Mars One

[Quetzal]

I have been listening to a lot of Star Talk recently (great podcast, by the way) and they recently posted an interview with a man named Bas Lansdorp. He is the co-founder of a project called Mars One. Their mission is to create a colony on Mars. The catch is they do not have any intention of bringing the crew back.

From their website:

Mars One is a not for profit foundation with the goal of establishing a permanent human settlement on Mars. To prepare for this settlement the first unmanned mission is scheduled to depart in 2020. Crews will depart for their one-way journey to Mars starting in 2026; subsequent crews will depart every 26 months after the initial crew has left for Mars. Mars One is a global initiative aiming to make this everyone's mission to Mars, including yours. Join Mars One’s efforts to enable the next giant leap for mankind.

Source.

Of course, one of the first questions in their FAQ is: Why a one way a trip? Here is their answer:

Compared to a return Mars mission, a one-way mission to Mars greatly reduces the infrastructure needed. The absence of a return mission means that there is no need for a return vehicle, return propellant or systems to produce the propellant locally, all of which would require a significantly larger amount of resources and technology development.

Food for thought:
In the grand scheme of moral responsibility, is this a good thing to do?
Many skeptics such as Bill Nye believe these resources should be used in more responsible ways to explore the cosmos, do you agree?
If you were offered to go on this mission, would you go? Why or why not?
Do you believe this mission will be successful? That is, do you think they will be able to create a long-term settlement on Mars?

 

[Parsimony]

Solving all of the problems related to human beings living on Mars for prolonged periods of time in only ten years? Sounds quite ambitious.

 

[Quetzal]

Waste of money. There is little foreseeable discovery and we are spending billions of dollars and many lives to do so.
Having the ability to do something cool doesn't justify doing so. We are far from creating a sustainable settlement on mars.

My big concern is, even if we do find something super cool... how do we bring it back to study? Needless to say UPS has no jurisdiction on Mars yet. This means that they have to take lab equipment with them or have it brought to them later. Costing even more. Now, the good news as far as cost is that this not a government organization. Thus, they are responsible for all funding themselves.

 

[Quetzal]

Solving all of the problems related to human beings living on Mars for prolonged periods of time in only ten years? Sounds quite ambitious.

Indeed. In the interview they asked him about R&D for new technology. His response worried me. He is looking to reuse/borrow existing technology. I am skeptical and I would even stretch it to say he is trying to cut corners with cost that could cost human lives.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Its a crazy scheme. Its going to cost lives, and he must know that already.

 

[Quetzal]

By the way, a question asked was regarding the funding. From what I understood, they are going to promote live, pay-per-view broadcasts of the mission. That is a large part of their sustainability model.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'm willing to go, but I I have conditions. I demand unlimited sudoku puzzles.

 

[Laika]

@Quetzal , I did a thread on this sometime last year, link here. you may enjoy the video (may even be the podcast you watched) and it got me hooked to the idea.

I think we should regard putting a man on mars as a question of "when" rather than "if". money is not really the issue. money was never an issue when our national pride and missle defence capabilities were at stake in the Space Race with the Soviets. NASA was founded in response to the "sputnik crisis" when the US realised if the USSR can put a sattilite into space, they can do the same with nukes too.

say for a moment that this was an entirely private venture done by a private spaceflight company for profit. In purely economic terms the commercial "rewards" in the short-run are minimal, as you can't live on Mars. even if you could, the huge costs of extracting and transporting raw materials to earth (or even machine parts to Mars) would make this a loss-making enterprise. it has to become alot cheaper to fly in space on a regular basis at higher speeds to become commercially viable.

if we want to go to mars, it would seem logical that we are going to make a loss on it, and the state is going to have to at least pay for it. the point of it is less to do with the money and more to do developing technologies which will make inter-planetary spaceflight cost efficient. all great inventions come at a cost, and the scale of the costs of leaving earths atmosphere on a regular basis will be considerable. we have to decide it is "worth" the money, by factors other than profitability. namely, the very long term oppurtunities it offers to us.

I don't think anyone would want or even send people on a sucicide mission. my namesake, laika, died in space to prove that humans could survive "up there". many of the scientists later expressed regret even letting a dog die in space.

But we should go. our inwardlooking egotism over money and resources, and ideological inflexability to face the challanges of living in space are at best complacent, and worst a resistence to evolutionary pressures of limited resources of living on our planets.

of course this would all be helped dramatically if scientists discover Oil there. it is possible if mars was once fertile and earth-like, but we won't find out unless we go...

And I'm being really well-behaved and resisting the overwhelming desire to don a buzzlighter helmit and make "wooshing" sounds with a toy space shuttle.

"please can I go?" he says bouncing up and down on the sofa. "pleeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaasssssssse.?"

 

[Quetzal]

it has to become alot cheaper to fly in space on a regular basis at higher speeds to become commercially viable.

SpaceX is doing a lot of good work here.

 

[Quetzal]

The project is being run by Elon Musk so I don't worry a ton about the usability of the spacecraft, just think its a waste.

Different project, I think you are referring to SpaceX. Although, they may be the supplier. I am not sure.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I don't think its immoral as long as the people really want to go and aren't going just to get out of debt or to end their lives. They should really be Martians at heart.

 

[Quetzal]

I don't think its immoral as long as the people really want to go and aren't going just to get out of debt or to end their lives. They should really be Martians at heart.

I don't think that is the case. They interviewed one of the finalists and he was passionate about the mission itself. He fully understood what he was signing up for.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I don't think that is the case. They interviewed one of the finalists and he was passionate about the mission itself. He fully understood what he was signing up for.

I am OK with that, since he really wants to go. I might watch the show.

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

I have been listening to a lot of Star Talk recently (great podcast, by the way) and they recently posted an interview with a man named Bas Lansdorp. He is the co-founder of a project called Mars One. Their mission is to create a colony on Mars. The catch is they do not have any intention of bringing the crew back.

From their website:

Source.

Of course, one of the first questions in their FAQ is: Why a one way a trip? Here is their answer:


Food for thought:
In the grand scheme of moral responsibility, is this a good thing to do?
Many skeptics such as Bill Nye believe these resources should be used in more responsible ways to explore the cosmos, do you agree?
If you were offered to go on this mission, would you go? Why or why not?
Do you believe this mission will be successful? That is, do you think they will be able to create a long-term settlement on Mars?

I think the Mars One program is private and not government funded, am I right?

If so, then the guy or people involved can do with the money what they like and the volunteers, as long as they know what they are getting themselves into, are free to sign up.

 

[Quetzal]

I think the Mars One program is private and not government funded, am I right?

Correct.

If so, then the guy or people involved can do with the money what they like and the volunteers, as long as they know what they are getting themselves into, are free to sign up.

No one is arguing against that. I am just curious of your personal take on the mission itself and the ethics involved.

 

[LuisDantas]

In the grand scheme of moral responsibility, is this a good thing to do?

Not in itself. It may be a necessary thing to propose as a stepping stone towards greater awareness and acceptance of our ecological duty, though.

Many skeptics such as Bill Nye believe these resources should be used in more responsible ways to explore the cosmos, do you agree?

Probably.

If you were offered to go on this mission, would you go? Why or why not?

No. I find it to be a waste of resources.

Do you believe this mission will be successful? That is, do you think they will be able to create a long-term settlement on Mars?

Probably not. I expect the schedules to be postponed several times and the expectations to diminish gradually, as the realization dawns that even finding volunteers will be a major challenge, and that is assuming that the logistics can be made to work at all - which I very much doubt.

Few people seem to realize how unique a set of circunstances made the moon landings possible. The moon's gravity sort of did half the work and the distances involved were drammatically shorter and there was no serious talk about establishing a permanent settlement there.

While I understand with the reasons for not proposing a return trip from Mars, IMO that only underscores how unrealistic it is to expect a tripulated mission to be viable. Even attempting it would be a very expensive extravagancy with little in the way of even tentative justification.

 

[Brickjectivity]

They should dig into the planet. They should have a plan to make tunnels and caverns, and they should have some manufacturing ability. See? I'm already excited about the show.

 

[Quetzal]

Probably not. I expect the schedules to be postponed several times and the expectations to diminish gradually, as the realization dawns that even finding volunteers will be a major challenge, and that is assuming that the logistics can be made to work at all - which I very much doubt.

To be fair, they have already narrowed their list of candidates to around 100 finalists.

 

[Quetzal]

I thought spaceX was supplying, however I could be wrong.

That would make sense. However, if that were the case, you would think they would be open to technology to allow us to return from Mars. Given their recent successes.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I recently read about a very amazing rocket Spacex has called the Falcon 9. It carries a very large load and is re-usable. It takes off and then lands again. Its going to be a game changer, because it can carry a lot of weight and then be reused. If they used it on the Mars mission they might actually afford to send 1 rocket back. (My conjecture)