Author Topic: Mars One Discussion Thread  (Read 453948 times)

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #80 on: 06/07/2012 03:21 am »
It's not a risk we're talking about here. If you send someone to Mars now, with no intention of bringing them back, they will die a horrible death from cancer, lack of medical care, etc, etc. I don't understand how anyone could argue otherwise.
I wonder how many banana equivalent doses that would be. 

Why wouldn't there be any medical care?  Just make sure one of the participants is a doctor and has some tools and a hard drive full of reference material.  It isn't like every trip up Everest comes with a doctor.

We're not talking about whether or not it is moral for individuals to engage in risky activities of their own free will.. we're talking about sending people to Mars. When individuals can pay for it out of their own pocket and go for their own reasons, then they are in control of the circumstances under which they engage in the activity.
Why does it matter who the financier is?

If you offerred someone a certifiably one-way trip to Mars in a spaceship full of cash, and they did it for the money (instead of internal motivation), then they aren't the one you want doing your field geology on Mars anyway. 

When individuals can pay for it out of their own pocket and go for their own reasons, then they are in control of the circumstances under which they engage in the activity.
Assumming that the financier discloses risks and uncertainties to potential participants, and no one is coerced, then the participant has control of whether they accept or decline under the profferred circumstances.

I can accept the risks of re-roofing my house myself, but would feel no moral guilt if I hired someone, who understanding the risks, accepted the job and took an unfortunate fall.  I might feel regret and sadness, but not moral guilt.

I see this as analogous.  Participants who freely choose to go would encounter increased risk in their lives, but it is their personal decision whether they see the risks as worthwhile/acceptable. 
Robbing someone of their ability to decide where they can peacefully go and what they can peacefully do (taking their freedom) immorally asserts your superiority over them (whether "you" be a government or otherwise). 

Was Shackleton immoral to sign up volunteers for voyages of exploration?
« Last Edit: 06/07/2012 01:19 pm by go4mars »
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #81 on: 06/07/2012 03:26 am »
Okay. Thanks for making it clear that we disagree. Just be aware that many people agree with both of us.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #82 on: 06/07/2012 03:31 am »
Just be aware that many people agree with both of us.
That's a point we can heartily agree on!
« Last Edit: 06/07/2012 03:31 am by go4mars »
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #83 on: 06/07/2012 03:38 am »
Just be aware that many people agree with both of us.
That's a point we can heartily agree on!
Sometimes even the same people.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10972
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #84 on: 06/07/2012 05:53 pm »
Quote from: Dalhousie
Since Zubrin did not propose a detailed EDL approach you can't say it won't work.

If I understand this correctly, you're saying that Zubrin didn't specify a detailed EDL approach, therefore it cannot be deemed a failure.  In a way, it's like dividing by zero, an undefined operation.  I suppose an undefined approach can't be said to either work or not work.  Maybe that's true semantically, but it doesn't offer the reader any solutions.

Point is, neither can you say that Zubrin's EDL approach will work.

The reader is left to the mass estimates that Mike later pointed out.

Quote from: apace
First astronaut training 10 years before first flight and before any technology testing?

We're rapidly running out of 2012.  If their estimate of training time is accurate at 10 years, and they want to launch in 2022, then they need to get cracking. 

Are they?

Quote from: Randy
Vee only missed out Mars landing site by 10-meters!

And of course, there's M. Smart's analysis:

"Missed it by that much!"

Quote from: WmThomas
Go read about the proposal!

They plan to set most of the infrastructure on the planet unmanned and years ahead of first human landing. They also plan to produce lots of water through unmanned landers and rovers of the same type that the humans will use when they arrive.

Well, I've scanned all of their site; read the parts that seemed interesting, and tend to agree with Apace's questioning of the ten year training regimen, for example.  Maybe I missed something, but "their timetable contains no unmanned technology demonstrator for landing, power production, life support, etc."

While they may very well "plan" to set most of the infrastructure and other stuff as you point out, they haven't presented this plan very convincingly at the moment.

I guess I'm looking at the TV show idea as pretty shallow, and am attempting to take the idea of colonizing Mars as serious.  Maybe I shouldn't be?

Matt Black's link to the video is a duplicate of the one shown on the Mars-One site:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/7040607/Plan-to-colonise-red-planet-by-2023

Quote
Watch the video and you'll get a distinct sense of the earnest amateur. For all its letters of intent from component suppliers and support from Nobel prize-winners, there doesn't seem to be a lot of money behind this venture ...

In absense of further clarification from Arnoux, we may just have to wait and see what happens "on the surprisingly specific date of September 14, 2022".
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline arnoux

  • Member
  • Posts: 5
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #85 on: 06/07/2012 09:03 pm »
I will try to answer as many questions as I can. First of all radiation, we are aware of this and will tackle it. As I told earlier we are doing the simulations and when Curiosity lands we will get a better view of what the real values for that specific point on Mars will be. The Radiation Assessment Detector will help in that respect. Let me clear about a second point, we are not sending the people, we give them the opportunity to go to Mars and live there. We will not force people and as we believe strongly in the fact that people should be allowed to do whatever they want without harassing other people. If you consider watching the show harassment, then turn off the TV, we do not force anyone to watch the show. The first mission is planned to land on Mars in 2016. This will be a demonstration mission for the EDL of the landers to be used in the later launches. Before the humans are launched, this EDL will have been tested at least a number of times. The later launches will bring redundant living quarters, power production (which are solar cells which are rolled up during flight and with the help of the rover, (which I rather call multipurpose vehilce as it has no resemblence in function and performance of the previous rovers send to Mars) and water extraction. Note again, that all these elements will be redundant on the surface of Mars before any human is launched. I saw a comment about the rover travelling over the whole surface of Mars, this is of course not the case. With the help of the HiRIse images coming back from MRO we will scout the surface for a best place to land, the rover lands there and will scout the terrain (some 20 by 20 km) for the best location for the base. As for contamination, we have thought about that and are planning to start discussing this with the ruling organisation (COSPAR) for planetary protection issues. We think we will be able to close a deal with COSPAR on this issue. As for medical issues, we plan to have indeed one person in the crew being able to perform basic medical practices. Selected equipment will be part of the mission, but of course the people will run a higher risk compared to people living 10 km away from a well-equipped hospital. The idea that people are not equipped to live off the planet is I think not correct. Humans are made for a very small temperature range and still we have people living on the poles and elsewhere. This holds from my point of view for a lot of circumstances, technology can help a lot in overcoming issues like that.

I can not always be online commenting on your questions, but will try to do so as much as possible.

Offline arnoux

  • Member
  • Posts: 5
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #86 on: 06/07/2012 09:07 pm »


Welcome to NASASpaceFlight.com, and thank you for answering some questions.  Is there a reason you didn't seem to contact Boeing and Bigelow Aerospace?  Both companies have relationships with some of your suppliers, and have systems that have a strong synergy with what you are trying to do.
[/quote]

We did contact them and plan to do so again in the near future. I can not tell more at this moment in time.

Offline arnoux

  • Member
  • Posts: 5
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #87 on: 06/07/2012 09:16 pm »
These guys just seem to be unware.
[/quote]

No we are not unaware. There is currently no proof that 1/3 of a g is similar to zero g. We are in contact with reduced gravity researchers here in Europe and will find out more what the effects of 1/3 g are. Secondly, nuclear reactors on Mars are 50 years away in the future, making any exploration of Mars in our life times by humans impossible if you really need one, which we don't believe. Solar cells and batteries are sufficient. Lastly, we do not underestimate the radiation issue, but I also know that this subject is not so straightforward as people try make it. Being involved in radiation studies for spacecraft to Jupiter and in Earth's radiation belts, I know the effects and what kind of mitigation measures can be taken. Furthermore, the limits in milliSieverts currently being set on Earth are not always based on actual scientific analyses but try to predict long term (> 50 years) effects and minimise those. Again we will implement shielding strategies to protect the people.

Offline arnoux

  • Member
  • Posts: 5
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #88 on: 06/07/2012 09:26 pm »

[/quote]

Welcome to this forum.

If I were you I would emphasize the return to earth aspect. By all means say that it is more efficient to have long stays (and it is safer per crew-year on Mars as less astronauts have to make the risky journey). But you don't know the long term effects of Mars gravity, and it is not feasible to perform experiments at it in the timescales you envisage. It is also probably more cost effective to return long-term sick or older astronauts to earth rather than caring for them on Mars.

I would also diversify you funding mechanism. You may be able to get some reality TV revenue when the crews are on Mars, but I seriously doubt it will cover the $2B a year running costs. There is no way you will be lent enough money for development costs.
[/quote]

Thank you. Yes we do not know the long term effects of the reduced gravity on Mars, but discussing this with a number of people seem to give wildely diverse answers. I personally think this issue is not severe for Mars itself and during the flight people really need to train sufficiently. As the cost for any return trip is way out from what we think we can raise, we will not offer it and will be fair with people and not promise something we can not deliver upon.  As for the funding scheme, we base our funding on different revenue streams, but I am not going into details. Thank you for your suggestions.

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1980
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 784
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #89 on: 06/07/2012 09:39 pm »
Yes we do not know the long term effects of the reduced gravity on Mars, but discussing this with a number of people seem to give wildely diverse answers. I personally think this issue is not severe for Mars itself and during the flight people really need to train sufficiently.

I don't think it will be severe either. The wildly differing opinions will unfortunately carry weight with investors.

Offline Dalhousie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2761
  • Liked: 774
  • Likes Given: 1126
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #90 on: 06/07/2012 10:17 pm »
If I understand this correctly, you're saying that Zubrin didn't specify a detailed EDL approach, therefore it cannot be deemed a failure.  In a way, it's like dividing by zero, an undefined operation.  I suppose an undefined approach can't be said to either work or not work.  Maybe that's true semantically, but it doesn't offer the reader any solutions.

Point is, neither can you say that Zubrin's EDL approach will work

The reader is left to the mass estimates that Mike later pointed out..

Zubrin did not specify and EDL method for MS or MSD.  The concepts were not worked out at that detail.  But the numbers to  work out. MD simply gives a Mars arrivial mass of 40 tonnes and a Mars surface mass of 25 tonnes.   We can reasonably assume that the other 15 tonnes (37%) is approximately the EDL fraction.  This is lower than some studies and similar to others from the period (NASA DRM 2.0 assigned 35%).

The main problem with MD was the size of the Earth Return vehcile, which is way too small for the crew.  This was addressed with MSD.















Apologies in advance for any lack of civility - it's unintended

Offline Robert Thompson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 658
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #91 on: 06/07/2012 10:18 pm »
Irene Schneider CV
http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1592

"‪Irene Schneider Describes Lunar Analog Base in North Dakota‬"
("Ihrenes Enterprises, which provides radiation analysis for human spaceflight")
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSdpXCsQmLY>

http://www.linkedin.com/in/ireneschneider
:)

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #92 on: 06/07/2012 10:55 pm »
There is currently no proof that 1/3 of a g is similar to zero g.

There is currently no proof that it isn't.

Quote
We are in contact with reduced gravity researchers here in Europe and will find out more what the effects of 1/3 g are.

They don't know.

Quote
Secondly, nuclear reactors on Mars are 50 years away in the future, making any exploration of Mars in our life times by humans impossible if you really need one, which we don't believe. Solar cells and batteries are sufficient.

Prove it. Go build a base in the desert using just solar cells and batteries.. we'll wait. When you figure out that you need a lot more energy than those technologies can provide, I'll send you a nice fruit basket to welcome you back to the industrialized world.


Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #93 on: 06/07/2012 11:19 pm »
Let me clear about a second point, we are not sending the people, we give them the opportunity to go to Mars and live there. We will not force people and as we believe strongly in the fact that people should be allowed to do whatever they want without harassing other people.

If you make a trip available, even if it is just a suborbital hop out of the atmosphere, you have a responsibility to inform the customer of all the risks they will be facing before they can consent to facing those risks. This is called "informed consent" and it's not just some archaic legal practice, it's the moral thing to do.

Hopefully by the time you've gotten to looking for volunteers your answers to questions about the risks involved will have become much more sophisticated, as your current dismissal of the fundamental showstoppers of human spaceflight and settlement are enough to get you sued into oblivion before you fly a single person.

You say "go to Mars and live there", but I've yet to see how you think people will be living on Mars. At this point it seems more accurate to say that you're going to give people the opportunity to go to Mars and die there. That may still attract volunteers, but they will be of a completely different breed.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Dalhousie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2761
  • Liked: 774
  • Likes Given: 1126
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #94 on: 06/07/2012 11:32 pm »
]Prove it. Go build a base in the desert using just solar cells and batteries.. we'll wait. When you figure out that you need a lot more energy than those technologies can provide, I'll send you a nice fruit basket to welcome you back to the industrialized world.

Stand alone solar power stations for remote facilities in the Australian outback are not uncommon.  They range from the small scale (house supply to the ranger station at Dalhousie springs) to 100 kw (Wilpena) with 225 kw the current largest (Kings Canyon). Sometimes they are pure solar, others hybrid solar-wind, some are hybrid diesel-solar (diersel being for night time use). 

Don't forget either that the ISS has more than 100 kw of solar panels.

For a Mars station daily requirements of up to 250 kwh are certanly competitive using solar, and probably feasible up to at least1 mwh.  Beyond that you would probably want a nuclear-solar hydrid.
Apologies in advance for any lack of civility - it's unintended

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #95 on: 06/07/2012 11:37 pm »
Stand alone solar power stations for remote facilities in the Australian outback are not uncommon.  They range from the small scale (house supply to the ranger station at Dalhousie springs) to 100 kw (Wilpena) with 225 kw the current largest (Kings Canyon). Sometimes they are pure solar, others hybrid solar-wind, some are hybrid diesel-solar (diersel being for night time use). 

What part of the word "build" did you miss?

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #96 on: 06/08/2012 02:37 am »
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Dalhousie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2761
  • Liked: 774
  • Likes Given: 1126
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #97 on: 06/08/2012 03:00 am »

What part of the word "build" did you miss?



What's your point?  That it is impossible to build such a solar power supply?

Solar stations have already been built in terrestrail deserts which produce more than 1 mwh per day.
« Last Edit: 06/08/2012 03:02 am by Dalhousie »
Apologies in advance for any lack of civility - it's unintended

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #98 on: 06/08/2012 03:18 am »
What's your point?  That it is impossible to build such a solar power supply?

Solar stations have already been built in terrestrail deserts which produce more than 1 mwh per day.

Wow.. I'm just yelling into the wind here aren't I?

You're on Mars.. you're trying to colonize the planet. You need to build stuff. How are you planning on doing that? Human labor? Solar powered tractors? This would be comical if people's lives weren't at stake.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Wyvern

  • Member
  • Posts: 99
  • Welp here I am
  • Calgary
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #99 on: 06/08/2012 03:41 am »
Gonna side with QuantumG here.

Yes their are solar arrays good enough to power a hypothetical Mars base.  But how are you going to transport them from the Earth to Mars and still maintain your cost figures?  Will we even have the technology to transport a 1 MWH solar array to Mars by 2023?  What if a lander carrying vital equipment crashes? 
Darn it where is my Moon base!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1