Mars One Narrows Applicant Pool to 1058 Potential Colonists

[rcs619]

I still can't shake the feeling that this feel extremely unreal. Television rights? Launch in 2025? Man that's soon. And today I read that more than one person affiliated with established space exploration is sceptical about all of this from the right technology becoming available to simple money issues.

It almost feels like the Ouya console. Great idea but the execution...that's a gamble. And we know how that gamble paid off with the Ouya. Only here there's human lives at stake.

To be fair, this isn't really a gamble at all. A gamble implies that there is a chance of success. Either the people die during launch, transit or arrival, or they die on Mars. There isn't really a realistic situation where these guys come out winners. This whole project ISN'T an attempt at interplanetary colonization, it's a stunt.

Let's assume they actually make the trip safely (a trip of about seven months, assuming no one develops a better means of propulsion by 2025). 40 people is not enough to establish a viable colony. There is no growth and permanence here, just 40 people going off to a world that will be wholly inhospitable outside of the small, cramped living accommodations they will be able to setup on-site. Then there's the gravity. Martian surface gravity is about 30% that of Earth. We literally have no idea what sorts of long-term health effects living in that gravity will cause (the micro-gravity aboard the ISS can do some pretty terrible things to your body over time). Assuming some of them hook up with one another, we don't even know if human conception is even possible in such low gravity (not to mention the MASSIVE moral issues of bringing a baby into existence on what is effectively a suicide mission).

I don't think these people truly understand what they're getting themselves into. What a literal LIFETIME of being stuck in a series of cramped metal tubes with the same 40 schmucks is going to be like. Assuming a freak dust storm, or mechanical issue doesn't do them in. The only way this sort of thing works is if we are actually able to support it. Which means more trips to and from Mars to bring them new supplies (and the question of whether the people who were willing to fund landing humans on Mars will also be willing to fund the more mundane missions needed to keep those people alive).

That being said, space exploration and industry are VITAL to the future of the human race. Being able to capture asteroids or (with better propulsion) actually get to the asteroid belt to mine the really big ones directly would inject untold amounts of wealth and raw materials into Earth's industrial base. Which we could then use to fund fun projects, like a Martian outpost (honestly, I think an orbital habitat to serve traffic going to and from the Belt is much more reasonable. I don't think you could have people live on the ground without some sort of artificial gravity), or a Moon base, or trying to make a functional interstellar ship. We need to be thinking in long-term survival and enhancement of the species terms, not sending 40 yahoos to Mars for a glorified reality show.

 

[Avaholic03]

This has to fail... the NEEDS to fail. We can't have the first human presence on another planet be a reality show and corporate sponsors!

It's an absolutely disgusting thought.

Does it really matter how it happens? So long as it actually happens sometime in my lifetime I'll be thoroughly impressed.

Yes, of course it matters. One of the defining moments of human history should not be a game show covered in mountain dew and doritos stickers.

How else do you expect to pay for such a project? Not that I think Mountain Dew or Doritos will be interested in sponsoring such a project anyhow. Besides, history very rarely remembers the means...only the ends. I'm sure TV stations showed advertisements before and after the moon landing but you never hear about that part of that historical event. Why would the Mars mission be any different?

 

[Living Contradiction]

Let's see...it cost $820 million US to put a robot on Mars back in 2003. Adjust for inflation and you're looking at about a billion to put the unmanned launch out by 2018.

That isn't the kind of money you just have lying around, I don't care how rich you are. So this business has to acquire a billion bucks, and THEN acquire all the additional funds needed to train its would-be astronauts, the organizing of all the media insanity they have planned, and actually paying for the manned flight to leave the ground. Those rockets could have more logos on them than NASCAR vehicles and they wouldn't begin to touch the kind of cash needed.

Finally, remember that there are people running this dog and pony show. By the time 2018 rolls around, I think there should be a nice tasty scandal regarding a bit of embezzlement or fraud and this will all blow away like so much methane in the wind, giving everyone a good laugh and a head-shake before we flip the channel back to Superbowl LII.

 

[Avaholic03]

Its not gonna happen by 2025. I'll litterly eat my socks if it happens by then. Maybe by 2050, once Mars has already been settled a few times over.

Its not just a matter of money, its about technological achievements. NASA barely manages to land rovers on Mars, most nations can barely place satellites beyond the orbit of the moon, and these people think they can just host a reality TV show on Mars if they're well-funded?

Colonization of Mars is possible, but you need -amazing- technological expertise and experience, NASA-grade at the very least, and so much money that it could cover the annual budget of a small nation.

What do you really need to settle on a planet like Mars? Ability to process and recycle oxygen and water from the soil...that's existing technology. Ability to grow plants there...not actually that difficult. Ability to generate power...simple. Protection from the environment (namely wind storms and radiation)...I think they've got that figured out. Honestly, I can't think of a single technology that would be needed that doesn't already exist. The most limiting factor would be the people involved...whether they could handle the trip and getting the colony up and running. And then you'll need a plan to re-supply the colony down the road, because even well-engineered things break down eventually.

I think a lot of people over-estimate "NASA-grade" technology. NASA, along with United Launch Alliance who provides pretty much all launch services for the US now, don't exactly corner the market on cutting-edge technology. Most rocket technology is adapted from ICBMs and hasn't really advanced in 50 years (case in point, the RL10 second stage engine [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RL10] used by all ULA launch vehicles originally flew in 1961). They've held onto old technology and processes so long, it's no wonder a company like SpaceX can do what ULA does for a fraction of the cost. Time for the old dinosaurs to step aside and let leaner private industry take over.

 

[skywolfblue]

This has to fail... the NEEDS to fail. We can't have the first human presence on another planet be a reality show and corporate sponsors!

It's an absolutely disgusting thought.

Does it really matter how it happens? So long as it actually happens sometime in my lifetime I'll be thoroughly impressed.

Yes, of course it matters. One of the defining moments of human history should not be a game show covered in mountain dew and doritos stickers.

I'd prefer a mars landing with Doritos and Jersey Shore, then no mars landing at all. Governments have given up on space, time for the private industry to give it a chance.

However, I don't know where they're going to get the budget to put enough shielding into orbit so that the crew doesn't get cooked in the long journey, it would take I'm guessing at very least 3 Saturn 5 rockets (or whatever they're calling the modern equivalent that carries basically "Spruced up Saturn 5 engines") to put enough shielding into orbit. Those things do not come cheap. It's a large part of why NASA keep talking of reaching a near-earth asteroid or build a moonbase first, because it's much easier to build a shield from material there.

 

[DanielBrown]

I was gonna apply a while back, but I was too tall.
Still, as a few others here, I don't have much trust in this project. Was unaware of the TV bullshit.

 

[BanicRhys]

Let's hope this is such a fiasco that it turns humanity away from, the waste of precious resources that is, space exploration for a good, long while.

 

[Exterminas]

Dear Mars One project.

I respect that you want to complete this mission under optimal conditions. Interplanetary colonization is a major step forward for our species and it deserves to be done right.

However I put it to you that to well and truly prove your dream a viable reality you need to accept that every society is going to have unprepared shiftless layabouts who have no business doing what they have been assigned to do.

For the good of all humanity I humbly offer my services to be this social x factor.

Love
D_M

They've probably got that covered.

OT: Seriously, though, I am looking forward to seeing what this leads to. It's either going to be the latest greatest exploration of humanity or a calamity in the making.

>_>

<_<

Place your bets?

The fun part is that it will be great television and a lot of money in any case!

 

[Glaice]

No, if this is just some cover for reality TV, I don't want anything to do with it. I'd rather it be a documentary, not some cheap excuse for some corporations to make money for people risking their asses on the red planet.

 

[kurokotetsu]

Let's hope this is such a fiasco that it turns humanity away from, the waste of precious resources that is, space exploration for a good, long while.

You might be trolling, but hell I have to say it. SPace exploration is not a waste of resources. It is a valuable and very important industry, which has not only produced very interesting side technologies but has helped us understand better our own planet (the ozone layer depeltion was a result of planetary exploration). So please stop talking about things you clearly haven't studied enough,

 

[Hero in a half shell]

I still can't shake the feeling that this feel extremely unreal. Television rights? Launch in 2025? Man that's soon. And today I read that more than one person affiliated with established space exploration is sceptical about all of this from the right technology becoming available to simple money issues.

It reminds me of Space Cadets:


Man, that show was awesome.

 

[TKretts3]

I think everyone is forgetting something about the whole audience voting aspect. The audience members aren't just voting for anyone who applies, they're voting from a select pool of candidates, specifically chosen by the Mars One Team for their qualifications. So no, we aren't gonna get some McDonalds fry cook on the mission, it will most likely be a competition between the most highly qualified individuals who signed up.

 

[BanicRhys]

Let's hope this is such a fiasco that it turns humanity away from, the waste of precious resources that is, space exploration for a good, long while.

You might be trolling, but hell I have to say it. SPace exploration is not a waste of resources. It is a valuable and very important industry, which has not only produced very interesting side technologies but has helped us understand better our own planet (the ozone layer depeltion was a result of planetary exploration). So please stop talking about things you clearly haven't studied enough,

I used to think that research into space exploration was a necessity, the reason I now believe the contrary is because of the research I've done on the subject.

This being the Internet, I'm not going to bother typing up some massive essay to reinforce my opinion because, odds are, my effort will be entirely wasted. But if you think you haven't given both sides of the discussion ample attention and you would like to, information regarding the wastefulness of space exploration is readily available to you.

Just please, just don't assume I'm ignorant on the matter because my opinion differs to yours.

 

[Tomeran]

What do you really need to settle on a planet like Mars? Ability to process and recycle oxygen and water from the soil...that's existing technology. Ability to grow plants there...not actually that difficult. Ability to generate power...simple. Protection from the environment (namely wind storms and radiation)...I think they've got that figured out. Honestly, I can't think of a single technology that would be needed that doesn't already exist. The most limiting factor would be the people involved...whether they could handle the trip and getting the colony up and running. And then you'll need a plan to re-supply the colony down the road, because even well-engineered things break down eventually.

You left out that tiny little crucial bit: The ability to get there and land with a big spacecraft capable of transporting a relativly large crew. This is a mission that would be ten times as complicated as landing on the moon, and probably twenty times as expensive. This alone is a MASSIVE technological and financial hurdle. If it was cheap and easy, it would've been done already. NASA recently pulled it off with a rover about the size of a car, a rover that was -incredibly- expensive, and that alone was celebrated as one of the greatest scientific achievements of the last decade.

Setting down and building a colony there is fully possible, I never denied that. But it is by no means as easy as you make it sound. The technology is existing, but that doesnt mean its easy or cheap to put it into place. The radiation protection in particular is quite the challenge, not to mention the colossal dust storms that take place on Mars.

I think a lot of people over-estimate "NASA-grade" technology. NASA, along with United Launch Alliance who provides pretty much all launch services for the US now, don't exactly corner the market on cutting-edge technology. Most rocket technology is adapted from ICBMs and hasn't really advanced in 50 years (case in point, the RL10 second stage engine [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RL10] used by all ULA launch vehicles originally flew in 1961). They've held onto old technology and processes so long, it's no wonder a company like SpaceX can do what ULA does for a fraction of the cost. Time for the old dinosaurs to step aside and let leaner private industry take over.

A fair few things may be overrated about NASA, but their experience in the field is not one of them. They have more of it then any other lasting space agency, with the possible exception of the FKA(or RKA. The russians, that is), and they definetly have more expertise then any other when it comes to MARS.

NASA technology is reliant on private contractors, some of which are now big actors by themselves, but they're custom-tailored in cooperation with NASA as a result of their experience and expertise. It isnt about "cornering the market" or market shares or just technology, its about the knowledge.

SpaceX is a grand example of private contractors doing what NASA could do, but there's a COLOSSAL difference between managing to launch a rocket into space and sending a supply capsule to the ISS, compared to launching a MANNED MISSION TO MARS. The difference in terms of what you need both in tech, skills, experience, money and planning is...well, I'd have to ironicly have to compare it to astronomical measurement units, but you get the point.


NASA may be "old dinosaurs", but just because the private space industry is on "the march" forward, which perhaps is quite the good thing seeing the unfortunate decrease in interest from goverments to spend money on space exploitation(a huge mistake), doesnt mean that its ready to SURPASS them, especielly in terms of knowledge and experience. It is important to remember that NASA still has a fair degree of cooperation with most of these succesful "private" space ventures, but that they'd never even dream of supporting something as stupid as a reality TV show on Mars.

NASA is here to stay, they wont be going anywhere, not for a reaaally long time, and they're still the unquestionable champions when it comes to space exploration. Reducing their budget may have limited what they can do, but it doesnt mean they have ceased to exist.

 

[TallanKhan]

I love the idea of sending people to Mars, i really do, i think it will be one of the only truly great feats of exploration that may take place during my lifetime. However, the idea that this will be turned into some kind of reality tv show, where people will be selected to make one of the most important journeys humanity will ever make not on the basis of merit or talent, but rather how well they play to the camera and how popular they are sickens me.

 

[WWmelb]

I love the idea of sending people to Mars, i really do, i think it will be one of the only truly great feats of exploration that may take place during my lifetime. However, the idea that this will be turned into some kind of reality tv show, where people will be selected to make one of the most important journeys humanity will ever make not on the basis of merit or talent, but rather how well they play to the camera and how popular they are sickens me.

No, if this is just some cover for reality TV, I don't want anything to do with it. I'd rather it be a documentary, not some cheap excuse for some corporations to make money for people risking their asses on the red planet.

First thing to address. The voting will for one, not be voting for individual people, but for one of the teams of 4 that will be training together, being educated together, and doing the simulations together for approximately 8 years prior to launch.

This will be a popularity contest sure, however it will be who is the most popular of THE most highly trained and capable teams of individuals.. not some random useless dude off the street, and will be limited to the teams that Mars One believe are capable of completing the journey.

Needless to say, or should be, this isn't the end for the people who don't "win". The "win" is solely to be the FIRST crew to leave, all other crews that pass the tests and training and simulations will follow at roughly two year intervals, as well as further crews who will be continuously trained.

Yes, of course it matters. One of the defining moments of human history should not be a game show covered in mountain dew and doritos stickers.

No, if this is just some cover for reality TV, I don't want anything to do with it. I'd rather it be a documentary, not some cheap excuse for some corporations to make money for people risking their asses on the red planet.

As it stands now, none of this applies at all to the television side of this exploration/colonisation mission.

Everyone seems to be applying the worst possible definition of "reality tv" to this, when in reality, all of their literature on this shows that this will be basically be a 24 hour Live Stream of the journey, not some overly hyped up, scripted and marketed slapdash "reality" show like that of Survivor or Big Brother.

There will be advertisements on the TV broadcasts i'm sure, although, as a NOT FOR PROFIT organisation the revenue will go towards funding of further launches of supplies and crews. This is how i have interpreted the idea anyways, but this is purely speculation, having read every single piece of information from Mars One that is available to the public that i can find.

Just for the sake of it, here are a list of partners and sponsors so far, that are donating time/money/equipment/resources to the project:


Suppliers:

- Paragon Space Development Corporation
- Space Exploration Technologies (Spacex)
- ILC Dover
- MDA Corporation
- Astrobotic Technology
- Thales Alenia Space
- Surrey Satellite Technology
- Lockheed Martin

Science and Education Partners:

- Universty of Twente - ATLAS

Silver Financial Sponsors

- DISC Corp
- Thomas Carlsen Translations
- Australian Science
- Byte
- The Earth-Mars Chronicles
- Verkkokauppa.com
- Aleph Objects, Inc

And there are too many financial contributors to list, however i didn't spy doritos or mountain dew on the this list at all.

NASA may be "old dinosaurs", but just because the private space industry is on "the march" forward, which perhaps is quite the good thing seeing the unfortunate decrease in interest from goverments to spend money on space exploitation(a huge mistake), doesnt mean that its ready to SURPASS them, especielly in terms of knowledge and experience. It is important to remember that NASA still has a fair degree of cooperation with most of these succesful "private" space ventures, but that they'd never even dream of supporting something as stupid as a reality TV show on Mars.

snip

You left out that tiny little crucial bit: The ability to get there and land with a big spacecraft capable of transporting a relativly large crew.

Check out some of the companies from the suppliers list and you will see that although NASA may not be supporting this, a lot of the companies that made it possible for NASA and other space agencies to do what they do, ARE in fact supporting it.

Also, the crew is only 4 people. Not large at all. And the spacecraft itself will not be landing, it's a one way trip for the craft, but It will have a landing module, and all of their initial equipment and housing is being launch and dropped at least a year before they arrive, to be constructed by a rover.

However, I don't know where they're going to get the budget to put enough shielding into orbit so that the crew doesn't get cooked in the long journey, it would take I'm guessing at very least 3 Saturn 5 rockets (or whatever they're calling the modern equivalent that carries basically "Spruced up Saturn 5 engines") to put enough shielding into orbit. Those things do not come cheap. It's a large part of why NASA keep talking of reaching a near-earth asteroid or build a moonbase first, because it's much easier to build a shield from material there.

If you read up on the design of the craft that is taking the four astronauts to Mars, it will answer the radiation problems.

In the general spacecraft each crew member has basically a 20sqf living area of themselves, however there is a very small compartment in the centre of the craft which is for temporary shelter for when there is a radiation spike, from solar flares etc. This compartent is roughly 20sqf in it's entirety and is designed to house the 4 crew members for 3 - 4 days at a time (The average duration of a solar flare). Mars One are anticipating that there will be 3 - 4 of these flares during the 7 - 8 month journey.

As far as these spikes go while on mars, two relay satellites are being launched into very specific points in orbit solely for relaying warnings to the colonists about an impending solar flare.

On average, the people living on Mars will have 6 - 9 minutes from when they receive the signal to get themselves underground in order for the soil of mars to shield them from the radiation. Building an underground shelter will be one of the first priorities of the colonists. This may cause a problem if the a flare hits within the first month of them arriving, though there may be a contingency for that that i either do not recall, or just haven't found.

Anyways

Everyone saying it's a "suicide mission" etc are forgetting that ALL exploration missions over the last few millennium have been called the same by detractors.

This even less risky that a few centuries ago people jumping in a boat and heading east or west on a hunch that something was over there.

These explorers will still have communication with their home via satellite and they at least definitively know that their destination exists, how far it is, and whether or not it is possible to get there.

Soo.. well, that is all i have to say on this, hopefully a few people do some more reading into everything that Mars One is doing, and ponders a little bit.

Thank you all

 

[Avaholic03]

snip

You put an awful lot of emphasis on knowledge and experience. But IMO, for such a groundbreaking and difficult mission, "experience" can be as much of a hindrance as it is a help. The classical engineering paradox is that more experience leads to less design freedom. Less "outside the box" thinking. The early space program had to creatively solve every problem, but these days there are too many "cookie cutter" solutions that may be missing out on really creative and elegant ideas. I worked 2.5 years at ULA and the biggest thing I took away from that time was their crippling fear of trying something new. Instead of investigating new technologies (especially materials technology which could seriously help with strength and lightness), they just kept adding more weight to the vehicles in the name of "safety and redundancy" (and at the same time sacrificing payload capability). Not that I think safety is a bad thing...but it's space travel, at a certain point you have to accept some uncertainty and risk.

I mean, obviously it helps to have some background to at least have an idea of what direction to go in. But I would argue that the Mars One team is made up of plenty of industry experts to at least provide that direction without being over-constrained. And the same is true with most private industry ventures...started by aerospace veterans who got sick of the pointless hurdles they were being forced to jump over.

 

[Tomeran]

snip

You put an awful lot of emphasis on knowledge and experience. But IMO, for such a groundbreaking and difficult mission, "experience" can be as much of a hindrance as it is a help. The classical engineering paradox is that more experience leads to less design freedom. Less "outside the box" thinking. The early space program had to creatively solve every problem, but these days there are too many "cookie cutter" solutions that may be missing out on really creative and elegant ideas. I worked 2.5 years at ULA and the biggest thing I took away from that time was their crippling fear of trying something new. Instead of investigating new technologies (especially materials technology which could seriously help with strength and lightness), they just kept adding more weight to the vehicles in the name of "safety and redundancy" (and at the same time sacrificing payload capability). Not that I think safety is a bad thing...but it's space travel, at a certain point you have to accept some uncertainty and risk.

I mean, obviously it helps to have some background to at least have an idea of what direction to go in. But I would argue that the Mars One team is made up of plenty of industry experts to at least provide that direction without being over-constrained. And the same is true with most private industry ventures...started by aerospace veterans who got sick of the pointless hurdles they were being forced to jump over.

There is of course a degree of truth that some experienced people might be mired in old tracks and are scared of new technology and of "thinking outside the box". But I hardly think NASA is a fitting example of such people. Just take the latest rover mission as an example. You'll find plenty of "out-of-the-box" tech and how it is applied there.

The point here is that this kind of technological progress is usually done fairly slowly, because there is great risk, both in time and money, when something does go wrong. You dont experiment in space ventures unless its been tested and proven a hundred times over in orbit or on the ground.
Sending a manned mission to Mars and to expedite it in terms of tech, basicly experimenting with people's lives, just so you can rush ahead and meet that 2025 deadline and make that reality TV show on another planet, is tragic. I fear it is eventually what Mars One is trying to do. They may have "industrial experts" on their side, whoever those people happen to be, but its important to note that private space industry still hasnt managed to go beyond earth's orbit, while NASA has managed to go beyond the solar system. They're still lagging behind quite fiercely, even if they can generally throw up more money to invest in new tech. The new entry and re-entry spacecraft in the works looks amazing and is definetly better then the old space shuttles and capsules, but there's such a colossal leap from doing that to building a spacecraft capable of safely transporting these people to Mars.

It is -not- an easy journey, even for four people. It is an even harder landing, and tremendously expensive to pull through. I dont think a lot of people grasp how far it actually is to Mars, so they think the private space industry will "easily" be able to pull it off since they've been in the news with new fancy toys lately.

And while I think it is interesting that the private industry is pressing for space exploration(or exploitation, rather), I cant help but feel really dismayed on the thought that the first colonists on Mars are gonna be part of some ridicilous reality TV show concept. Fortunetly, it is about as likely to happen by 2025 as world peace.

Personally I really hope NASA's gonna beat them to it, because they tend to do exploration rather then exploitation, and the first colony on another planet shouldnt be about one the very worst parts of earth's social culture(reality TV), it should be about humanity's urge to explore and open new frontiers, and to try and learn if we're alone out there.
While it can be argued that part of NASA's job is to increase the US's national prestige, they'll definetly do a better job at the later then Mars one or the private space industry ever could.