Here's the metric we should use; If it falls apart and people don't get their money back, it's a scam.
Different Mars One Finalist: It Totally Isn't a Scam
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Hard to tell if a scam or not.
But from the start I have been certain of one thing; this is a financial pipedream with 0 chance of succeeding to raise that much cash! No matter if they are sincere or not.
If found a scam... our laws *will* get them jailtime for fraud, then. And it's not like we're talking enough money so far to be worth that!
But from the start I have been certain of one thing; this is a financial pipedream with 0 chance of succeeding to raise that much cash! No matter if they are sincere or not.
If found a scam... our laws *will* get them jailtime for fraud, then. And it's not like we're talking enough money so far to be worth that!
I'd hope mankind has discovered other methods of verification besides pumping 6 billion dollars into a project008Zulu said:
The funny thing is that for a PR-based venture like this, the mere fact that there are reports about it being a scam can very well make the reports true. After all, one they gain a reputation like this, nobody will give them money anymore.
They should (*WILL*) make a real TV series out of Mars One and every one will be happy.
Like the fake Moon Landing made for TV and nobody minded, too...
(<-joking)
PS: the TV-series could be about a shady buisness man setting up a scam mission to go to Mars, then there is a technology breakthru (by real NASA) and a tight time window (Mars will be closest since centuries or something) and suddenly the trained team of the faked mission is the only team ready at this time.
Put in some hard SF like Gravity and Interstellar and I'd totally watch this.
Like the fake Moon Landing made for TV and nobody minded, too...
(<-joking)
PS: the TV-series could be about a shady buisness man setting up a scam mission to go to Mars, then there is a technology breakthru (by real NASA) and a tight time window (Mars will be closest since centuries or something) and suddenly the trained team of the faked mission is the only team ready at this time.
Put in some hard SF like Gravity and Interstellar and I'd totally watch this.
This never looked legit to me. Furthermore it has always looked like a poorly conceived death sentence for the participants if it ever gets off the ground. Also the idea that they will finance the project from the private sector based on a nebulous promise of broadcasting royalties and still for cheaper than NASA can pull off is out and out fantasy. I am also interested in their plan for shielding the crew from radiation once they leave Earth's magnetic field. It's very hard to do without making the whole thing too heavy to lift.
In other words I need a lot more than a poorly produced he said/she said youtube video to convince me this is anything other than a scam or a death sentence for the participants.
In other words I need a lot more than a poorly produced he said/she said youtube video to convince me this is anything other than a scam or a death sentence for the participants.
A realistic Mars mission means sending a robot to Mars. Hell, it means sending a hundred robots to Mars. It does not and likely never will mean sending a person to Mars - not unless we develop such advanced spaceflight capability that it is trivial to do so. There is nothing on Mars that justifies the cost of going there in person, and anyone who wants to talk the government into wasting our money on such an endeavour can go to hell.Hairless Mammoth said:
I'm gonna put it like this; This project is like Duke Nukem Forever.
It will trail on forever, never actually getting anything completed enough to be representable. Then suddenly after fifteen years, it will magically be resurrected by a sudden influx of cash, take off a year later only to crash and burn within a week of launch.
It will trail on forever, never actually getting anything completed enough to be representable. Then suddenly after fifteen years, it will magically be resurrected by a sudden influx of cash, take off a year later only to crash and burn within a week of launch.
This actually got be pondering whether or not this is a legitimate argument or not. Afterall, based on induction, 21-year olds will tend to have a lot less experience and knowledge than old doctors, and thus merits our trust. On the other hand, age and experience does not logically equal truth of reasoning.eBusiness said:
One of the star scientists who originally backed this project has all but said the whole thing is unrealistic. the various technical details needed to ensure survivability have definitely not been ironed out yet. If Mars One can address some of the stuff mentioned http://www.theguardian.com/science/...nise-red-planet-unrealistic-leading-supporter here then I will start getting my hopes up. Otherwise I am going to be thinking scam until they prove otherwise.
most of his points are based on speculation so really its not "10 reasons why its not a scam" and more "10 reasons why i think its not a scam"
Yup, same here. I used to be swept up in all of this when it properly took off but as time went by my left eyebrow just got higher and higher. Yeah, gimme some proof.Clive Howlitzer said:
I mentioned this in the other thread (First article) but it's just plain out not possible.
Instead, they should work with the Biosphere 2 and have people live in it for 2 years (while filming it). It was created initially for simulation of a space/moon Biodome and already had 8 people live in it for 2 years successfully (largest man made sustaining artificial environment so far). There is tons of technical data etc, but the short version is we can create something that will keep people alive on mars, but we needs additional minerals/O2 etc to keep it going (which can be brought along and planned for) as even the best setups have continual loss (so it's not self-sustaining long term).
This of course is what needs to be done first, way before a shot at the moon (let alone mars). Mars does have more gravity (a bit more then 2x as much as the moon..so that would help with long term effects on bone mass etc). The largest advantage though (since the moon comparably is far easier to reach) is the supply of minerals and material to build with on mars, and the fact that ice is available (which can be broken down into o2 to resupply a base).
I stand by my general belief that we need a decently sized space station first, then we need a base on the moon (Very low gravity means building things there would be a great idea), and then we can start building the bigger ships to send to mars etc. We are not even close the reaching the first stage (A decent sized space station with fairly regular ships going back and forth between it and earth). Anything of such a large scale (colonizing mars basically), would require at least a large country to have a reach chance of success, and personally I think it would take the world working together towards a common goal. That being said, if I was China I would be totally working on colonizing mars cause whoever gets there first owns the planet (and therefore has mostly won all the rest of the planets in our solar system as well). The moon could be fought over a bit (it's not THAT hard in comparison to get there, but waging a war against someone already entrenched on mars? Good luck. China has the resource, the control (IE no need to worry if the public approves), and the technology at this point to pull it off...and I wouldn't be surprised if they have been working on it for awhile already. Mars one though is just not real....not without billions and billions of dollars which would require some of the richest people in the world to be supporting it, and we would have heard about that.
Instead, they should work with the Biosphere 2 and have people live in it for 2 years (while filming it). It was created initially for simulation of a space/moon Biodome and already had 8 people live in it for 2 years successfully (largest man made sustaining artificial environment so far). There is tons of technical data etc, but the short version is we can create something that will keep people alive on mars, but we needs additional minerals/O2 etc to keep it going (which can be brought along and planned for) as even the best setups have continual loss (so it's not self-sustaining long term).
This of course is what needs to be done first, way before a shot at the moon (let alone mars). Mars does have more gravity (a bit more then 2x as much as the moon..so that would help with long term effects on bone mass etc). The largest advantage though (since the moon comparably is far easier to reach) is the supply of minerals and material to build with on mars, and the fact that ice is available (which can be broken down into o2 to resupply a base).
I stand by my general belief that we need a decently sized space station first, then we need a base on the moon (Very low gravity means building things there would be a great idea), and then we can start building the bigger ships to send to mars etc. We are not even close the reaching the first stage (A decent sized space station with fairly regular ships going back and forth between it and earth). Anything of such a large scale (colonizing mars basically), would require at least a large country to have a reach chance of success, and personally I think it would take the world working together towards a common goal. That being said, if I was China I would be totally working on colonizing mars cause whoever gets there first owns the planet (and therefore has mostly won all the rest of the planets in our solar system as well). The moon could be fought over a bit (it's not THAT hard in comparison to get there, but waging a war against someone already entrenched on mars? Good luck. China has the resource, the control (IE no need to worry if the public approves), and the technology at this point to pull it off...and I wouldn't be surprised if they have been working on it for awhile already. Mars one though is just not real....not without billions and billions of dollars which would require some of the richest people in the world to be supporting it, and we would have heard about that.
They couldn't possibly afford it anyway. If the worlds biggest/richest countries considered establishing such a base, there would still be debates over whether they could afford it. And that's afford it period, not whether it would be better to spend the money on healthcare. Funding the whole thing on TV rights is absurd. I'm surprised that a guy with a PhD fell for it even temporarily.Exterminas said:
It costs billions just to send little robots to Mars to take soil samples. Sending enough material to Mars to create a habitable structure, so that a few dozen people can live there for the rest of their lives will cost trillions.
i have to agree with wulfy42, it would be better (and safer) to have everyone train in an earthside biosphere type place.
you can still turn it into bloody big brother *sigh* if it must, but at least no one would get thrown out of the airlock if voted out....(though i might pay to see that with certain celebs..it was the only big brother i watched, the Dr Who one here the evicted were supposed to be vaporised)
its much better to go to the moon THEN jump to mars. the moon may be small, and it may have less gravity but in some cases, that might be better (medicine ect)
if we can first proove that we humans can spend time in an earthside dome, then prove we can survive in a moonside dome, THEN we can consider a mars dome. by then we should have better tech to keep us from becoming chunky bits of mars garbage
you can still turn it into bloody big brother *sigh* if it must, but at least no one would get thrown out of the airlock if voted out....(though i might pay to see that with certain celebs..it was the only big brother i watched, the Dr Who one here the evicted were supposed to be vaporised)
its much better to go to the moon THEN jump to mars. the moon may be small, and it may have less gravity but in some cases, that might be better (medicine ect)
if we can first proove that we humans can spend time in an earthside dome, then prove we can survive in a moonside dome, THEN we can consider a mars dome. by then we should have better tech to keep us from becoming chunky bits of mars garbage
I get the feeling that - when the time comes to reveal the spaceship - it'll be a rusty old van. With the windows painted over. And "free candy" spray painted on the side. The whole things just smells a little... funny.Clive Howlitzer said:
Note to Mars One people: please prove me wrong. I want to believe!