Editors expose real doubt about MARS ONE

Aliens discussion - UFO discussion
User avatar
falkor
Cleric
Cleric
Posts: 1667
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:48 am
Location: North Surrey
Contact:

Editors expose real doubt about MARS ONE

Post by falkor » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:12 pm

Image http://mars-one.com/en/

THE OFFICIAL LINE :
Mars One is a private, apolitical organization whose intent is to establish a colony on Mars through the integration of existing, readily available technologies from industry leaders world-wide. Unique in its approach, Mars One intends to fund this decade-long endeavor through an interactive, reality TV style broadcast from astronaut selection to robotic construction of the outpost; from the seven month flight through the first years on Mars.
http://mars-one.com/en/faq-en F A Q


Mars One has been working on this project in secret since January of 2011. It has taken us until now to expose it publicly because we are now certain of its technical feasibility and means of finance.

A manned mission to Mars is expensive. We plan to fund it by making it the biggest media spectacle in history. This way, everyone will get the chance to not only watch the astronauts make their journey, but choose who gets to do so. Four people, icons, who will leave their life on Earth behind and start an adventure on a new planet tens of millions of miles away.

WHAT THE WIKI EDITORS SAY
EDITOR 1 SAYS "This is not adding up.

The Mars One web site, the associated online discussion forum, and that I have something more than a clue about manned space-flight-- this is either embarrassingly naive or a hoax. It reminds me of Twentieth Century Motor Car Corporation. Slick graphics to capture the imagination, one "name," and no substance.

REPLY FROM EDITOR 2
The concern is that the reporting-- the sources-- are doing just the same. That is they are not applying critical thinking, but and instead relying on the one source. The only primary source is the material found on the Mars One web site. There is little to no analysis involved in those secondary sources.
  • A one way trip is not going to happen, for several reasons. One is moral/legal-- manslaughter charges loom. And for that reason, alone, both funding and access will be denied due to the legal liability and moral culpability of the participants.
  • Two, by any other name, it is still a suicide mission and so civilian volunteers are likely to be, by default, psychologically unfit for such a mission.
  • Technical issues are glossed... if mentioned at all. Robot tractors capable of lifting and then traveling up to twenty miles over unknown terrain carrying the weight of a crewed Dragon capsule?
  • Radiation shielding in transit and on the surface?
  • The enormous quantities of water and oxygen/hydrogen and food which must be carried and then regularly sent, recovered and transported should they survive to the surface?
  • What if a contractor goes out of business and so supply shipment are no longer possible?
  • For a reality TV show? There is the indicator that this is about something other than is admitted in the conception.
EDITOR 3 CHIMES IN:
I don't see any legal/moral issues because people pay money to do foolish and dangerous things everyday. For example, many people have died climbing Everest, some of them would have been physically incapable of it, and should never have tried. But, has anyone ever been charged with a criminal offence?

Yes, if Mars is to be colonised, then it stands to reason that many people will die doing so. This is nothing new, and hasn't prevented mankind from making other achievements. You can't say that these people are "psychologically unfit for such a mission" because you are talking about unspecified people. We don't know what colour their hair is, let alone their mental state.

The technical issues aren't mentioned much, because these issues are to be solved by their suppliers. British Airways doesn't need to know how to make aircraft fly, they just buy planes. Also, the weight of a capsule would be far less on Mars, due to gravity being 0.38 of Earth's gravity. Landing people safely on Mars is likely to be far more difficult than moving capsules around.

Shielding out radiation is possible. We already do that in space, on the space station, for example.

They don't plan to resupply Mars. The colony would extract water from the soil, recycle used water, and extract oxygen from water. Food would be produced on Mars.

EDITOR 4 ARGUES:
"Shielding out radiation is possible. We already do that in space, on the space station, for example." Wrong. The ISS is protected mostly by Earth's magnetosphere, which is absent on Mars. Any colonists would need at least 7 meters of soil for protection above their capsules.

EDITOR 3 COMES BACK
Wrong? Not all. As you have said yourself, radiation can be shielded using a layer of soil. There is no shortage of soil on Mars. Danrok
EDITOR 4 CHIDES
Danrok, there is a massive shortage of soil between earth and Mars. That is where you need the shielding. And that shielding is going to be heavy, thick, or otherwise extremely expensive using current technology READ MORE FROM THE EDITORS ARE THE EDITORS RIGHT?

dave3974
Investigator
Investigator
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:34 pm

Re: Editors expose real doubt about MARS ONE

Post by dave3974 » Sat Mar 02, 2013 7:51 pm

the cost for the fly by mission being planned is $6 billion , this will cost more , unless there are some tech breakthroughs a lot of cash isneeded

User avatar
falkor
Cleric
Cleric
Posts: 1667
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:48 am
Location: North Surrey
Contact:

Re: Editors expose real doubt about MARS ONE

Post by falkor » Mon Mar 04, 2013 10:00 pm

hi Dave, you are thinking of the 2018 flyby mission which is cheaper, less than half that of Mars One which aims to land 4 astronauts, the flyby (hit the link) is not even landing, it's just flying by

MARS ONE >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75ah6L10wfA in six minutes the interviewer grabs Bas Lansdorp and shows no mercy

He asks him about the truly dangerous risk of DEATH that the 4 astronauts will inevitably be running and asks if "Reality TV cheapens this project" with people tuning in to see an astronaut possibly gasping their last breath!

NASA would not accept a "one way mission" because "they want their people back!" isn't there a moral issue here with a "one way mission" what if an astronaut got pregnant and there are no gynocologysts up there?

Great six minute summary of MARS ONE, check it out :gog:

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post