Author Topic: Mars One Discussion Thread  (Read 331494 times)

Offline cro-magnon gramps

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1503
  • Very Ancient Caveman
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 675
  • Likes Given: 5298
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #20 on: 06/02/2012 01:10 AM »
two words, James Town
    this won't go anywhere; it is just the first of many proposals sparked by the success of SpaceX; what I am interested in, is 2-4 years down the road, when the ones that are NOT seeking publicity, come to the briefing room, and announce like Planetary Resources, who their backers are and how they plan to do the deed, from the R&D that they have been doing for 2 to 4 years;
"Hate, it has caused a lot of problems in the world, but it has not solved one yet." Maya Angelou
 Tony Benn: "Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself."

Offline tigerade

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Low Earth Orbit
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #21 on: 06/02/2012 04:50 AM »
I agree Gramps.  One of my big fears about a Mars colonization effort is that it may be a repeat of Jamestown.  That would be really tragic :( 

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6180
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #22 on: 06/02/2012 04:54 AM »
two words, James Town

One word: Roanoke.
JRF

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9161
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 617
  • Likes Given: 320
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #23 on: 06/02/2012 01:38 PM »
Three words:  WTF?

I think the most salient comment so far, was Mike's, up the thread a bit.  The idea of attempting martian colonization is a good one, in principle.  I'd even accept the notion of a one way trip, if only the proposal made more complete sense.  But their proposal can't withstand the scrutiny of even the armchair rocket scientists.

The biggest problem with their proposal at the moment is that it is woefully incomplete.

For example, I've announced my "plan" here and there on this forum, but it is woefully incomplete too.  I wouldn't want to create some web page implying that I have it all together unless I had the math to back it up.

The comment above suggesting that they supply a mass budget is a case in point.  If they've given thought to this, they're not sharing.  And it's more likely that they're not sharing because they don't know, rather than because they have it all figured out.  Websites can changed hourly, if need be.  One web metric that might indicate that they are working the problem, would be daily or weekly updates, perhaps even a blog asking for, and responding to, suggestions for how to accomplish their mission.

The comparison with the recent PRI announcement is also a good one.  PRI said that sure, they want to bring back an asteroid and take it apart.  But the majority of their presentation regards the far more believable near term business goal of launching fleets of scope sats, maybe expanding to scoping out the asteroids.  They don't stress their supposed end game.  Mars-One presents an emotional illustration of a possible one way trip, focusing on the end game, and glossing over how that trip really would be accomplished.

On the plus side, their animation flashed recognizable logos of various well known companies, even tho the contents of those letters remained unreadable.  So some important companies seem to be at least aware of their efforts.  The easiest thing they could do within the next 24 hours, in order to demonstrate credibility, is to post those letters.  They could also add an "Investors" button to their home page.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Nathan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 701
  • Sydney
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #24 on: 06/03/2012 01:47 AM »
Still- it is an interesting attempt to use dragons to build a mars base at least conceptually. Problem I hav is that they need "slightly larger" dragons than currently exist. The development for this would likely cause schedule drift at a minimum.
That said- could this bea hint that the crewed dragon will be bigger than cargo dragon? Could some key design change news have slipped out here?

Given finite cash, if we want to go to Mars then we should go to Mars.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #25 on: 06/03/2012 01:48 AM »
When anybody but JPL says they can land something on Mars I just laugh.

Nice 3D graphics though. Kudos to the artist.

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 148
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1750
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 516
  • Likes Given: 65
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #27 on: 06/03/2012 07:39 AM »
Still- it is an interesting attempt to use dragons to build a mars base at least conceptually. Problem I hav is that they need "slightly larger" dragons than currently exist. The development for this would likely cause schedule drift at a minimum.

I think in this case "slightly larger" means 5x or more payload which implies a volume 3-5x or more (1.4-1.7x linear dimensions), maybe twice the mass.

It also implies something that would take at least 2 FH for each cargo mission.

Offline Wyvern

  • Member
  • Posts: 99
  • Welp here I am
  • Calgary
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #28 on: 06/03/2012 09:20 AM »
hmm, apparently they're building a demonstration base next year.  Personally I think that will be as far as they get.
Darn it where is my Moon base!

Offline Nathan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 701
  • Sydney
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #29 on: 06/03/2012 09:27 AM »
The main problem with the approach to financing is that if the media event is not a success then bankruptcy results and the first settlers don't get resupplied. The only model that would really work is an aerological  exploration base to which people pay for their own ticket and all funds Erin go to fund resupply missions. This implies cheap launch. We are not there yet.
Given finite cash, if we want to go to Mars then we should go to Mars.

Offline Robert Thompson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1117
  • Liked: 82
  • Likes Given: 658
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #30 on: 06/03/2012 11:19 AM »
"Due to a terrible miscalculation of scale the entire battle fleet was swallowed by a small dog. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy states that this sort of thing happens all the time."

So. Let's make this interesting. The way Robert Irvine comes in and blows up your kitchen.

Analogue base similar to Mars Desert Research Station and ESA Mars500.

Utah or some other western U.S. magnificent desolation.

Scores of acres of quarantine zone for extended EVA. (In very small range vehicles.)

Participants are required to remain with and in the analogue program with no expectation of exit back to earth / real life. If they don't, simulation project is over, done, glassed.

First Dragon and 7 analogue crew "launch". Whatever fidelity event is affordable.

They have to stay alive for 6 months INSIDE that dragon / additional hab element. (Simulation article remains where it can be parked cheapest.)
Wide screen tvs pointing inward give them analogue sun, planets, star field.

Communications progressively delay over this six months.

Mars orbit insertion fidelity / analogue. (flatbed + some Willie Nelson to final analogue environment)

Mars landing fidelity / analogue.

MUST survive on their own rations, spares, medical stamina until next resupply dragon and crew. If they don't, simulation project is over, done, glassed.

MUST set up their own green house, etc.

Start stacking dragons per schedule, but only as many as the trickle of funding would allow in the real event.

I could go on. Suit and Nobel just need some redirection for their constructive energies. A fit 40 year old could garner some fame doing this, knowing they won't be allowed to perish just for the ratings, and it's for a greater cause.

Offline subzero788

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 134
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 82
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #31 on: 06/03/2012 03:37 PM »
I wonder who actually thinks up a plan like this and thinks that it's actually possible. And by 2023! These guys make Shackleton Energy Company's plan seem quite reasonable!  ;D

Offline arnoux

  • Member
  • Posts: 5
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #32 on: 06/03/2012 06:17 PM »
I am one of the people involved in Mars One. Let me try to answer some of your criticism and perhaps some misunderstanding due to the limitations of the website. First of all we do know about the radiation problem, we are currently doing simulations with the SPENVIS system here in Europe with two modules able to simulate the dose as a function of Mars altitude. We know that the habitats need be buried by some regolith. Concerning the zer-g mitigation, it appears that with a rigorous training scheme and additional medication, 7 months could be doable to be sure that the crew can perform on the Martian surface. As an overall remark, we are not planning to develop any technical system ourselves, we have discussed with the companies on the website whether they would be able to deliver certain systems and how much time and money it will take. Again we do not have and do not want to something ourselves others are much more qualified to do. A last remark. Yes, this is a very ambitious program and controversial as well, but we think this is currently the only way to have humans walking on another body in my lifetime.

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3747
  • Earth
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 3073
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #33 on: 06/03/2012 06:45 PM »
I am one of the people involved in Mars One.

These guys raise a good point:

What TV show has a $200 million budget then?
Friends cost around 175 Million a season at the end.
If this idea is to work (funded by popular media and marketing), the first astronauts better be good ad-lib actors/actresses (with a list of "human drama" ideas) and it wouldn't hurt if they looked like a young Courtney Cox and Jennifer Anniston (attractive and nubile). 

Generally the geologists and engineers would have rather uninteresting interpersonal interactions (based on experiences that tried to capture drama at both Antarctic stations and the Mars Desert Research Station and were dissappointed when everyone drink scotch and had chummy conversations about surrounding geology and technical issues).  That's not widely marketable.  The top chef finalists have interesting quirks, cooking skill is secondary. 

To fund through mainstream media dollars an episode would at minimum, need writers with baseline ideas like this:

"It's too hot in here!  Good thing I have a space-bikini..." -A re-occuring problem with the heater that requires lengthy fixes.     

Focus on sexual frustrations and foibles and keep the rest as a backdrop to that.  Your astronauts will need to have characters that they perform.  Real scientific discoveries would be mostly "off camera".   Video diaries that announce frustrations about other people's habits, etc.    They have to find silly things to make up conflict about. 

If you pitch your idea like that, or a hybrid of actual usefulness combinded with a minimum amount of stuff like that, then the chances of getting funding are higher imo. 
« Last Edit: 06/03/2012 06:47 PM by go4mars »
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline Space Junkie

  • Member
  • Posts: 99
  • IL, USA
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #34 on: 06/03/2012 09:26 PM »
hmm, apparently they're building a demonstration base next year.  Personally I think that will be as far as they get.
They should try building it remotely with something similar to one of their "utility" rovers. That would be an educational experience...

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1750
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 516
  • Likes Given: 65
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #35 on: 06/03/2012 10:26 PM »
hmm, apparently they're building a demonstration base next year.  Personally I think that will be as far as they get.
They should try building it remotely with something similar to one of their "utility" rovers. That would be an educational experience...

and a representative time delay.

Edit: just to be clear I mean speed of light round trip delay.
« Last Edit: 06/03/2012 10:27 PM by MikeAtkinson »

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #36 on: 06/03/2012 10:45 PM »
I have a way to drive media attention.

Allow any person in the world to compete.  Any nation that can get enough volunteers & media attention can have their own show and competition.

Once a person is accepted they are allowed to buy a camera & microphone that they wear.  A person is judged by how many people pull up their camera though the site (At this point your only job is to get attention).  The completion would press that the camera should be worn as much as possible to increase your viewership.

The TV show will revolve around Cullings. Once you have enough competitors with a certain amount of viewership the TV producers come out and film a show with the participants.  The show will revolve around competitions which eliminates competitors.  You lose by not having enough viewers on your camera, not having enough up votes on the show, or being below a certain percentage in the testing.

The Cullings would revolve around intelligence, physical skill, fortitude, and keeping the viewers interested.  These early Cullings can take on many forms, from participation in public completions, such as races or iron man completions, to chess completions or spelling bees.  All that matters is that the central organization approves them and the tests vary across physical, mental, and constitutional tests, and draw attention.

As funding grows, regional, state, national and even international contests start up  (While away from home on Cullings you would be expected to keep the camera on as much as possible).  The whole time these people are competing with each other for viewership, donations, and upvotes.

Once funding is at a high enough level to start launching assets the main event starts.

A base is started in Antarctica (or even in the top of the himalayas), staffed by only people from the culls, and funded by donations to the participants and by sponsorships.  Hard locations are chosen because of the isolation, physical restraints, and need for safety awarement to even function in them.  If they can’t make it in these areas for many months and keep a following then they don’t need to go to Mars.

The persons that maintain their viewership, stays in the top 50% of the culls, is still in top mental & physical shape (which the culls will be designed to insure), and still want to go will be given the opportunity to be one of the 1st humans on Mars.  4 people from the Antarctic base will be selected by votes and donations for the opportunity to go to Mars.  If not selected, as long as your numbers stay high you are allowed to stay at the base in Antarctica and continue to train and cull till the next opportunity.
« Last Edit: 06/03/2012 11:04 PM by SpacexULA »
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline MrScienceGuy

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #37 on: 06/04/2012 02:42 AM »
I am one of the people involved in Mars One. Let me try to answer some of your criticism and perhaps some misunderstanding due to the limitations of the website. First of all we do know about the radiation problem, we are currently doing simulations with the SPENVIS system here in Europe with two modules able to simulate the dose as a function of Mars altitude. We know that the habitats need be buried by some regolith. Concerning the zer-g mitigation, it appears that with a rigorous training scheme and additional medication, 7 months could be doable to be sure that the crew can perform on the Martian surface. As an overall remark, we are not planning to develop any technical system ourselves, we have discussed with the companies on the website whether they would be able to deliver certain systems and how much time and money it will take. Again we do not have and do not want to something ourselves others are much more qualified to do. A last remark. Yes, this is a very ambitious program and controversial as well, but we think this is currently the only way to have humans walking on another body in my lifetime.

From my perspective, one of the biggest initial problems with the project (assuming funding is available in the quantities needed) is the rovers. Landing anything on Mars, let alone rovers that work, is an enormously difficult undertaking that has only been successfully achieved by two nations a handful of times. Ignoring the high development costs of building a rover of the size shown in the video and ignoring the resources required to assemble and monitor it, what is the plan to land such a rover? It looked to be roughly the size of the MSL which will be attempting one of the most complex landings ever simply due to the sheer size of the machine.

Without government contracts, what is the plan for a successful, long term heat source (considering Spirit, Opportunity, and MSL all have some sort of plutonium as a heat/power source)? Both Sojourner and Phoenix lasted less than a year before contact was lost. What will be done to ensure the rovers last the 5 years in between their landing and human arrival? What form of infrastructure will be in place to communicate with the rover once it has landed?

It seems like just the first steps of the mission plan have a high degree of uncertainty which could not only put the rest of the entire mission in jeopardy if they failed, but also the cause the price of the satellite and the rover to increase dramatically.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8511
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3418
  • Likes Given: 804
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #38 on: 06/04/2012 02:51 AM »
Indeed. Power source for the entire mission is completely undefined.

Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Offline Robert Thompson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1117
  • Liked: 82
  • Likes Given: 658
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #39 on: 06/04/2012 05:09 AM »
A base is started in Antarctica (or even in the top of the himalayas), staffed by only people from the culls, and funded by donations to the participants and by sponsorships.  Hard locations are chosen because of the isolation, physical restraints, and need for safety awareness to even function in them.  If they canít make it in these areas for many months and keep a following then they donít need to go to Mars.

Huh, "Mars Olympics". I assume you are taking the funding model from Hunger Games. (If so, you should read the short story "Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom".) We have the technology for that model. People routinely risk death and traffic jam to summit Everest, which costs a lot of private dollars. Wire them with all the latest DHS / NSA surveillance-level recording technology, stick them in teams, run them through joint operations, competitions. I guess the format of Survivor? Keep talking this out, SpaceXULA. There's a big black dead zone in the Gantt chart between collecting underpants and engaging public dollars. Make a space for your own vision with a DMZ between you and this arnoux guy. I want to hear more of this. These forums can serve as 3 GHz supercomputers that Monte Carlo the crap out of bad ideas.

Power: Can sport and spectacle that is arguably in the name of science be tied in with a deal to existing power grids like at McMurdo? Think big.

Tags: