Author Topic: Mars One Discussion Thread  (Read 278290 times)

Offline Robert Thompson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1117
  • Liked: 82
  • Likes Given: 658
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #40 on: 06/04/2012 08:58 AM »
arnoux, I'll try to read your website to look for answers. Until then, are the hatches and connecting corridors you depict on the dragons something that the present design can quickly accommodate? I'm assuming the image was vetted by SpaceX. Or does something get torched out after landing?

Further along the track of Mars analogues / competition:
"NASA participates in the Arctic Mars Analogue Svalbard Expedition (AMASE) 2009"
http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/nasa-participates-in-the-arctic-mars-analogue-svalbard-expedition-amase-2009/

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9163
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 612
  • Likes Given: 316
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #41 on: 06/04/2012 12:32 PM »
Quote from: Arnoux
Let me try to answer some of your criticism and perhaps some misunderstanding due to the limitations of the website.

Welcome to the site and excellent first post; stepping up to the plate and all that.  Personally, I'm more of a grammatician than a programmer.  To be accurate, there are not really limitations to the website.  There are limitations to the proposal.

Quote
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.

Yes it is ambitious, no it is not the only way.  As presented at the moment, it doesn't seem workable.  On the plus side, there are no such programming limitations as to restrict the website to an incomplete presentation; that you all at least are looking here speaks volumes as to your intent to make a successful go of it.  It will be very interesting to see how you flesh out the details in public.  Of course, I'm rooting for the effort, since it is very important.

As to the idea of creating a TV show as some way of funding the project.  Just let the TV show be a documentary; stick to the facts; inform the viewer; do not dramatize.  This way, of the 7B people on the planet, you can qualify and shorten the list of volunteers, which will help save time in reading an incredibly huge list of mostly bogus resumes.  The excitement and drama of the trip is quite different than the excitement and drama of sexual foibles resolved by itty bitty teeny weeny yellow polka dot bikinis.

If you all do attempt a Biosphere 3 in Antarctica, you should implement the 20 or 40 (whatever the number is) minute time delay.

Looking at your video from this armchair, you have not supplied sufficient acreage of solar panels.  While the tentative idea of having the rovers pull out a roll of flexible panels to lay on the surface is indeed conceptually simple, it won't work very well, since they won't track the Sun.

As to your illustration of corridors connecting the various Red Dragons.  Obviously, these capsules could be modified to accomodate the necessary hatchways.  Also obviously, it's very unlikely that they would land with the accuracy required by the illustrated layout.  Not depicted is the fairly huge rover thingy which assembles them.  And from the illustration, they are crawlways.  It's very unrealistic to expect people to crawl for the rest of their lives.

Y'all need to get to Antarctica fairly soon.  There's a lot to be designed from an empirical standpoint.
« Last Edit: 06/04/2012 12:32 PM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9163
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 612
  • Likes Given: 316
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #42 on: 06/04/2012 02:03 PM »
From:

http://mars-one.com/faq-en/22-faq-mission-features/209-what-are-simulation-missions

Quote
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.

Musta missed this the first time around.

Looks like some of my questions are going to be asked.

http://mars-one.com/faq-en/23-faq-feasability/243-how-will-you-finance-the-mission

404 Error.

http://mars-one.com/mission/mankind-on-mars

Quote
Even before they find their way onto the rocket, each astronaut will be put through the required ten years of training.

Which seems to indicate that four astros are in training at the moment, in anticipation of the 2022 first launch?

Quote
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.

To me, the illustration doesn't show that kind of spaciousness.  But, "Within the settlement are inflatable components which contain bedrooms, working areas, a living room and a Ďplant production unití, where they will grow greenery", which is not yet illustrated, that I can tell.

Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3927
  • Liked: 498
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #43 on: 06/04/2012 04:21 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 canít make it in these areas for many months and keep a following then they donít 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.


Would it be possible to invite Pauly Shore?  ;D

Offline mrmandias

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 507
  • US
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #44 on: 06/04/2012 04:42 PM »
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;

Hear hear.  MarsOne is "squirrel!" for space enthusiasts.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8290
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3105
  • Likes Given: 743
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #45 on: 06/04/2012 10:41 PM »
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.
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 MrScienceGuy

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #46 on: 06/04/2012 11:34 PM »
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.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8290
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3105
  • Likes Given: 743
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #47 on: 06/04/2012 11:50 PM »
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.

Zubrin, and his supporters, refuse to take radiation issues seriously because they know it breaks the primary direct concept - everything sent on a single booster, and even semi-direct - just a few boosters.

Similarly, his approach to zero-g mitigation is half-baked - unlike these guys he at least recognizes the need for artificial gravity during transit, but just like these guys he refuses to acknowledge that the astronauts may experience the same health issues on the surface of Mars due to reduced gravity. In a way, these guys have more consistent assumptions - that drugs used in zero-g could continue to be used on Mars if necessary - but those are still assumptions that need to be proven.

Which really brings us to the fundamental similarity between Mars One and Mars Direct - they're both big bang theories that fail to lay out a stepwise plan for solving the multitude of problems which need to be solved before humans can colonize Mars. Zubrin refuses to talk about such a plan as he sees it as mere details - that is, he actually knows you need a plan but he doesn't want to overwhelm the listener with it. These guys just seem to be unware.


« Last Edit: 06/05/2012 12:18 AM by QuantumG »
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 SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #48 on: 06/05/2012 12:12 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.

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.
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1697
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 460
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #49 on: 06/05/2012 10:44 AM »
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.

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.

Offline Nathan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 701
  • Sydney
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #50 on: 06/05/2012 11:07 AM »
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.

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

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8290
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3105
  • Likes Given: 743
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #51 on: 06/05/2012 11:13 AM »
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?

This community doesn't write papers that criticize other papers. They just write their own design reference missions and include what they consider realistic mass estimates, and they're higher than Zubrin's.
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 Dalhousie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2094
  • Liked: 264
  • Likes Given: 323
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #52 on: 06/05/2012 12:11 PM »
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).

Mars Semi-Direct (MSD) was a response to feedback of the original plans and addresses the major short coming of the original Mars Direct (MD).  MSD is probably the best overal architecture yet proposed, which is why most studies in the past 20 years have used a variant of it.

While Zubrins MSD masses are optimistic, equally other proposals, also using MSD have been pessimistic, possibly excessively so.

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.

Quote
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.

Mir and ISS experience has shown that the zero gravity and radiation problems are managable.

Quote
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.

None of which invalidates his general point.

To answer the original question, studies have moved a long way since MD and the original MSD.  Nsa DRM 3.0 and 4.0 would be among the best
"There is nobody who is a bigger fan of sending robots to Mars than me... But I believe firmly that the best, the most comprehensive, the most successful exploration will be done by humans" Steve Squyres

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1697
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 460
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #53 on: 06/05/2012 12:39 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.

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.

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3745
  • Earth
  • Liked: 146
  • Likes Given: 3044
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #54 on: 06/05/2012 01:12 PM »
As far as I know the current Mars Direct plan is still a reasonable baseline idea if you can accept the suggestion that if you hired a smoker, and made him/her quit smoking for a trip to Mars that their overall risk of cancer would decrease, and that the tether issues can get defined and solved in relatively short order. 

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. 


However: I think Mars Direct is unlikely to ever be a private sector mission.  Fine for a quick, and useful government excursion. 
Elon understands that for the private sector to have hope of creating a viable market to tap, the scale needs to be far larger than Mars Direct, and hardware elements need to be fully reusable wherever remotely practicable.  Very few people will sign up for the tin cans and crawlways as a permanent solution imo.  Which doesn't preclude it as a starting point.  No Shortage Of Volunteers (NSOV), but for a viable expansion with scale, there will need to be a BFR to bring large tools such that useful things and large habitable spaces can be made and moved around on Mars. 

I might go with just the crawlways and a few tin cans, as long as I could get out in my space suit every day for some field geology.  But my wife would need a few extra creature comforts (primarily some open space) before she would agree to join me. 
« Last Edit: 06/05/2012 01:14 PM by go4mars »
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1697
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 460
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #55 on: 06/05/2012 01:18 PM »
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.

Although Zubrin did not give details of EDL, he did give mass estimates:
Trans-Mars throw capacity: 46.2 tonnes, Payload Delivered to surface: 28.6 tonnes (cargo) [The Case For Mars] - not only is this optimistic, but seems (based on diagrams in The Case For Mars and elsewhere) to be based on techniques that don't scale well to larger masses.

Mars Semi-direct (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.23.1915&rep=rep1&type=pdf) gives an aeroshell mass of 7.6 tonnes and a lander mass of (3.6 dry + 6.1 tonnes prop) to land 36.5 tonnes of payload.

In comparison DRM 5.0 has initial mass of 110.2 tonnes to land a 40.6 tonne payload. In my opinion it is probably not possible to better the DRM 5.0 payload mass fraction by much, unless some of your descent systems can double as usable payload, but that is not easy to do without driving up mass elsewhere.

Quote
None of which invalidates his general point.
Well no, but then it doesn't validate it either. Basing a multi-billion effort on a non-expert's opinion of radiation effects would be foolish.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8290
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3105
  • Likes Given: 743
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #56 on: 06/05/2012 01:26 PM »
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. 

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>

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 rushdrums

  • Member
  • Posts: 41
  • Civilian space fanboy
  • Omaha
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #57 on: 06/05/2012 03:10 PM »
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. 

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>



(Shoots sweet tea out nose onto keyboard)
Note to self:
*Re-review MD and MSD proposals
*Send QuantumG bill for new keyboard
*Add paper towels to grocery list

-Rush

...

Offline Robert Thompson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1117
  • Liked: 82
  • Likes Given: 658
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #58 on: 06/05/2012 03:40 PM »
Drudge just linked to these guys without overt scorn. A bit of a shift in the breeze since Gingrich.

Offline apace

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 810
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #59 on: 06/05/2012 03:53 PM »
First astronaut training 10 years before first flight and before any technology testing? Additionally, their timetable contains no unmanned technology demonstrator for landing, power production, life support, etc. The whole project looks more like a simple TV plot than a real adventure...

Tags: