Let me try to answer some of your criticism and perhaps some misunderstanding due to the limitations of the website.
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.
This is why we are building a copy of the Mars base in a cold, dry Earth environment with equipment similar to that joining them on the final journey. They will only be allowed to leave the base when wearing their Mars Suits, they must cultivate their own food and all communications with the outside world will be artificially delayed by twenty minutes. These trials will demonstrate whether they are suitable for all elements of the task ahead. Can they keep the group functioning? Will they keep a cool head when confronted with a problem? Are responsibilities distributed fairly? All broadcast footage will be live, so that everyone can watch their favorite candidate and all participants are portrayed equally and objectively.
Even before they find their way onto the rocket, each astronaut will be put through the required ten years of training.
Once they arrive on Mars, the astronauts will begin making use of their spacious living units; over 50 m2 per person, and a total of more than 200 m2.
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.
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;
At least when Bob Zubrin proposed his Mars Direct plan he included a nuclear reactor and the means to make fuel for heavy equipment like bulldozers.. solar panels and human labor are insufficient to colonize space.
What is the general consensus about Zubrin's Mars Direct plan here? I never really followed Zubrin's plan until recently and going from his basic mission proposal to Mars One was quite jarring with Mars One being a step backward.
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.
Quote from: MrScienceGuy on 06/04/2012 11:34 pmWhat is the general consensus about Zubrin's Mars Direct plan here? I never really followed Zubrin's plan until recently and going from his basic mission proposal to Mars One was quite jarring with Mars One being a step backward.Mars Direct and Mars Semi-direct both suffer from optimistic (some would say wildly optimistic) mass budgets. Mars entry, descent and landing (EDL) is hard, he gives it insufficient attention. With more realistic mass budgets it looks like his EDL won't work (at least not without changing the plan considerably).Radiation and zero/reduced gravity are serious issues and Zubrin by his approach (superficial analysis and ridicule) has failed to slay those dragons. Although like him I think the gravity issue if overblown, to really slay the dragon experiments with reduced gravity will need to be done. There have been improvements in counteracting the effects of zero gravity since The Case For Mars was written.In The Case For Mars Zubrin claims that the increased risk of dying from cancer is about 1% and that this is much less than either the expected risk of dying from cancer of 20% or the risk to the crew from the Mars mission from other causes. He may be right, but I would want to see a peer reviewed report written by acknowledged experts in the field. Total cancer risk depends on lifestyle, by being accepted onto astronaut training and then going on a Mars mission will change the lifestyle of the crew. This effect is likely to be of the same order as the radiation effect, but it is unclear whether it is positive or not. Risk of dying from cancer is greatly effected by early diagnosis and high quality treatment. The crew both before and after a Mars mission are likely to get much better health care than the general population. These and several other factors make it difficult to produce definitive results.
I've never actually seen a link to a paper that shows that zubrin's mass estimates were optimistic. Is there a link to something or is this just Internet chatter that has taken hold?
Mars Direct and Mars Semi-direct both suffer from optimistic (some would say wildly optimistic) mass budgets. Mars entry, descent and landing (EDL) is hard, he gives it insufficient attention. With more realistic mass budgets it looks like his EDL won't work (at least not without changing the plan considerably).
Radiation and zero/reduced gravity are serious issues and Zubrin by his approach (superficial analysis and ridicule) has failed to slay those dragons. Although like him I think the gravity issue if overblown, to really slay the dragon experiments with reduced gravity will need to be done. There have been improvements in counteracting the effects of zero gravity since The Case For Mars was written.
In The Case For Mars Zubrin claims that the increased risk of dying from cancer is about 1% and that this is much less than either the expected risk of dying from cancer of 20% or the risk to the crew from the Mars mission from other causes. He may be right, but I would want to see a peer reviewed report written by acknowledged experts in the field. Total cancer risk depends on lifestyle, by being accepted onto astronaut training and then going on a Mars mission will change the lifestyle of the crew. This effect is likely to be of the same order as the radiation effect, but it is unclear whether it is positive or not. Risk of dying from cancer is greatly effected by early diagnosis and high quality treatment. The crew both before and after a Mars mission are likely to get much better health care than the general population. These and several other factors make it difficult to produce definitive results.
Nobody is saying that Mars EDL is easy, but it isn't impossible either. Since Zubrin did not propose a detailed EDL approach you can't stay it won't work.
None of which invalidates his general point.
As to the effects of gravity at the surface of Mars, there are 2 ways to do it with arguments for either: Build something near earth that simulates Mars gravity and test out health and strength of mice and men for a decade or so, or just do the mission and see what happens. Like Dr. Bob, my preference is strongly toward the latter.
Quote from: go4mars on 06/05/2012 01:12 pmAs to the effects of gravity at the surface of Mars, there are 2 ways to do it with arguments for either: Build something near earth that simulates Mars gravity and test out health and strength of mice and men for a decade or so, or just do the mission and see what happens. Like Dr. Bob, my preference is strongly toward the latter. Yes. If your intention is to send people to die on Mars, what's it matter what they die of? You get the information you need, right?</germanaccent>