Author Topic: Mars One Discussion Thread  (Read 320362 times)

Offline MickQ

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 502
  • Australia.
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1140 on: 03/15/2018 08:10 AM »
Seems to me that Mars One should be changing their architecture from 4 dragon capsules with 2 expandable habs per synod to 1 only BFS per synod.
« Last Edit: 03/15/2018 08:13 AM by MickQ »

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2308
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 1133
  • Likes Given: 890
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1141 on: 03/15/2018 12:14 PM »
Mars One could save their reality TV concept by adding to SpaceX settlement plans instead of making their own settlement. Mars One could use the SpaceX facility as a base for exploration runs. Be the first to drive rovers to spectacular looking locations. Extreme exploration would make good TV.

Online meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1542
  • Liked: 1410
  • Likes Given: 350
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1142 on: 03/15/2018 03:45 PM »
"Details" like paying for all the flights required to get all of the infrastructure to be self sustaining and create more of that infrastructure for population growth. And to support an aging part of the population that is no longer productive. But yeah, where is the thread where this small detail is not being handwaved away?

Edit: apparently I've caused some confusion. There are plenty of threads going into the difficulties of creating said selfsufficient colony. None of which include a magic master plan from SpaceX to pay for it all. They themselves have said they only do the transport. Once there, you still need a way to pay for consuming stuff that people who paid to get there make, and using infrastructure that someone paid for to put up there.
I replied in the SpaceX "Development of a Martian export economy" thread.

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 743
  • Europe
  • Liked: 198
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1143 on: 03/20/2018 08:31 AM »
"Details" like paying for all the flights required to get all of the infrastructure to be self sustaining and create more of that infrastructure for population growth. And to support an aging part of the population that is no longer productive. But yeah, where is the thread where this small detail is not being handwaved away?

Edit: apparently I've caused some confusion. There are plenty of threads going into the difficulties of creating said selfsufficient colony. None of which include a magic master plan from SpaceX to pay for it all. They themselves have said they only do the transport. Once there, you still need a way to pay for consuming stuff that people who paid to get there make, and using infrastructure that someone paid for to put up there.
I replied in the SpaceX "Development of a Martian export economy" thread.

An having emotional rants by PM apparently. Sure, let's take this monologue there, as it's in the right
section, yet still does not talk about "SpaceX's plan in detail", which is what I responded to in your post.

This isn't the thread to discuss SpaceX's plan in detail, but the goal is to make the Mars colony self sufficient. By the time the ticket price comes that low, little should need to be imported for basic survival. Details are TBD, and I doubt necessary supplies would even be billed to the colonists by SpaceX, but even if they were, the cost would be nowhere near a full additional ticket per person.

There is no such SpaceX plan to make the Mars colony self sufficient. None that we know of anyway. In fact, EM has already stated that he's only doing the transport.

Online meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1542
  • Liked: 1410
  • Likes Given: 350
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1144 on: 04/05/2018 07:57 PM »
From the updates thread:
2. I asked Lansdop whether reusing Phoenix for 2022 is still into the plans. He said yes.

3. Amazingly, there's one thing that I understood during the lecture - it's that there's still no commitment on what rockets to use. Mars One representatives were rather vague - they said they can use any rockets. There's no even firm decision about the first mission. This IMO is quite strange - time is running out.
Time is not just running out, indications are that their fundraising goal is $10 million this year. Even ignoring the unlikelihood of them getting that, a year from now, they would need cash on the order of $100 million to start building that lander.

I have never considered Mars One a "scam" at least not in any sense that includes intent, but it is difficult to comprehend how they can continue to claim that schedule, when their plan explicitly does not involve them having enough money to cover the needed contracts, probably not even initial down payments.

Of course the next post on the update thread is an article that indicates they may likely be in debt already, and indicates that some of their top officers are ignorant of the organization's basic financial health.

Offline rob2507

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • MA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1145 on: 05/20/2018 12:04 PM »
Apologies if this is behind a paywall (I'm a subscriber), story in today's Boston Globe on a few of the people that have been selected for Mars One. An interesting look at the human, rather than technical, side of things.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/05/19/other-world-turns-how-trip-mars-thwarted-and-ignited-love/z7hNzQwcRAnrTv4mWP3DMP/story.html

Tags: