Author Topic: Mars One Discussion Thread  (Read 320868 times)

Offline Bender

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Oregon
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 1
Mars One Discussion Thread
« on: 06/01/2012 12:35 PM »
Has anyone else heard of this?
http://mars-one.com/
It's a private company that is looking to put humans on mars by 2023 using Falcon Heavy launchers and Dragons for landers. They admit in the FAQ page that they have no funding yet. so for now it's just a dream with some pretty pictures.

Offline peter-b

  • Dr. Peter Brett
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 651
  • Oxford, UK
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #1 on: 06/01/2012 12:40 PM »
Heavy on style, light on substance, unfortunately.  :(
Research Scientist (Sensors), Sharp Laboratories of Europe, UK

Online QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8446
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3369
  • Likes Given: 782
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #2 on: 06/01/2012 01:02 PM »
The FAQ pages on radiation and zero-g mitigation are comical.

Makes me wonder if these clowns have read any of the literature.
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 Robert Thompson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1117
  • Liked: 82
  • Likes Given: 658
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #3 on: 06/01/2012 01:31 PM »
They have a more developed website than Shackleton Energy Company.

They need to redo that video to show something covering the dragon heat shield. (Unless I am missing something and superdraco or next gen dragons don't need heat shield?)

The contiguous connection of dragons is not that dissimilar from connected Constellation habs, or from various lunar colony plans I've seen. Modularity.

So 7 / 2 / year starting 2023 or 3.5 person increase per year. I'll assume middle adult with no strings or ~40 at the youngest, giving about 20 physically active years in this environment, perhaps less. At the end of 20 years Mars Moses gets to see 10 habs + 70ish persons + toys.

Now, 3:1 hab to greenhouse ratio means 21 bodies using what looks like .5 acre greenhouse. So intensive growth like "CEAC Lunar Greenhouse".

.

Online QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8446
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3369
  • Likes Given: 782
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #4 on: 06/01/2012 01:39 PM »
They need to bury those habs on day one.

As for the reality tv show, I can see the pitch now: watch as we send young men and women to their death.
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 peter-b

  • Dr. Peter Brett
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 651
  • Oxford, UK
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #5 on: 06/01/2012 01:41 PM »
Almost all of it is facepalm-inducing. On the other hand, I'd like to see what Elon's Mars cabal has come up with in terms of architecture...  ;)
Research Scientist (Sensors), Sharp Laboratories of Europe, UK

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7442
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 162
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #6 on: 06/01/2012 01:43 PM »
Makes me wonder if these clowns have read any of the literature.

I'm surprised to learn they have a Nobel prize recipient in physics ('t Hooft) as one of their "ambassadors".
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Offline Naito

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • Toronto, Canada
    • ProudlyGeeky
  • Liked: 26
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #7 on: 06/01/2012 01:44 PM »
Ugh, this is popping up everywhere today.  Seems like total bull, needs to be buried and ignored.
Carl C.

Offline peter-b

  • Dr. Peter Brett
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 651
  • Oxford, UK
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #8 on: 06/01/2012 01:46 PM »
The FAQ pages on radiation and zero-g mitigation are comical.

Makes me wonder if these clowns have read any of the literature.
I had a better understanding of the literature on human spaceflight when I was starting high school. "Projects" like this one give the whole HSF industry a bad name IMHO. >:(
Research Scientist (Sensors), Sharp Laboratories of Europe, UK

Offline Chilly

  • It's not rocket science
  • Member
  • Posts: 62
  • Central Ohio
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #9 on: 06/01/2012 01:46 PM »
Amazing what can be accomplished with CGI these days. It brings "vaporware" into a whole new realm.

+1 to Peter-B. Mr. Musk probably has a few ideas sketched out in his desk somewhere. If he says he intends to go to Mars before he retires...well crap, after this week who'd doubt him?

Besides certain congress-critters from TX, AL, FL, etc...
Those who can't do, write.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9161
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 613
  • Likes Given: 320
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #10 on: 06/01/2012 03:31 PM »
First, it's a one-way trip:

http://mars-one.com/mission/is-this-really-possible

Quote
"Emigration" The astronauts leave Earth for an indefinite time to settle on Mars for good.

