, Luna is an unnecessary delay.

A Moon base, and eventually colony, is very much a worthy thing in its own right, but IMO tying Moon to Mars will hurt both by delaying Mars and pushing Moon stuff to be developed based on 'what will help with Mars' rather than 'what will help us settle the Moon'.


Quote from: The Mars-One application
"The Applicant waives any and all the moral rights in and to the Information [of the applicant]."


Quote
Quote from: JF
The applicant will have no legal personal rights, should they find themselves on that planet, after having signed the extensive sequence of aggreements thruout the process. 

Quote from: Vultur
I don't see how you conclude that second sentence from the first. It seems to be talking about their ability to use your information to promote it, and so on (and you're basically signing up for a reality tv show, so not surprising at all) -- what does it have to do with human rights on Mars?

Most scientists agree that personal morality has no place in science. This is not my belief at all. 

Um... I'm not sure that "most scientists" would say that, and what does that have to do with anything anyway?

Quote
It has not gone unnoticed by anybody observing this $6B project, that people might be putting their lives at risk.

Well, sure. I mean, colonizing Mars is an inherently risky project.

Quote
The producers of the TV show are writing the new legal language to own the video rights to those final moments.

I hardly think that's what they want to happen! Are you suggesting they expect/want it to fail and people to die?


Quote
The Danish legal concept of moral rights to personal "Information" is a new one for me.  The applicants so far, as indicated by their age, have signed an "informed consent" to this new legal concept.

Pragmatically, most of the applicants aren't worried by that requirement.

Well, why would they be?  I don't understand what's so scary about it - at least for someone who would be willing to be on a reality TV show in the first place.

Quote from: JF
Six billion dollars will not go far towards sustaining human life up there.

Quote from: Vultur
Depends on if SpaceX can get the costs they seem to expect.

Blame it on SpaceX.
[/quote]

Blame what on them? My point is that IF launch costs remain at or near current values, no, they can't do it for $6B.

But IF SpaceX (or anyone else ... but SpaceX seems to be the most likely by far to do so within MarsOne's timeline) can get the enormous cost reductions SpaceX seems to expect, then it might actually be doable for $6B - depending on how much developing and building the Mars habitats/greenhouses/landers would cost.
« Last Edit: 07/04/2013 09:18 pm by Vultur »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
... assume for purposes of discussion that NASA could indeed build, launch and land a four person lunar lander for $6B.

NASA might only be able to get that low, but how much do you think SpaceX could do it for?

How much does Golden Spike say theirs would cost? (OK, it's not 4 person...)

Both of these companies make cost claims that cannot be verified.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you appear to be holding out these claims as proof of the feasibility of the Mars-One claim.  We'll just disagree on that.

Quote from: JF
What do you believe?

Quote from: Vultuire
I believe it's most likely that they will never get $1 billion much less $6 billion, and the project will never get any hardware to Mars, much less people.

But IF they manage to get enough money ... they just might be able to make it work.

The big problem is probably funding not feasibility.

Well, of course the funding is a big "IF", and I agree with that part.  As to the "feasibility", WvB had sketched out plans for a Mars mission years ago; seems to me that technical "feasibility" of the mission has always been the case.  I'm not convinced by their public statements that they've properly wed feasibility and funding.  Like they say, "No Moola, no Melvin the Martian".

Quote from: Vultur
... I just think that we don't need Luna first to go to Mars, so for a project whose goal is Mars, Luna is an unnecessary delay.

A Moon base, and eventually colony, is very much a worthy thing in its own right, but IMO tying Moon to Mars will hurt both by delaying Mars and pushing Moon stuff to be developed based on 'what will help with Mars' rather than 'what will help us settle the Moon'.

I don't mind disagreeing on this point either.

Quote from: The Mars-One application
(First Sentence)"The Applicant waives any and all the moral rights in and to the Information [of the applicant]."

Quote from: JF
(Second Sentence)The applicant will have no legal personal rights, should they find themselves on that planet, after having signed the extensive sequence of aggreements thruout the process. 

Quote from: Vultur
I don't see how you conclude that second sentence from the first. It seems to be talking about their ability to use your information to promote it, and so on (and you're basically signing up for a reality tv show, so not surprising at all) -- what does it have to do with human rights on Mars?

Quote from: JF
Most scientists agree that personal morality has no place in science. This is not my belief at all. 

Quote from: Vultur
Um... I'm not sure that "most scientists" would say that, and what does that have to do with anything anyway?

Well, you said that the Second Sentence didn't follow the First Sentence. That's what it has to do with anything.  I'm fine with disagreeing for the moment on the "most scientists" aspect.  Still, personal morality, a free will choice, does not follow from the compulsions of a strict scientific standpoint.

Quote from: JF
The producers of the TV show are writing the new legal language to own the video rights to those final moments.

Quote from: Vultur
I hardly think that's what they want to happen! Are you suggesting they expect/want it to fail and people to die?

They are planning for the legalities of a possible failure.  They are, in a legal fashion, admitting the expectation of possible mission failure.

Quote from: JF
The Danish legal concept of moral rights to personal "Information" is a new one for me.  The applicants so far, as indicated by their age, have signed an "informed consent" to this new legal concept.

Pragmatically, most of the applicants aren't worried by that requirement. (Because everybody knows that so few people will be selected after all.)

Quote from: Vultur
Well, why would they be?  I don't understand what's so scary about it - at least for someone who would be willing to be on a reality TV show in the first place.

I worry about that sort of thing, assuming that the language in the Application is meant to cover an expected contingency.

Quote from: JF
Six billion dollars will not go far towards sustaining human life up there.

Quote from: Vultur
Depends on if SpaceX can get the costs they seem to expect.

Quote from: JF
Blame it on SpaceX.

Quote from: Vultur
Blame what on them? My point is that IF launch costs remain at or near current values, no, they can't do it for $6B.

Blame the cost failure on SpaceX. 
SpaceX has only discussed publicly, at least, launch costs, not all the other payload stuff.   My point is that SpaceX cannot be "blamed" for the failure of Mars-One to properly scope and cost the mission.

You have what I would call an unwarranted confidence in the lowering of the costs of that proposed mission, based on the unverifiable cost assertions seen here and there on the memex.

You do say "IF", but you don't sound, to me, like you believe that the costs are way, way underestimated, and that the mission particulars are virtually unknown.
« Last Edit: 07/05/2013 01:12 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline ChileVerde

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1176
  • La frontera
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote from: JohnFornaro link=topic=31437.msg1071061#msg1071061

[quote=The Mars-One application
(First Sentence)"The Applicant waives any and all the moral rights in and to the Information [of the applicant]."

<snip>

Quote from: JF
The Danish legal concept of moral rights to personal "Information" is a new one for me.  The applicants so far, as indicated by their age, have signed an "informed consent" to this new legal concept.

<snip>

I Am Not A Lawyer, but I think it's possible that the "moral rights" under discussion may be described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights .

Edit: Which Wikipedia article contains a quote that I believe explains the moral rights idea in more detail.

Quote from: Wiki
Article 6bis of the Berne Convention protects attribution and integrity, stating:
Quote from: 6bis
Independent of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation.
« Last Edit: 07/05/2013 04:23 pm by ChileVerde »
"I can’t tell you which asteroid, but there will be one in 2025," Bolden asserted.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
...I Am Not A Lawyer, but I think it's possible that the "moral rights" under discussion may be described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights .
...

Neither Am I.

Thanks, Chili.  Like I said, this concept of "moral rights" is a new one on me. 

I know that I do not have the "correct" scientificismist view on morality, but the Wiki definition, apparently based on agenda 21 UN law appears to limit "moral rights" to that subset of rights within copyright law.  Naturally I reject this re-framing of the concept of morality to such a narrow view.

But even within this narrow view, Mars-One has stripped all applicants of their "moral rights", by that definition, charged them for the stripping, and offers no termination clause, should an applicant no longer wish to be bound by these terms.

Such a Brave New World, where the victims applicants no longer own their own life and death stories.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Vultur

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 184
...I Am Not A Lawyer, but I think it's possible that the "moral rights" under discussion may be described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights .
...

Neither Am I.

Thanks, Chili.  Like I said, this concept of "moral rights" is a new one on me. 

I know that I do not have the "correct" scientificismist view on morality, but the Wiki definition, apparently based on agenda 21 UN law appears to limit "moral rights" to that subset of rights within copyright law.  Naturally I reject this re-framing of the concept of morality to such a narrow view.

Wait, what?

If I understand what you're saying (not sure that I do), I think you are completely misinterpreting this. Moral rights in this contet has to do with copyright-law stuff. It is a legal term.

It has nothing really to do with morality in general (outside the context of authorship/copyright/IP) or human rights.


Quote
But even within this narrow view, Mars-One has stripped all applicants of their "moral rights", by that definition, charged them for the stripping, and offers no termination clause, should an applicant no longer wish to be bound by these terms.

Selling copyrights and associated IP rights is hardly new or unusual, AFAIK.

I do not see how this is different in principle from any other reality TV show involving people in dangerous situations like "Deadliest Catch".

EDIT: I mean, yes, the risks of going to Mars are going to be greater than those of Alaskan fishing, but it doesn't strike me as a difference of kind, just degree.
« Last Edit: 07/07/2013 07:35 pm by Vultur »

Offline Vultur

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 184
Both of these companies make cost claims that cannot be verified.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you appear to be holding out these claims as proof of the feasibility of the Mars-One claim. 


Not "proof".

I'm more suggesting that we don't know what will happen to space costs over the next 5-10 years as the "new space" private companies hit their stride.... if in fact they do.

Quote
Quote from: Vultur
I hardly think that's what they want to happen! Are you suggesting they expect/want it to fail and people to die?

They are planning for the legalities of a possible failure.  They are, in a legal fashion, admitting the expectation of possible mission failure.

Well... yes. Something like this is inherently risky, and they'd be stupid to act like, or say, it was 100% certain/safe.

But what are you saying the problem is? The morality/ethics of televising a catastrophe, if it happens?



Quote
Blame the cost failure on SpaceX. 
SpaceX has only discussed publicly, at least, launch costs, not all the other payload stuff.   My point is that SpaceX cannot be "blamed" for the failure of Mars-One to properly scope and cost the mission.

Well, no of course not.

Quote
You have what I would call an unwarranted confidence in the lowering of the costs of that proposed mission, based on the unverifiable cost assertions seen here and there on the memex.

You do say "IF", but you don't sound, to me, like you believe that the costs are way, way underestimated, and that the mission particulars are virtually unknown.

Hardly "confidence". I don't "believe" either that the costs are "way, way, underestimated", or that they are not -- as I don't believe anyone (not MarsOne, not SpaceX, not you, not me) really knows what will happen to space costs over the next 5-10 years.

I would expect some cost overrun, of course -- but whether it will be more than normal for aerospace, I don't know.

I rather think that IF (which I think is unlikely) they are able to raise anything like $6B, then they will likely be able to get the technologies developed to make it doable.


Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724

EDIT: I mean, yes, the risks of going to Mars are going to be greater than those of Alaskan fishing, but it doesn't strike me as a difference of kind, just degree.


What we have here, kemosabe, "is a failure to communicate".

It is a difference of kind.  But you are free to disassociate the more primal meaning of "morality" to suit your unclear purposes.

You raise some interesting points.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Vultur

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 184

EDIT: I mean, yes, the risks of going to Mars are going to be greater than those of Alaskan fishing, but it doesn't strike me as a difference of kind, just degree.

It is a difference of kind. 

Why?

Quote
But you are free to disassociate the more primal meaning of "morality" to suit your unclear purposes.

I'm ... not sure I understand what you mean.

The term "moral rights" has a specific intellectual-property/copyright application. Its use in the MarsOne terms doesn't imply anything broader about morality.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724

EDIT: I mean, yes, the risks of going to Mars are going to be greater than those of Alaskan fishing, but it doesn't strike me as a difference of kind, just degree.

It is a difference of kind. 

Why?

Quote
But you are free to disassociate the more primal meaning of "morality" to suit your unclear purposes.

I'm ... not sure I understand what you mean.

The term "moral rights" has a specific intellectual-property/copyright application. Its use in the MarsOne terms doesn't imply anything broader about morality.

Thanks for sharing your viewpoint.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Robert Thompson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 658
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/tylerowen/lacuna-passage
"Survive in a massive open environment using real Mars topography from satellite imagery. Uncover the mystery."

Offline ClaytonBirchenough

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 777
  • ~ 1 AU
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 348
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/tylerowen/lacuna-passage
"Survive in a massive open environment using real Mars topography from satellite imagery. Uncover the mystery."

... Has something to do with Mars One?
Clayton Birchenough

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0