Author Topic: Mars One Discussion Thread  (Read 277958 times)

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27140
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7108
  • Likes Given: 4937
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1120 on: 10/05/2016 12:54 AM »
I don't know about y'all, but I'd watch a reality TV show about colonists on Mars.

That is essentially what their plan is.

The "reality" series was supposed to be the Earth bound training, they then "assumed" complete ownership of all media and communications from the 'colonists' once on Mars. That wasn't to produce a "reality" show but to ensure they gained all profits from anything the colonists might do on Mars.
...
So yeah, a reality show on Mars. Look, that's been their plan from the beginning. I remember it.

And if Mars is ever settled, there will be a reality TV show on Mars. And if I'm alive then, I'll watch it.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27140
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7108
  • Likes Given: 4937
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1121 on: 10/05/2016 12:56 AM »
Flying back requires setting up fuel ISRU which is a major cost factor at start up. With a limited scope it is still cheaper to fly a few ITS expendable than setting up a large fuel ISRU factory. Assuming Mars One has their own site and no access to fuel ISRU set up by SpaceX.

As I said I expect Mars One to have their own site and not colocate with the SpaceX base.

Or in reality, of course I expect Mars One to do none of these things.
An electric truck carrying stuff to Mars One's camp site is cheaper than an expendable ITS. Or heck, a full ITS could probably do round-trip surface hops big enough to land their payload without having to expend it. Or, more likely, the reality TV show will happen wherever the main settlement is because that'd be cheaper.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4416
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 771
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1122 on: 10/05/2016 08:51 PM »
Flying back requires setting up fuel ISRU which is a major cost factor at start up. With a limited scope it is still cheaper to fly a few ITS expendable than setting up a large fuel ISRU factory. Assuming Mars One has their own site and no access to fuel ISRU set up by SpaceX.

Not at all, making, building or buying an "expendable" IST will be the expensive option since its designed to be cheaper to reuse. ISRU is a question of power and resources which is cargo not spaceship. Main issue is you can't in fat have a 'limited scope' Mars colony which is exactly what Mars One has always proposed but can't seem to make believable.

Quote
As I said I expect Mars One to have their own site and not colocate with the SpaceX base.

And as I said that make's no sense since you're on Mars. Multiple colony sites early on doesn't make much sense as each would require their own ITS service. It doesn't enhance survivability or redundancy either so it's a waste for Mars One to consider. If they are the only one going, (which was the original plan) they of course set up all the variables but if they are using the ITS then it makes no sense they wouldn't work with SpaceX and/or other colonization efforts.

And that in fact is the main flaw with even attempting to carry on with Mars One in a scenario where ITS is available since Mars One will in fact be a less capable effort compared to other possible colony organizations.

Quote
Or in reality, of course I expect Mars One to do none of these things.

But I thought we were gaming here :)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4416
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 771
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1123 on: 10/05/2016 08:58 PM »
So yeah, a reality show on Mars. Look, that's been their plan from the beginning. I remember it.

And if Mars is ever settled, there will be a reality TV show on Mars. And if I'm alive then, I'll watch it.

They described the idea as 'reality show like' but in a more limited fashion due to technology and personnel limits on Mars but they focused on the Earth based reality show as the main way of making the initial money to send the colonists in the first place.

There will be media updates and documentaries for a long while before there are reality shows on Mars. (We can hope they actually don't make the trip :) )

I wouldn't watch it for the very reason it won't be anymore reflective of what the colonists lives are like and they challenges and triumphs they face than any Earth based reality show is. It's entertainment media aimed at entertaining an Earth audience not to educate them or enhance the lure of Mars so while I'd have a keen interest and fascination with what is really happening on Mars, a 'reality' show would hold no interest because it provides little of the actual information I want to know.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3552
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2119
  • Likes Given: 2531
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1124 on: 10/06/2016 08:50 PM »
I don't know about y'all, but I'd watch a reality TV show about colonists on Mars.

That is essentially what their plan is.

The "reality" series was supposed to be the Earth bound training, they then "assumed" complete ownership of all media and communications from the 'colonists' once on Mars. That wasn't to produce a "reality" show but to ensure they gained all profits from anything the colonists might do on Mars.
...
So yeah, a reality show on Mars. Look, that's been their plan from the beginning. I remember it.

And if Mars is ever settled, there will be a reality TV show on Mars. And if I'm alive then, I'll watch it.

The question isn't so much whether you'd watch the reality show of the first colony on Mars.  The question is whether you'd watch the reality show of the second colony on Mars 10 years after the first colony.  Because I can't imagine SpaceX will give up any of their early ITS flight opportunities to let Mars One get there first on SpaceX hardware.

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1125 on: 10/06/2016 09:46 PM »
*snip*
I think ITS will have killed any chance they had of further funding.

Randy

Basically, this.

There used to be some slim hope they'd get a miracle donor, but most likely, this is no longer the case. Mars One may still promote some useful research on living-on-Mars-related activities (what plants are good to grow, etc.), like they're doing now, but as a colonization attempt, I believe them to be finished. Of course, they probably won't say this for some time yet. Or they may eventually turn into an advocacy group, like the L5 Society did.

Interestingly, on the Mars One twitter they did a Q&A session on Sept. 29th, a couple of the answers imply they might just go with SpaceX's ITS.

https://twitter.com/MarsOneProject/status/781428895715295232
https://twitter.com/MarsOneProject/status/781463245987147777
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1126 on: 10/06/2016 09:51 PM »
*snip*
They should have at least acknowledged or mentioned the IAC speech by this point, again it seems to indicate a lack of seriousness.
*snip*

They did promote it on Twitter :p and on their Facebook page.

https://twitter.com/MarsOneProject/status/780791973217243137
https://twitter.com/MarsOneProject/status/780869614796476416
« Last Edit: 10/06/2016 10:21 PM by whitelancer64 »
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27140
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7108
  • Likes Given: 4937
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1127 on: 10/07/2016 02:55 AM »
I don't know about y'all, but I'd watch a reality TV show about colonists on Mars.

That is essentially what their plan is.

The "reality" series was supposed to be the Earth bound training, they then "assumed" complete ownership of all media and communications from the 'colonists' once on Mars. That wasn't to produce a "reality" show but to ensure they gained all profits from anything the colonists might do on Mars.
...
So yeah, a reality show on Mars. Look, that's been their plan from the beginning. I remember it.

And if Mars is ever settled, there will be a reality TV show on Mars. And if I'm alive then, I'll watch it.

The question isn't so much whether you'd watch the reality show of the first colony on Mars.  The question is whether you'd watch the reality show of the second colony on Mars 10 years after the first colony.  ...
Heck YEAH, I would. Unless I'm actually on Mars, I would watch it. Wouldn't you?

There are a ton of Alaska reality TV shows, and a LOT of people watch them. Alaska has been settled for a really long time, now. Doesn't stop people from watching reality TV shows set there.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3552
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2119
  • Likes Given: 2531
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1128 on: 10/07/2016 03:17 AM »
I don't know about y'all, but I'd watch a reality TV show about colonists on Mars.

That is essentially what their plan is.

The "reality" series was supposed to be the Earth bound training, they then "assumed" complete ownership of all media and communications from the 'colonists' once on Mars. That wasn't to produce a "reality" show but to ensure they gained all profits from anything the colonists might do on Mars.
...
So yeah, a reality show on Mars. Look, that's been their plan from the beginning. I remember it.

And if Mars is ever settled, there will be a reality TV show on Mars. And if I'm alive then, I'll watch it.

The question isn't so much whether you'd watch the reality show of the first colony on Mars.  The question is whether you'd watch the reality show of the second colony on Mars 10 years after the first colony.  ...
Heck YEAH, I would. Unless I'm actually on Mars, I would watch it. Wouldn't you?

There are a ton of Alaska reality TV shows, and a LOT of people watch them. Alaska has been settled for a really long time, now. Doesn't stop people from watching reality TV shows set there.

And I'm sure the Discovery Channel makes some money from them, but maybe not enough to settle a different planet.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27140
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7108
  • Likes Given: 4937
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1129 on: 10/07/2016 12:34 PM »
They would be able to easily pay for the tickets and lodging though, if the ITS is even in an order of magnitude within the hoped-for price range.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 977
  • Likes Given: 345
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1130 on: 10/08/2017 10:41 PM »
I thought these guys were thoroughly laughed out of the room, but no

https://www.mars-one.com/news/press-releases/new-mars-one-ventures-ag-shares-issued-after-the-companys-valuation-at-us-3

Quote
The Swiss Commercial Register has approved the capital increase based on an independent valuation report by a Swiss auditor, valuing Mars One at US$ 389,300,000

https://www.mars-one.com/news/press-releases/mars-one-releases-revenue-projections-funding-humankinds-mission-to-mars
Quote
Mars One Ventures AG holds the exclusive monetization rights of the mission. It receives revenue from merchandise sales, Mars settler applications, advertisements on video content, broadcasting rights, and marketing-related sponsorships and partnerships. Mars One Ventures AG is forecast to be profitable by Q1 2019. It pays a 5% license fee on gross revenue to the Foundation.

Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27140
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7108
  • Likes Given: 4937
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1131 on: 10/09/2017 12:42 AM »
BFR could save them from themselves.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 696
  • Europe
  • Liked: 176
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1132 on: 10/09/2017 11:57 AM »
I thought these guys were thoroughly laughed out of the room, but no

https://www.mars-one.com/news/press-releases/new-mars-one-ventures-ag-shares-issued-after-the-companys-valuation-at-us-3

Quote
The Swiss Commercial Register has approved the capital increase based on an independent valuation report by a Swiss auditor, valuing Mars One at US$ 389,300,000

https://www.mars-one.com/news/press-releases/mars-one-releases-revenue-projections-funding-humankinds-mission-to-mars
Quote
Mars One Ventures AG holds the exclusive monetization rights of the mission. It receives revenue from merchandise sales, Mars settler applications, advertisements on video content, broadcasting rights, and marketing-related sponsorships and partnerships. Mars One Ventures AG is forecast to be profitable by Q1 2019. It pays a 5% license fee on gross revenue to the Foundation.

And for a minimum investment of only $1000 worth of their penny stock, you can participate in their IPO. Don't expect their revenue estimate to pan out however. Most of their estimate for 2018 comes from publicity deals they haven't been able to realize in 6 years, and from videos that apparently don't cost anything to make, but which they somehow haven't gotten around to putting them up to start generating revenue already.

And the $500.000 raised by the IPO will be used to 'meet the conditions required to release the $6 million investment'. Without any further explanation. For an organisation struggling to get some credibility, they sure aren't trying very hard to avoid resembling a lottery scam.

BFR could save them from themselves.

If anything, BFR would make a privately funded, one way space programme more feasible, and would benefit from it: development risk of the transportation system, EDL technology and backup hab for a skeleton crew (until permanent structures are set up by said crew) are nullified. While conversely, a crew that doesn't plan to return can set up whatever infrastructure is required to land BFR safely without damaging anything near the landing site, unload it, refuel it, and launch it again. Without relying on complex, failure prone and tediously slow (anywhere in that choice triangle) autonomous robots, or without governments wanting 120% reliable systems before sending astronauts.

But while I can easily see how such a one way, privately funded mission would be mutually beneficial to BFR, I don't expect MO to follow that route.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27140
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 7108
  • Likes Given: 4937
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1133 on: 10/10/2017 03:06 AM »
If Mars One gets to Mars, it will be on a BFR.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3926
  • Liked: 498
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1134 on: 10/12/2017 06:45 AM »
Mars one needs to update/re-make their video, showing BFR delivering them to Mars. That in itself would suddenly make the whole thing look more plausible. Never mind the Dragon2 capsules now - they're old hat - technology has moved on.

Tags: