Author Topic: Mars One Discussion Thread  (Read 454491 times)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1100 on: 02/11/2016 04:29 pm »
... Cost? Yes it would but that's rather beside the point in that not even SpaceX is "planning" on using the Dragon to get to Mars for the (also rather obvious) reason that Dragon (even Dragon 2) is not a viable Mars landing craft.
...
Factually incorrect.
« Last Edit: 02/11/2016 04:30 pm by Robotbeat »
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: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1101 on: 02/11/2016 04:46 pm »
Mars Polar is an organisation lead by two Russians, based in the UAE (they have offices there too apparently). Beautiful website design but a lot of borrowed hardware graphics mixed in with their own. Site is oculus rift compatible in some sections, intriguingly. They intend to set up a polar Mars colony, hence the name. Their reasons for going to mars seem rather Muskite crossed with Zubrinite. They're based in a particularly pricey part of a particularly pricey city, which infers they have some cash to play with. They advocate a Mars Direct style architecture. They intend to build their own launch site and haven't fully fleshed out their ideas yet. They're rendered 3D models of their spaceship design - modular, minimal, conventional, chemical, to be short. They intend to aerobrake the whole ship. They've given out a lot of detailed mass figures - I'd need more info to know if they're suspect or not, but they certainly have a plan of some kind.

They want volunteers and crowdfunding. Crowdfunding isn't going to get them to Mars, but every bit helps I guess.

Ok that actually rings some bells as I seem to recall there were a lot of questions over where they had gotten their financing for the stuff they have and who (if anyone) they were consulting or getting information from. IIRC this one popped up around the same time a video showing a proposed Mars probe mission funded by Arab nations was being shown around.
I'll have to check it out.

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 sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5975
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1102 on: 09/28/2016 08:08 pm »
So when Mars One came up with their idea, their proposal was based on a bunch of Dragon vehicles transporting people to the Martian surface and serving as living quarters - a very dicey proposition - because that was the only real-world equipment available for them to base their proposal on.

But now that Musk has announced the Interplanetary Transport System and put that on the table, would it be possible for Mars One to revise their plans to now base them on this newly available platform?

If they do choose to do this, then what kinds of proposals might they come up with, as an improvement over their previous idea?

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Europe
  • Liked: 837
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1103 on: 09/29/2016 02:15 pm »
So when Mars One came up with their idea, their proposal was based on a bunch of Dragon vehicles transporting people to the Martian surface and serving as living quarters - a very dicey proposition - because that was the only real-world equipment available for them to base their proposal on.

But now that Musk has announced the Interplanetary Transport System and put that on the table, would it be possible for Mars One to revise their plans to now base them on this newly available platform?

If they do choose to do this, then what kinds of proposals might they come up with, as an improvement over their previous idea?

From a purely technical standpoint, using the ITS as their main habitat (so not having it return) would seem to be the best way to go. Economically as well: send people that don't want to come back and have them erect the infrastructure to relaunch future ITS's. (fuel production and storage, power plants if they're going solar, landing pad so you don't risk damaging the ITS's, and infrastructure to get voluminous objects in and out of them without having to design the ITS itself to facilitate that). At that point, a first Martian colony has maximized the measurable value it can provide (at an early stage): facilitating future Mars missions so their cost drops enormously. I'm not saying they'll break even though.

So no more magical rovers, less impossibly tight supplies, considerably more room to live in, potential for radiation protection. The ship is designed for a 100 people, so if the idea remains to send a skeleton crew - not necessarily exactly four - there's plenty of room to add the now missing radiation protection, etc.

This answer tackles the most important technical problems I see with both Mars One and ITS. It remains however a very, very challenging undertaking that will require an enormous amount of money.

Offline MickQ

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 869
  • Australia.
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 627
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1104 on: 10/03/2016 11:39 am »
ITS changes things so much for the better for Mars One.  First launch is a cargo ship full of ISRU equipment, water mining gear, sh*t loads of solar panels, inflatable structures and bulk consumables.  Two weeks later a crew version, fitted out as a habitat for 12 crew, essentially three of the 4 person teams already in training.
This craft is provisioned to enable it to swing by Mars on a free return trajectory if the cargo lander fails to report a safe landing.

If all is OK then the crew lands,, unloads the cargo, sets up ISRU and power to produce air, water and methalox.
They then spend the next two years setting up the infrastructure, habitats, greenhouses etc as per the original plan in preparation for the arrival of the next dozen or so settlers and their precursor cargo drop on the next synod.  By that time the ISRU plant will have made enough propellant for, hopefully, the 2 cargo and the second crew ship to return in that same synod.

The first crew lander/hab could stay as a monument to the first landing or an emergency lifeboat if required.  It could even be used to hop around the planet surveying sites for new settlements.

IMHO of course.

Offline MickQ

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 869
  • Australia.
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 627
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1105 on: 10/03/2016 11:45 am »
With this architecture Mars One would get 24 or more persons on Mars, with all their gear as well, in just 2 synods as against 10 or more as per the previous timeline.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13999
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1106 on: 10/03/2016 02:11 pm »
I can't believe people are still taking this project seriously. It's clear nothing is going to happen.

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Europe
  • Liked: 837
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1107 on: 10/03/2016 03:06 pm »
I can't believe people are still taking this project seriously. It's clear nothing is going to happen.

Agreed. But that doesn't mean we can't hypothesize about their architecture, does it? Every next iteration of the 'no return' mission design will be a little bit closer to drawing enough support to cover the remaining costs.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1108 on: 10/03/2016 10:09 pm »
ITS changes things so much for the better for Mars One.

I have to disagree. ITS is another system that is to far out for them to hit any of their goals on the time-line. And while it's capability is greatly in excess of what Mars One planned that's actually a problem since utilizing the ITS would require a full re-planning of the Mars One mission.

And frankly you can do better if you're going to go that route with a half-dozen OTHER Mars colony plans. Mars One brings literally nothing to the table except 24 possible colonists who no longer are going to be unique or stand out. They just have to afford a ticket which is all together probably going to be a lot less than trying to buy a mission or ITS.

Mars One was possible if improbable from the start. Now it has nothing really that makes it any more 'viable' than any other groups plan and a lot less than it had initially.

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: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1109 on: 10/03/2016 10:16 pm »
I can't believe people are still taking this project seriously. It's clear nothing is going to happen.

Agreed. But that doesn't mean we can't hypothesize about their architecture, does it? Every next iteration of the 'no return' mission design will be a little bit closer to drawing enough support to cover the remaining costs.

Eh? Hypothesizing the architecture is always fun but Mars One has lost any opportunity to gain additional funding because of ITS unless they pretty immediately change all their plans. That is a move they haven't done yet in the face of their current situation and I highly doubt they are going to do so now.

Their original plan wasn't impossible, but it was improbable and they never made any significant changes to their plans as it was. The didn't fully engage SpaceX previously and I doubt they have done so any further since then so frankly their one chance of working with SpaceX to BE part of the initial missions is probably gone. As I said above at this point they could, in theory simply train their selected 'crews' and try and raise money to buy them rides and support from SpaceX but really their in no position to dictate any of the architecture.

I think ITS will have killed any chance they had of further funding.

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 Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1110 on: 10/03/2016 11:16 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.
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 ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 948
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 338
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1111 on: 10/03/2016 11:40 pm »
The movie "Europa Report" is entirely made out of beamed back footage from a fictitious mission, plus interviews with Earthbound administrators.   It's very well done, once you catch on to the out of sequence parts and how to read the time code at the bottom.

Offline MickQ

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 869
  • Australia.
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 627
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1112 on: 10/04/2016 07:08 am »
I see your point Randy but I think the capabilities of ITS should make it easier to gain funding, not harder.  Agreed their timeline as planned is now out the window but once ITS is flying it will compress everything by a factor of 4 or 5 time wise.

I hope that they don't give up the idea but grow their plans to take advantage of the new capabilities on offer.

Offline rocx

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
  • NL
  • Liked: 266
  • Likes Given: 144
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1113 on: 10/04/2016 07:28 am »
I think if Mars One was serious about continuing their plans, they would have been following this forum and the subreddit, bought an L2 subscription to keep up to date with the latest scraps from Elon, so that they could have a new plan ready to present the day after Elon's IAC speech. They didn't.
Any day with a rocket landing is a fantastic day.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1114 on: 10/04/2016 08:13 am »
OK, the What If game.

Assume they can raise an initial 1B $. Assume they do their own location. SpaceX probably won't want them colocated with their own base because one day the responsibility to keep them alive may fall in their lap. Mars One don't want to deal with the initial expense and complexity of flying back.

A one way ITS should cost maybe 300m $. Send two to set up the base. That leaves 400m for equipment and supplies. Supplies for 10 people and two synods, to be prepared for worst case are less than 100t. Solar panels, a greenhouse for fresh produce and oxygen. A tunnel from the ITS exit to the greenhouse. Some digging equipment for water ISRU, no need for a large amount of water like for fuel ISRU.

Should be a lot more doable than their first approach with Dragons. Needs at least 500m $ for one supply flight every synod to maintain and slowly grow the number of people to 50 with added greenhouse capacity. Building up fuel ISRU and switching to reusable ITS should bring the cost for sustaining the base down or enable growth.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1115 on: 10/04/2016 04:49 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.

There was no real plan for WHAT the colonists would do on Mars and the lack of on-site support and control would not allow production of the type of 'reality' show program that people watch. Ya, you'd get some interest in general summery and update shorts but not the sustained interest of what people consider a 'reality' show.

The movie "Europa Report" is entirely made out of beamed back footage from a fictitious mission, plus interviews with Earthbound administrators.   It's very well done, once you catch on to the out of sequence parts and how to read the time code at the bottom.

While "Europa Report" is a pretty standard 'found' (beamed) footage program it doesn't actually compare well with the reality show format. REAL life rarely does. In order to have a viable reality show you have to have on-site and constant overview, multiple cameras, (many mobile) and time enough to cut and re-sequence everything to make it 'viewable' to the general public. There isn't going to be the infrastructure or on-site support to make the "show" as anything other than a update and summery program. It won't be anything like the "Europa Report" or any reality show which is why they needed to raise the money BEFORE they go as numerous analysis showed there wasn't going to be much if any revenue stream from the media rights Mars One was going to have. (And there were in fact legal questions about how enforceable those "rights" were in fact going to be)

"Europa Report," "Apollo-18," and even the genre defining "Blair Witch Project" all had to VERY carefully and meticulously plan each and every scene to not only get a viable shot but to make it and the all the dialog and acting appear to be shot as "naturally" as possible. You don't get that with multiple fixed or mobile camera's in a "reality" setting which is why fixed camera segments are intercut with mobile camera and planned shots to flesh out the program. Mars One planned on using some fixed and some "rover" mounted cameras on Mars but they would have been inadequate to do more than generally document what was happening even using multiple camera's on the colonists suits.

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: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1116 on: 10/04/2016 06:13 pm »
I see your point Randy but I think the capabilities of ITS should make it easier to gain funding, not harder.  Agreed their timeline as planned is now out the window but once ITS is flying it will compress everything by a factor of 4 or 5 time wise.

I hope that they don't give up the idea but grow their plans to take advantage of the new capabilities on offer.

The ITS, once it is much nearer to flying would make gaining funds by any serious organization easier, but the key word is serious. Having a plan beyond an Earth-based reality show following the trainee's would have helped, but Mars One's plans beyond the Earth-bound portion of the "plan" have always been quite nebulous at best. The fact they still haven't updated or changed their planned time-line despite there being no way for them to achieve their stated goals is and has always been telling. The fact they don't yet even acknowledge SpaceX's plans is even more so.

I would feel much better about their 'plans' if they had at least as much detail as say "Mars My Way," or "Mars4Less" or any of the dozen or so other Mars colonization organizations that have actually made more detailed plans for what to do once they GOT to Mars. There are many aspects that do not require a specific delivery system and infrastructure that could be 'tested' on Earth and there is no sign that Mars One is even interested in exploring those aspects. They should at this point have either arranged to share resources with the Mars Society to use either the Desert Research Station, (which is frankly the only facility they could afford) of planning their own analog station with a specific location and system planning in the advanced stages. There is no such activity which tells me they aren't serious because they are not looking past the suggested trainee reality show aspect and even THEN they are not planning on making any significant effort to "plan" an actual Mars colony effort.

Yes ITS should in fact cause significant shifts in their planning and development, but that would have included them initially actually planning to work with SpaceX on systems development and planning which they have not done.

This isn't a 'little' oversight either as any possibility of meeting their "roadmap";
http://www.mars-one.com/mission/roadmap
Would have required that the astronaut training that begins in 2017 be as realistic and detailed as possible according to the "planned" deployment of the colony. There is no such plan in place even for the very 'basic' plan they have put forward so far. They do not look like they will have their "100-to-24" selection done by the beginning of 2017, and as I keep pointing out the training from there has to be based on building what amounts to the planned "colony" on Earth to practice and perfect it before doing it on a much more hostile and remote Mars. That requires a detailed and supported PLAN on which to base the training plan and which Mars One obviously lacks. And that lack HAS been obvious for quite a while which I suppose is one reason they have had a funding slow down.

What ITS does at this point is throw all of what little 'planning' Mars One has done so far into the trash unless they feel that SpaceX cannot actually deploy the ITS. (Always possible but even so they don't actually have a serious plan to go to Mars anyway)
ITS does in fact give Mars One a chance to redefine itself, in one aspect they can now avoid having to make serious Mars plans and concentrate more on simply "training" some "colonists" and trying to raise money to send them to Mars BUT that requires that Mars One significantly reduce it's established plans and schemes that so far have been fundamental to their Earth based planning. Mars One would have to consider that they can no longer monopolize media and intellectual rights of the 'colonists' if for no other reason than they will not in fact be paying as much as they planned to get them to and support them on Mars. (Under the original Mars One 'plan" Mars One controlled all access and communications with and to the colony and with ITS that will no longer be true. Further SpaceX wouldn't put up with such a plan and therefor Mars One will not have the degree of control over the colonist they planned)

In a way this makes the fund raising more direct as now Mars One only has a significantly smaller eventual "output" total of funding and they can simply concentrate on the one direct aspect, (colonists) that they actually have control of. But they now have little or no chance to exercise the amount of control over almost every other aspect they originally envisioned having. But at this point Mars One has to do something and soon as the possibility of the ITS means that others with a more coherent and detailed plan (or the ability to adapt one of the many already out there) can undercut everything Mars One has done so far and probably have a much better chance of gaining the funding Mars One is aiming for.

The more obvious and glaring flaws of the Mars One "plan" have been discussed here and other places numerous times and Mars One hasn't done anything to address most of them nor have they significantly changed their plans in any way to address them either. I fully expect they will neither take advantage of the capability that ITS might provide nor change their "plans" to do so for the simple reason I do not think they are serious about sending people to Mars in the first place. I will be pleasantly surprised to be wrong but as they haven't surprised me or shown they were actually serious by addressing the known issues/problems by changing or modifying their plans yet so I don't hold out much hope of that outcome.

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: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1117 on: 10/04/2016 06:59 pm »
I think if Mars One was serious about continuing their plans, they would have been following this forum and the subreddit, bought an L2 subscription to keep up to date with the latest scraps from Elon, so that they could have a new plan ready to present the day after Elon's IAC speech. They didn't.

Well as much as "I" think these forums and others, (they don't follow any of the Mars related forums that I can tell) would be helpful it would take away from their control of the conversation which is frankly one of the aspects that has always made me pretty sure they weren't serious.

They should have at least acknowledged or mentioned the IAC speech by this point, again it seems to indicate a lack of seriousness. (Then again they should have been there and every other industry event as they SHOULD be shopping satellites at this point if only for "information" and planning purposes)

Not that following the forums, (even L2) would have done them much good as their "plan" isn't really detailed at this point and again that's not something that would be indicative of a serious effort so I would not expect any significant changes to what doesn't really exist.

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: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1118 on: 10/04/2016 07:46 pm »
OK, the What If game.

I'll point out the problem is that Mars One doesn't seem to have done this game from the start :)

Quote
Assume they can raise an initial 1B $. Assume they do their own location. SpaceX probably won't want them colocated with their own base because one day the responsibility to keep them alive may fall in their lap. Mars One don't want to deal with the initial expense and complexity of flying back.

All of this now rules out the use of the ITS you realize? SpaceX won't have a "colony" of their own, they are setting up a refueling outpost that someone can turn into a colony so it doesn't make much sense for Mars One to NOT take advantage of the infrastructure since they aren't planning much, (if any) of their own.  And I don't see SpaceX allowing anyone else to operate the ITS so you would have SpaceX personnel involved at both ends of the trip.

The "flying back" is inherent in the system so Mars One won't be paying for that capability and what you're suggesting is they pay extra for 'one-off' modifications of the basic ITS which will actually cost much more. Not having a 'return' capability when that capability significantly cut into the landed mass of the proposal, (but it actually doesn't with the original architecture since it couldn't be included because of the extensive changes required to the basic Dragon-1/2 itself) but under these circumstances Mars One is MUCH better off since they don't actually 'pay' anything for development or production of the transportation system. That's the key point of the ITS itself.

Quote
A one way ITS should cost maybe 300m $. Send two to set up the base. That leaves 400m for equipment and supplies. Supplies for 10 people and two synods, to be prepared for worst case are less than 100t. Solar panels, a greenhouse for fresh produce and oxygen. A tunnel from the ITS exit to the greenhouse. Some digging equipment for water ISRU, no need for a large amount of water like for fuel ISRU.

Assuming no significant changes to the design or construction of the ITS I'd still think that would be low for anything but an end-of-life ITS, and you probably should add in operations costs for launch and on-orbit support since the launch, on-orbit servicing, flight and landing will need to include SpaceX support. If Mars One is serious it won't plan for 4, 10, 12 or even 24 people but a continually expanding colony which means the first flights will include additional infrastructure that is too much for the present population but will allow you not to have to wait on shipments from Earth to allow expansion.

Using an ITS for an initial habitat isn't any better than using a Dragon-1/2 for the same purpose. They both are not designed to be long term habitats and they have extra systems and equipment which is going to interfere with the primary mission. Those systems will still be a part of and integrated with the basic structure and therefore will represent failure points, sources for leaks and maintenance nightmares. Mars One's primary failure was to tie themselves to a specific transportation architecture AND then try turn that transport into a hybrid habitat. ITS removes that requirement so if Mars One is serious they need to take advantage of what ITS offers and not attempt to make it something it's not.

Quote
Should be a lot more doable than their first approach with Dragons. Needs at least 500m $ for one supply flight every synod to maintain and slowly grow the number of people to 50 with added greenhouse capacity. Building up fuel ISRU and switching to reusable ITS should bring the cost for sustaining the base down or enable growth.

Anything would have been more 'doable' than trying to use Dragon's as habitats which is why you want to get away from using transports as habitats as a rule. ITS allows you a LOT more leeway on planning but you have to have an initial plan to begin with which Mars One was lacking.

Seriously if we want to 'game' this out then you have one or more, (two is preferred) ITS flights to the colony location where they off-load the initial habitats, (hybrid inflatables probably) equipment, personnel, and the initial infrastructure which is set up and checked out before the ITS' depart back to Earth. The initial colonists (20 is good but lets say 24 since that's double what they initially planned and their whole initial 'colonist' corps) then spend the next inter-synod period establishing the first permanent habitat and support systems, (food, power, and ISRU production along with initial area explorations or planning expansions) and preparing for the first expansion effort which will come when the next colonist group arrives. (Which will probably be every other synod to allow a transport flight of supplies and equipment to be emplaced before they arrive)

Now this is actually closer to what most people think Mars One was trying to accomplish anyway since a 'colony' of 24 means they can actually support something like a 'reality' show format with 10 "colonists" and 14 "support" personnel as long as the "support" personnel are far less invasive and controlling than standard reality show personnel. (Not too hard to accomplish if they are actually volunteer colonists themselves, and as long as Mars One can be made to understand that the colony comes first)

The key to the planning, (or gaming in this case) if in the details of both the 'how' and 'what' of the work on Mars rather than how to get there since you can only train your colonists to do the detailed work when you have those details. Again this is where I find Mars One significantly lacking.

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 guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1119 on: 10/04/2016 09:08 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.

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.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0