Mars One

[Quetzal]

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)

It has already happened! I get nerd chills every time I watch the recap. Here it is:

 

[Revoltingest]

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

I agree, but I'd replace "responsible" with "productive".

 

[Wirey]

I see this as deepening the shallow end of the gene pool. Some morons will lose some money, and if we're lucky, different morons will get blowed up in the process.

 

[serp777]

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?

We should already have a mars colony and moon colony. Everything we've invested in space technology has returned 10 fold on average. Think about all the technological advancements that have occurred as a result of developing space vehicles and other space projects.

It sucks that we spend so much money on things like thanks and cruise missiles. How many freaking cruise missiles or advanced jet fighters do we even need?

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

Correct.


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

Well personally, I would not join a suicide mission, which is what it is. Also, that money could be better spent on countless other things.

 

[Quetzal]

Well personally, I would not join a suicide mission, which is what it is. Also, that money could be better spent on countless other things.

It is tough for me to be critical to your post because I can easily see that perspective. My question is (not to you or anyone, just asking out loud) is if we find a design that can be used to get them back, will the Mars One project take advantage?

 

[Brickjectivity]

It is tough for me to be critical to your post because I can easily see that perspective. My question is (not to you or anyone, just asking out loud) is if we find a design that can be used to get them back, will the Mars One project take advantage?

They aren't saying it, but that has to be something that the designers are thinking about. In particular they are probably thinking about securing future interest in space travel. If you have base of stranded humans on Mars you are going to keep people thinking about funding space travel.

 

[Quetzal]

If you have base of stranded humans on Mars you are going to keep people thinking about funding space travel.

A very sinister perspective, for sure. Although, you would hope that just getting there would be enough. My big hesitation is that I feel Mars One is rushing it. Personally, I would much rather push back the launch projection by 10-15 years and do it the right way.

 

[Wirey]

A very sinister perspective, for sure. Although, you would hope that just getting there would be enough. My big hesitation is that I feel Mars One is rushing it. Personally, I would much rather push back the launch projection by 10-15 years and do it the right way.

....said the Europeans, and in 1944, they discovered America. Go. If they die, they die trying.

 

[Quetzal]

....said the Europeans, and in 1944, they discovered America. Go. If they die, they die trying.

You might be a bit off with that date. Europe was a little busy in 1944 with something else.

 

[Wirey]

You might be a bit off with that date. Europe was a little busy in 1944 with something else.

My point was that exploration and colonization is by definition hazardous, and there will be mistakes made. There will also be disasters that will happen we can only learn about by starting, so they should just start.

 

[Quetzal]

My point was that exploration and colonization is by definition hazardous, and there will be mistakes made. There will also be disasters that will happen we can only learn about by starting, so they should just start.

Sure, but if we are traveling on the Mayflower, we have the opportunity to turn the boat around. No such luxuries here, thus, highlighting my main ethical argument.

 

[Brickjectivity]

A very sinister perspective, for sure. Although, you would hope that just getting there would be enough. My big hesitation is that I feel Mars One is rushing it. Personally, I would much rather push back the launch projection by 10-15 years and do it the right way.

So you are arguing that the project is unethical, but are you also arguing that it is unethical to be one of the volunteers?

 

[Quetzal]

So you are arguing that the project is unethical, but are you also arguing that it is unethical to be one of the volunteers?

The volunteers know what they are getting into. That choice is on them. The mission, however, is unethical because they are not putting any time, manpower or funds into research that could produce technology to bring their people back. To me, it is simply lazy.

"Hey um... so... we don't have the technology to bring you back soooo... we are going to send you there. You are going to sit tight for a while (maybe forever) until someone else comes up with something..."

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

It is tough for me to be critical to your post because I can easily see that perspective. My question is (not to you or anyone, just asking out loud) is if we find a design that can be used to get them back, will the Mars One project take advantage?

If they CAN come back, then it would be like any other space mission, just on a far larger scale.
For me, the issue of money is still there and this coming from a guy who loved space exploration and learning about it as a kid but as I grew up and matured, it's just a monumental waste of money and is mainly here to fuel mans ego.

 

[Quetzal]

For me, the issue of money is still there and this coming from a guy who loved space exploration and learning about it as a kid but as I grew up and matured, it's just a monumental waste of money and is mainly here to fuel mans ego.

Their sustainability plan is also highly debated. They have investors at the moment, but when the mission launches they plan on selling advertising space on their live feeds. They modeled this after the Olympic broadcasts. I can see it now...

"This t-10 second count down is brought to you by NIKE! The official footwear of Mars!"

Here is some more info on that.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The volunteers know what they are getting into. That choice is on them. The mission, however, is unethical because they are not putting any time, manpower or funds into research that could produce technology to bring their people back. To me, it is simply lazy.

I like to think there is a secret plan to bring people back.

 

[Quetzal]

I like to think there is a secret plan to bring people back.

There is no reason to hide it. If they have a plan to do so it would only benefit them to talk about it. If they did formulate an idea and if they were able to defend it the money would flow in even more than it is now.

 

[Brickjectivity]

There is no reason to hide it. If they have a plan to do so it would only benefit them to talk about it. If they did formulate an idea and if they were able to defend it the money would flow in even more than it is now.

No, you cannot prove that. If there is secretly a return trip then the reason to hide it will also be a secret, so you have no way of knowing whether there is a secret reason since the reason is secret. The premise of my statement is that I hope there is a secret plan to return people, and that implicitly involves a secret reason as well. You may disagree, but you can't make me believe that you know there is no plan.

 

[Quetzal]

No, you cannot prove that. If there is secretly a return trip then the reason to hide it will also be a secret, so you have no way of knowing whether there is a secret reason since the reason is secret. The premise of my statement is that I hope there is a secret plan to return people, and that implicitly involves a secret reason as well. You may disagree, but you can't make me believe that you know there is no plan.

I think you are being argumentative for no reason. You are hoping they have an ace in their sleeve that they have been holding all along to see the other hands. If they do, that's great. I just think it is unlikely. If they had an idea on how to bring the people back and silence a majority of their critics, why wouldn't they share it? The only thing we have to go on right now is what they tell us. They have told us they do not have a way to bring them back as of today. Anything else is useless speculation.