No doubt, there's NSOV, but this is the "central point to this Mars mission".  Which is fine by me, but which is also a tall order.

Some of their approach sounds appropriate:

Quote
Mars One has designed a mission that exclusively utilizes components that can be made by existing suppliers...

This meshes with my belief that mankind has had the necessary skills and technology and capability to begin a colonization effort for at least the last forty years.

They have spoken with an interesting list of suppliers:

http://mars-one.com/about-mars-one/suppliers

I'm not sure that I agree with their choice of Mars, because it is so difficult a choice.  It does mesh with Mr. Musk's goals, however.

http://mars-one.com/faq-en/22-faq-mission-features/199-why-mars-why-not-another-planet

They don't address the issue of contamination all that well:

http://mars-one.com/faq-en/20-faq-sustainability/191-will-the-mission-be-harmful-to-mars-environment

In fact, they don't address it at all.  Probably they assume that Mars is barren.  Altho they observe correctly that 100% recycling will be needed, and that proficiency here could (not "shall") inform recycling efforts on Earth, they don't seem to have a good sense of the technical failure points of Biosphere 2.

I don't think they fully acknowledge the difficulties of a privately funded martian colonization effort. 

Plus, I'm not convinced of the one way trip aspect yet.  There's a great deal of cost savings by not having the capability to come back.  But there would also be a lot of angst, if the second group of four were to land only to be greeted by the corpses of the first group of four.  Presumably, the possible failure of the first crew would be well known before launching the second crew a year later, as they propose.  It will be hard, I think, to recruit volunteers with the necessary technical skills and bravery to embark on the second trip, if the first one fails.

If they change their methodology, they could increase their chances of success.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3028
  • Liked: 536
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #11 on: 06/01/2012 03:39 PM »
It will be hard, I think, to recruit volunteers with the necessary technical skills and bravery to embark on the second trip, if the first one fails.

I firmly believe you are mistaken. We have seven BILLION people here, do you seriously think there aren't a few dozens of (qualified, yes) (wo)men who are willing to take one-way trip even if it's very risky?

Think Amundsen and Scott.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7442
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 162
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #12 on: 06/01/2012 04:42 PM »
Heh, another "ambassador" is Paul Römer, who together with three of his fellow members of the FC Ajax supervisory board tried to get Van Gaal appointed as the new director behind the back of the last member of the supervisory board, one Johan Cruijff. Cruijff went to court and had the appointment thrown out, and the whole supervisory board including himself too.

If Römer can't rule Ajax, maybe he can try to rule Mars!
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9161
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 613
  • Likes Given: 320
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #13 on: 06/01/2012 04:57 PM »
It will be hard, I think, to recruit volunteers with the necessary technical skills and bravery to embark on the second trip, if the first one fails.

I firmly believe you are mistaken. We have seven BILLION people here, do you seriously think there aren't a few dozens of (qualified, yes) (wo)men who are willing to take one-way trip even if it's very risky?

Think Amundsen and Scott.

Yes, I'm serious.  (And stop calling me Shirley!)

Of the (7B-4) people left, the challenge will be not to find volunteers who are willing to accept only the risk.  The challenge will be to find volunteers with the necessary technical skills and bravery to embark on the second trip, particularly if the first one fails.  If the reasons for the failure are not known, then it will prove even more difficult to find those volunteers.

I didn't say there aren't or wouldn't be any volunteers.  I said it will be difficult to find them.

In any case, there's a lot of hardware that needs to be set up on Mars, and also be perfectly functioning, before any people will be sent.

Of course, I think they should aim for the Moon first, establish a prop manufacturing plant, and tank up a huge mothership to go to Mars, orbiting at first, and always enabling two way traffic.  Future trips would supply habitats, landers, rovers, and all.  Then, make the attempt to live, knowing that there's a safety line to Momma Earth.

In case somebody gets a boo-boo, or something.  Seriously.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #14 on: 06/01/2012 05:17 PM »
They need to go to the moon first to see if people can live off world first for a three year mission. Then if a persons health can be maintained then they could head for Mars. A small Lunar base by 2017-2018? Is that even possible at the rate we are going? They would need to start by then for the first crew on Mars by 2023.

They do need to have a way back from Mars orbit and surface. At least for 8 crew in the early years.

If this idea does get off the ground would governments sponsor a crew of 4 each? If so what governments might do this?

What is needed to be sent before the crew?

What studies have been done to see if Mars has what is needed for ISRU to keep a colony going if it does not receive any more supplies from Earth?

Online MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1727
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #15 on: 06/01/2012 05:25 PM »
Supplies, tools, tabs, rovers, power supply, spares, mars suits, etc. will mass more than 40 tonnes (probably much more). The one thing that is needed to gain even a modicum of credibility is a manifest with mass estimate.

40 tonnes or more is going to be difficult to fit into 8 Red Dragons!

One-way-to-Mars style missions need to preposition not just supplies, equipment and spares until the next resupply opportunity, but enough for the crew's expected lifespan.

They seriously underestimate the robotics challenges to building a base.

They should say that the crew are returned at the end of their working lives, this is probably going to be cheaper. It certainly gets around all sorts of ethical and publicity issues.

All of this is irrelevant as they are not going to be able to raise the finance. Serious space ventures tend to be kept very quiet until financing is in place.

Its sad really, there are some potentially good ideas in there, but these half-baked plans will just make it more difficult for anyone with the technical and financial capability to get a Mars plan accepted.

Offline tigerade

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Low Earth Orbit
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #16 on: 06/01/2012 05:26 PM »
Pie in the sky.  They will need more than FH and Dragon to accomplish all that.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9161
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 613
  • Likes Given: 320
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #17 on: 06/01/2012 05:54 PM »
Supplies, tools, tabs, rovers, power supply, spares, mars suits, etc. will mass more than 40 tonnes ... one thing that is needed to gain even a modicum of credibility is a manifest with mass estimate.

40 tonnes or more is going to be difficult to fit into 8 Red Dragons! ...

Its sad really, there are some potentially good ideas in there, but these half-baked plans will just make it more difficult for anyone with the technical and financial capability to get a Mars plan accepted.

Unfortunately, I agree.  My license plate says "StarShip".  It's much easier to get the license plate than it is to build a starship.  Same with web pages and Mars bases.

I hope that they tighten up their act soon.  I certainly wish them good luck.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline js117

  • Member
  • Posts: 81
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #18 on: 06/01/2012 09:26 PM »
Has anyone else heard of this?
http://mars-one.com/
It's a private company that is looking to put humans on mars by 2023 using Falcon Heavy launchers and Dragons for landers. They admit in the FAQ page that they have no funding yet. so for now it's just a dream with some pretty pictures.

 This is a one way mission.

From the web site.

Is this ethical
A ‘one way’ trip (or, in other words: emigration) to Mars is currently the only way we can get people on Mars within the next 20 years. This is no way excludes the possibility of a return flight at some point in the future. It is likely that technological progress will make this less complex down the line, not to mention the fact that once the planet is inhabited, it will be that much easier to build the returning rocket there. This means that in time it could be possible for astronauts to return to Earth after a few years, should they want to do so.
« Last Edit: 06/01/2012 09:43 PM by js117 »

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: Mars One Discussion Thread
« Reply #19 on: 06/01/2012 10:28 PM »
Pie in the sky.  They will need more than FH and Dragon to accomplish all that.

Not necessarily, Boeing, who would be an expert on such matters, was really quite sure they could do exploration of the moon with MLV with 1/2 the throw weight of a Falcon Heavy to the moon.

http://ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf

I agree the FAQ and animation looks to have been written/produced by people who really don't seem to know many of the details about how this would have to work, but it seems like they are wanting to act as a primary contractor with many sub contractors, so technical details don’t really have to be their strong suit.

The strangest / most damming thing to me is the lack of having Boeing or Bigelow on their list of suppliers. 

Getting that much mass and volume to Mars surface sans HLV, inflatables, or depots is going to require a lot of launches.

Considering this is very likely a company with no employees looking for seed money, I am not getting too excited :)
« Last Edit: 06/01/2012 10:31 PM by SpacexULA »
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Tags: