Author Topic: Mars One Discussion Thread  (Read 343870 times)

Offline MickQ

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 540
  • Australia.
  • Liked: 58
  • Likes Given: 195
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: 2650
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 1439
  • Likes Given: 1073
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.

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Liked: 1831
  • Likes Given: 422
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: 814
  • Europe
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 57
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.

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Liked: 1831
  • Likes Given: 422
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: 20
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

Offline FishInferno

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 111
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 116
Comparing SpaceX and SLS is like comparing paying people to plant fruit trees with merely digging holes and filling them.  - Robotbeat

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8835
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5895
  • Likes Given: 1992
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1147 on: 02/12/2019 08:23 am »
Mars One is (finally) bankrupt

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/02/to-almost-no-ones-surprise-mars-one-is-done/

Not entirely dead yet...

The commercial part of Mars One (Mars One Ventures AG) is bankrupt.

The not-for-profit part of Mars One (Mars One Foundation - responsible for selecting astronauts and mission training) is (unfortunately IMO) still operating, according to a statement by Mars One CEO Bas Lansdorp
« Last Edit: 02/12/2019 08:23 am by woods170 »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8835
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5895
  • Likes Given: 1992
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1148 on: 02/12/2019 12:46 pm »
Mars One is (finally) bankrupt

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/02/to-almost-no-ones-surprise-mars-one-is-done/

Not entirely dead yet...

The commercial part of Mars One (Mars One Ventures AG) is bankrupt.

The not-for-profit part of Mars One (Mars One Foundation - responsible for selecting astronauts and mission training) is (unfortunately IMO) still operating, according to a statement by Mars One CEO Bas Lansdorp


And it look like they are working on a revival:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31915.msg1910530#msg1910530

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11585
  • Liked: 3142
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1149 on: 02/12/2019 02:18 pm »
Mars One is (finally) bankrupt

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/02/to-almost-no-ones-surprise-mars-one-is-done/

Not entirely dead yet...

The commercial part of Mars One (Mars One Ventures AG) is bankrupt.

The not-for-profit part of Mars One (Mars One Foundation - responsible for selecting astronauts and mission training) is (unfortunately IMO) still operating, according to a statement by Mars One CEO Bas Lansdorp

Except that the commercial part is what funded the not-for-profit part.


Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11585
  • Liked: 3142
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1151 on: 02/12/2019 02:28 pm »
I wrote this back in August 2015 at The Mars Society conference where they debated the technical viability of Mars One. In retrospect, that was just a little bit after the height of their publicity and it was all going downhill from then:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2809/1?fbclid=IwAR0JIjhWUflIWgCXyhupLAaaFgRx4sCJAguxrjR-hO10FOxy0qAMp64IZPo


"Sydney Do and Andrew Owens went first, and they came out guns blazing. Part of Mars One’s argument is based upon analogy: the United States went from no human spaceflights to putting a man on the Moon in eight years, so certainly today, with lots of experience and more advanced technology it should be possible to put humans on Mars in 50 percent more time and far less money, especially if you do it privately.

The MIT team had their own analogy, noting that Virgin Galactic has spent ten years and $600 million and still has not achieved their commercial suborbital spaceflight goal. Sending humans to Mars will be far more difficult than commercial suborbital spaceflight, and significantly more difficult than landing humans on the Moon. But Mars One has concluded, without any detailed analysis, that it will only cost $6 billion—thus, the $6 billion estimate barely even qualifies as a wild-assed guess. Do and Owens punctuated this point by singling out a particular aspect of Mars One’s proposal, a multi-purpose crewed Mars rover. In comparison, JPL built the Curiosity rover, with far fewer capabilities than what Mars One is proposing, for $2.6 billion, and is currently working on the Mars 2020 rover for roughly $1.5 billion. Therefore, even one relatively minor component of what Mars One is proposing to do is likely to eat up a substantial amount of what they claim as their total mission cost. Mars One’s $6-billion price tag is based upon false assumptions and faulty data and is totally unrealistic, and yet Mars One uses that low price tag as a selling point to investors.

The MIT team noted that whereas Mars One’s argument is that their one-way mission proposal is easier because it does not require a return trip and associated hardware, it trades this off instead for a permanent commitment to support the humans on Mars, which adds all kinds of increased complexity and requirements. That decision requires high reliability from the various systems such as life support, as well as a steady logistics train to keep resupplying the humans on Mars, and bringing spare parts for their machines. In fact, Mars One advocates adding people to the Mars outpost to build up a colony, meaning that the logistics requirement not only continues forever, but actually increases substantially as each new crew has to bring spare parts for themselves and the previous crew(s) to keep them alive on Mars."
« Last Edit: 02/12/2019 02:29 pm by Blackstar »

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11356
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8400
  • Likes Given: 6728
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1152 on: 02/12/2019 03:15 pm »
It's interesting to me that the SpaceX FB group has had a topic ban on Mars One in place for some time now, in an effort to make it (slightly) harder for MO to separate the gullible from their money.

Unrelatedly, there are many valid arguments to make against MO. One could rank them. What it costs JPL to do things is not going to make the list for me, or if it does, won't be ranked very highly...
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Tags: