Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Mars

Mars One: Final 100 Candidates Selected 233

Posted by samzenpus from the one-step-closer-to-the-end dept.
hypnosec writes "The Mars One project has picked the final 100 candidates for the next round of the selection process. Initially, 202,586 people applied and ultimately around 40 will undertake a one-way trip to Mars. “The large cut in candidates is an important step towards finding out who has the right stuff to go to Mars,” said Bas Lansdorp, Co-founder & CEO of Mars One. “These aspiring martians provide the world with a glimpse into who the modern day explorers will be.”
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mars One: Final 100 Candidates Selected More

Mars One: Final 100 Candidates Selected

Comments Filter:

  • Why do people still believe this project is legit? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 16, 2015 @11:12AM (#49067051)

    Have they ever put out a viable plan to reach Mars? Why are we re-printing this crap?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tnk1 ( 899206 )

      Have they ever put out a viable plan to reach Mars? Why are we re-printing this crap?

      Because Space Suicide Pact! It's News!

      Seriously, I would like to go to Mars myself, but only as a tourist. I've seen pictures of the place and know what the environment is supposed to be like. Its like living in red Death Valley, only without the cheery warmth. With extra radiation.

      Did I mention, it's red *every where*?

      So, yeah, not where I want to strand myself for the remainder of my brief existence.

  • Sigh... Yet another scam (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Monday February 16, 2015 @11:14AM (#49067079)

    I know the idea of going to Mars is pretty awesome but this just reeks of scam. They are claiming they will launch the first people by 2024 [mars-one.com], a mere 9 years from now. You will note that except for a Donate link there is no mention of funding. They even say "No new technology developments are required to establish a human settlement on Mars [mars-one.com]", which is demonstrably false.

    Why is slashdot giving scammers like this the time of day? This is not a real mission to Mars. This is not even a credible attempt at one. There is no funding, no realistic plan, no details, no technology development, and nothing else that should even give the slightest hint that this is anything more than a scam.

    • You will note that except for a Donate link there is no mention of funding.

      I wonder how many TV companies would shovel over billions for the rights to broadcast "The Real World"/"Survivor"/"Big Brother" Mars for long term funding.

      • Re:Sigh... Yet another scam (Score:5, Informative)

        by Penguinisto ( 415985 ) on Monday February 16, 2015 @11:38AM (#49067309) Journal

        I wonder how many TV companies would shovel over billions for the rights to broadcast "The Real World"/"Survivor"/"Big Brother" Mars for long term funding.

        I think they mentioned this as their main source of funding...

        • Which is surprising considering that one of the main reasons reality tv is so pervasive is that its so cheap to make. I expect the tv execs are only in it for the 100 down to 40 competition with all the associated teams and challenge bullshit. No way are they going to front the money to actually build a spacecraft.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by itzly ( 3699663 )

        I wonder how many TV companies would shovel over billions for the rights

        They might, if there was a solid and detailed business plan.

      • Re:Sigh... Yet another scam (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Jeremi ( 14640 ) on Monday February 16, 2015 @12:40PM (#49067801) Homepage

        I wonder how many TV companies would shovel over billions for the rights to broadcast "The Real World"/"Survivor"/"Big Brother" Mars for long term funding.

        Let's assume the best-case scenario -- that the entertainment industry is dying to get broadcast rights for the Mars Reality TV show and will pay top dollar to do so.

        What constitutes "top dollar" for that industry? i.e. how much could they afford to pay if they really wanted to?

        I'm not sure how to answer that, but the biggest TV event I'm aware of is the World Cup, which brought in $4 billion [forbes.com] to FIFA last year.

        Would $4 billion be enough for a Mars colonization program? According to this article [kqed.org], they'd still be $2 billion short.

      • I wonder how many TV companies would shovel over billions for the rights to broadcast "The Real World"/"Survivor"/"Big Brother" Mars for long term funding.

        Pretty much none I suspect. The show would have to be a top hit, year after year, in multiple large markets to even come close to paying for the costs of the mission. The major American networks pay, collectively, 3.1 billion per annum to the NFL for broadcast rights - and the NFL has a *HUGE* built in audience. (Averaging 22 million per game - the las

    • You cannot demonstrate that; you can only conjecture it.

      • Re:Sigh... Yet another scam (Score:5, Informative)

        by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Monday February 16, 2015 @12:15PM (#49067607)

        You cannot demonstrate that; you can only conjecture it.

        Are you seriously that clueless? This is either a scam or some profoundly wishful thinking. Given that it has all the trappings of a scam I'm strongly favoring that hypothesis. This "organization" is doing EXACTLY what I would expect from someone who is trying to bilk the ignorant and credulous out of some money.

        Lets see:
        1) Desirable goal? Check
        2) Vaguely worded by reassuring sounding assurances that it will work? Check
        3) No clear funding model but asks for donations? Check
        4) Lots of press releases but no technology development? Check
        5) No credible management team? Check
        6) Claims that defy known physics and claim technological advancements to be unnecessary? Check
        7) Claims of interest from well known companies but no actual details? Check
        8) Claims that they have "visited" various well known aerospace firms without further details? Check

        Seriously if you believe ANY of this Mars-One scam then you are a weapons grade imbecile.

        • That whole checklist applies to the US gov.

        • Are you seriously that clueless? This is either a scam or some profoundly wishful thinking.

          The sky is blue, the president is black, and Russia is bombing Ukraine. None of that is relevant, either.

          You cannot demonstrate that no new technology is required to create a colony on Mars. Economic viability, perhaps. Technology? The primary concern is energy; anything from a nuclear power plant to space lasers can handle that. In 1964, we demonstrated an electric helicopter powered by pointing a big microwave dish at and using a rectifier and antenna to convert the microwave beam into an electric

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Everything is a scam at first. Mars One is the first large project looking to source candidates for a mission to Mars. Elon Musk is looking to establish a full-fledged Mars colony with the first thousand people there by 2020 - 2040. Chances are he's going to look at the Mars One project to source people for that project as they've already done the legwork for the selection process. Everyone seems to look at new things through the eyes of "who's this asshole with this project, what makes him so special"

      • Explain how the Mars One people are getting there, and with what funding, and I'll stop calling it a scam.

    • They even say "No new technology developments are required to establish a human settlement on Mars", which is demonstrably false.

      I supposed they can claim this on a semantic technicality; since no one has done it before either succeeding or failing with current technology, you can't really say it has been demostrated to be false. Their attempt, if they actually get off the ground, will be the demonstration.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by sjbe ( 173966 )

        I supposed they can claim this on a semantic technicality; since no one has done it before either succeeding or failing with current technology, you can't really say it has been demostrated to be false.

        Only if we ignore a whole bunch of well established physics and biology. We're hardly ignorant of the technical problems involved and we know for a fact that we haven't conquered several showstoppers including radiation shielding on the trip there.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by itzly ( 3699663 )

          Total lack of a viable landing sequence is another. Anything that requires dropping a human on Mars without instantly killing him, and leaving him with enough supplies to last a while, would require a much more massive craft than anything we have landed on Mars before.

    • I agree that Mars One sounds fishy. The lack of technical details is suspicious.

      I think we can go to Mars. I think we can build the technology. And I don't think that Lockmart and Boeing (through NASA) can do it, because their reflexive position is to magnify costs. I suspect that Elon Musk is the most likely force that will push us to Mars, if only because his obsessive motivation towards that goal causes him not to magnify costs, because he realizes that excessive costs will make his goal impossible

    • I know the idea of going to Mars is pretty awesome but this just reeks of scam. They are claiming they will launch the first people by 2024 [mars-one.com], a mere 9 years from now. You will note that except for a Donate link there is no mention of funding. They even say "No new technology developments are required to establish a human settlement on Mars [mars-one.com]", which is demonstrably false.

      Why is slashdot giving scammers like this the time of day? This is not a real mission to Mars. This is not even a credible attempt at one. There is no funding, no realistic plan, no details, no technology development, and nothing else that should even give the slightest hint that this is anything more than a scam.

      It doesn't strike me as a scam as much as a sincere attempt by a group of moderately accomplished yet fairly typical geeks [mars-one.com] to take their best shot and go as far as they can.

      I look at their plan and my thought is that it's more-or-less what I would do if I really wanted to launch a mission to mars. The big asterix is cost and technical expertise. They say they need 6 billion which might be feasible, big Hollywood blockbusters can run $200 million and Olympic broadcast/sponsorship would be enough to cover the

  • This whole thing is a disaster waiting to happen (Score:5, Interesting)

    by realmolo ( 574068 ) on Monday February 16, 2015 @11:20AM (#49067143)

    But...I can't decide if that bothers me or not. The sheer *audacity* of this project impresses me. I kind of want to see it happen.

    Unfortunately, the mission is basically a death-sentence for the people involved. And not because of the one-way nature of the mission, but because the people behind this don't have a clue. I would be amazed if anybody actually made it to Mars alive. Hell, I'll be amazed if they make it into space alive.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by gstoddart ( 321705 )

      And that has always been what baffles me about this ... how is it even legal?

      This isn't a "sign up for something which carries some risk". This is a "you are pretty much 100% guaranteed to die".

      Seriously, WTF ... how is it legal for that??

      This is a corporation/foundation/whatever they are who has NEVER even launched a single thing, has no expertise, no technology, no track record ... and somehow they've gotten thousands of people signing up to die.

      This is completely ridiculous, and more than a little scary

      • This isn't a "sign up for something which carries some risk". This is a "you are pretty much 100% guaranteed to die".

        Hey, you can say the same thing about the maternity ward at the hospital.

      • "you are pretty much 100% guaranteed to die".

        Aren't we all?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Kjella ( 173770 )

        And that has always been what baffles me about this ... how is it even legal?

        Well, so far they haven't actually put people at risk, they're free to claim that they will be able to send people to Mars safely in the future as theoretically that may be possible. I'm sure they've got the necessary loopholes that if they can't actually offer you the alleged trip they owe these candidates nothing too, so nobody has a valid fraud claim. Don't worry I'm quite sure this scam won't ever involve an actual rocket.

      • Re:This whole thing is a disaster waiting to happe (Score:4, Insightful)

        by rubycodez ( 864176 ) on Monday February 16, 2015 @12:07PM (#49067537)

        Such words don't apply to this scam, but when the day comesthat people can be sent one-way to mars there is no ethical problem at all. your concerns are groundless. People die all the time exploring, from free climbing to mountain climbing to rafting. Accepted risk by the participants, you have no right to project your cowardly values on them.

        • There's no legal problem as long is any accident happens in space or on Mars - since nobody has legal jurisdiction there, and any country trying to claim legal jurisdiction would be challenged by a crapload of other countries.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

            That's unlikely to be true. The Outer Space Treaty includes references to UN international law and if it became an issue before a more formal declaration was written up, maritime conventions would probably apply. For private vessels not subject to other jurisdictions, the law of the country they're registered in usually applies. That's usually gotten around with a flag of convenience, so maybe you could register your spaceship in Kiribati or something, after getting them to pass laws in your favour. But

            • You entirely miss the point. After all, wasn't there a time when other colonies rebelled for their independence, rather than "obey the law"? There's ample jurisprudence for that. If you can't enforce the law, it's not really a law, just a suggestion.

              Look at ISIS, look at Ukraine ...

              All the treaties are "treaties of convenience", to be obeyed until one party decides it's to their advantage to violate it. I sure don't see ISIS obeying the Geneva Conventions.

      • I'm pretty sure you can sign away your rights, including those of your estate, to sue for injury or death. That said, I would guess that any life insurance policy would be null and void the minute you signed one of these.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

          I don't know about the US, but you can't do so in Canada. Waivers are more proof that you were informed of the risks, rather than actual waivers of your rights.

        • Not exactly -- you can acknowledge that an activity is risky, but you cannot sign away the right to sue for injury or death due to negligence or malpractice. If the other party doesn't take reasonable steps to keep you safe, there's still a case to answer for. The legal argument would be that the whole endeavour was negligent, as the risks are too high.
      • The first 10 volunteers for open heart surgery were told they were going to die. They did it anyway, because they had nothing to lose. 1 out of the next 10 survived. Today? Heart *transplants* are done all the time.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Nemyst ( 1383049 )
        It's ironic that people are excited and proud of this, but turn around and become mad at the very notion of assisted suicide. In the best case you're going to survive for a bit on Mars.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by stox ( 131684 )

        I can pretty much say we're all guaranteed to die. Might as well accomplish something along the way.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by itzly ( 3699663 )

      I'll be amazed if they ever see the inside of a rocket.

    • Re:This whole thing is a disaster waiting to happe (Score:5, Informative)

      by PhilHibbs ( 4537 ) <snarks@gmail.com> on Monday February 16, 2015 @11:39AM (#49067321) Journal

      Birth is a death sentence.

      • Birth is a death sentence.

        Doesn't mean we let you scam other people out of their money in order to help them reach death sooner.

        You have to be a serious sociopath to give that little of a shit about your fellow humans.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by itzly ( 3699663 )

          Don't worry, they are only scammed out of their money. It will not affect their time of death.

          So, only standard level sociopaths required to lead this project.

    • I can already see the headline (Score:5, Funny)

      by pr0t0 ( 216378 ) on Monday February 16, 2015 @11:44AM (#49067363)

      When it hits the fan, and it will, you'll almost certainly see this:

      "Mars One, Earthlings Zero"

    • you are working yourself into a frenzy over nothing. No spacecraft capable of carrying humans to mars is going to be made in the next nine years; solving engineering problems for such a thing will take decades and the financial resources of a superpower. This is just another scam / ponzi scheme. Put it out of your mind

    • But...I can't decide if that bothers me or not. The sheer *audacity* of this project impresses me. I kind of want to see it happen.

      The only audacity is the balls it takes to scam stupid, credulous people out of their money. Anyone who cannot see that immediately is a weapons grade idiot.

      Unfortunately, the mission is basically a death-sentence for the people involved

      There is no mission. There never will be from this "organization". This is a scam and nothing more.

  • Some of those are married (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Cutting_Crew ( 708624 ) on Monday February 16, 2015 @11:23AM (#49067165)
    Why would people agree to let their spouse leave knowing that they will never see or speak to them again?? It seems like to me that the emotional and biological factors involved leaving your spouse in this manner and living with that decision can lead to poor decision making and could potentially endanger everyone else.

    IMO assuming this isnt some hoax and they really are going to send people there, then its a mission for people who are totally unattached with no kids so that they can focus on staying alive and making the right decisions.
    • Life insurance money.

      • I'd bet most insurance policies will pretty much call this a suicide and be null and void.

        They aren't just going to say "oh, gee, you've chosen to die at either launch, in transit, landing, or on the surface of Mars ... we'll totally pay your policy."

        They're going to basically say "not our damned problem".

        This is a suicide with better PR ... the only variable is which of several terrible ways to die they will actually experience.

        Unless Mars One is taking our special insurance, you're run of the mill policy

        • Many places require that suicide be covered under life insurance policies, provided it's a certain amount of time after they were insured.

        • Different states' laws vary, but the exclusionary period on suicide for most life insurance policies is two years. You can buy a life insurance policy, wait two years, off yourself, and they still pay out.

    • Why would people agree to let their spouse leave knowing that they will never see or speak to them again??

      I just dug out my marriage license, don't see anything in there about me having to ask my spouse permission to leave.

      Maybe it was just a poor choice of words or maybe you really do think one party gets a veto over the other party going off somewhere.

    • Some people are long tired of being married. So don't give a crap about their spouse any more except for benefits from employment. That's reality, keep your romantic bullshit to yourself.

  • Reminds me of the B ship (Score:5, Informative)

    by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Monday February 16, 2015 @11:26AM (#49067197)
    Can't help but think of douglas Adams when i read about this venture: These tales of impending doom allowed the Golgafrinchans to rid themselves of an entire useless third of their population. The story was that they would build three Ark ships. Into the A ship would go all the leaders, scientists and other high achievers. The C ship would contain all the people who made things and did things, and the B ark would hold everyone else, such as hairdressers and telephone sanitizers. They sent the B ship off first, but of course the other two-thirds of the population stayed on the planet and lived full, rich and happy lives until they were all wiped out by a virulent disease contracted from a dirty telephone.
    • You are not the only one to think of it. Only I would recommend sending the financial sector; that would also solve the funding problem. If that causes the entire planet's destruction by [insert local greedy people here] fighting over the last dollar, so be it.

  • Not Going To Happen (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Frosty Piss ( 770223 ) * on Monday February 16, 2015 @11:32AM (#49067273)

    These people will be collecting Social Security long before any rocket to Mars happens, and if not, NASA or the governments that fund the project, will choose professional astronauts.

    Really, it's a "fun" thought, but simply not realistic.

    • These people will be collecting Social Security long before any rocket to Mars

      I hope not. Most are not from the USA.

  • I get it now. They're going to kill the candidates before they launch them. No need for food, water, air or a safe landing.

  • This Makes a Good Read (Score:5, Informative)

    by arthurpaliden ( 939626 ) on Monday February 16, 2015 @12:24PM (#49067675)
    An Independent Assessment Of The Technical Feasibility Of The Mars One Mission Plan
    http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&... [google.ca]
  • Perhaps this will end up being the long awaited sequel to that scifi classic Caprica One.
  • Just by definition, the ability to have vision, to dare something, which nobody has done, to inspire fulfilling a dream and possibly fail is is something which is not for everybody. Every entrepreneur, artist or scientist, explorer or adventurer trying to do something which nobody else has done yet, bears risks with possibly fatal or ruining consequences. Maybe, the negative and critical comments (as of them are here) provide are helpful and even needed to select the right people and even motivate them to d

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by itzly ( 3699663 )

      At least Columbus had a seaworthy boat. These guys have nothing but grandiose plans and a box for donations.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Columbus spent a long time gathering and presenting evidence to several monarchs that he had a good chance to succeed. Even then, it wasn't a one way mission. Only after Columbus had gone and returned, and reported that it was possible to survive in the new world, did colonization voyages begin.

  • There was a TV show in the UK a few years ago, Space Cadets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]

    In that show, only people utterly clueless about space were allowed. This seems like it could be a more "Truman Show" variant...

  • Have No Space Suit—Will Not Travel

  • I would advise people to give this a chance. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Simon321 ( 1933722 ) on Monday February 16, 2015 @01:23PM (#49067957)

    I would advise people to give this a chance.

    Let me clear up some things about Mars One. It is often claimed that Mars One is a scam and has no scientists, engineers, technology, timetable, suppliers or plan. This is just not true!

    Scientists and Engineers:
    Lansdorp received his Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering from Twente University in 2003. For five years Lansdorp worked at Delft University of Technology and in 2008 founded Ampyx Power in order to develop a new, viable method of generating wind energy.
    Lansdorp is also a successful entrepreneur. Here is a ted talk about his last company.
    Arno Wielders received his Master of Science in Physics from the Free University of Amsterdam in 1997. He was soon hired by the Leiden Observatory, Leiden University, to work at Dutch Space in the Very Large Telescope Interferometer Delay Line project.
    Gerard 't Hooft, Nobel laureate and Ambassador of Mars One
    Gerardus (Gerard) 't Hooft is a Dutch theoretical physicist and professor at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. Received the 1999 Nobel Prize in Physics.
    Norbert Kraft, Chief Medical Officer, Mars One
    Norbert Kraft is an American Medical Doctor with over 17 years of experience in aviation and aerospace research and development as of 2012.[1] His primary area of expertise is developing physiological and psychological countermeasures to combat the negative effects of long-duration spaceflight.[1] He has worked for the Russian Space Agency, the Japanese Space Agency and NASA.[1]
    Grant Anderson, Sr. VP Operations, Chief Engineer and Co-Founder, Paragon Space Development Corporation 28 years of experience in spacecraft systems design, requirements formulation and preliminary and detail hardware design. Founded or help found 5 companies, two of which are still operating.
    Time table: http://mars-one.com/en/mission... [mars-one.com]
    Suppliers: http://mars-one.com/en/partner... [mars-one.com]
    Technology they want to use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]
    They don't plan to develop much of the technology themselves, they're planning to buy it from other companies mostly such as SpaceX. Most of this technology exists already. They have written statements of the companies that they are willing and able to supply these things.

    Price/Funding:
    All they need is the funding, and they plan to get that through broadcasting and sponsor deals. His argument is that the olympics got 6 billion dollars in sponsor deals, so wouldn't a colony/trip to mars get the same? It would certainly help them get funding if people didn't denounce it as soon as they hear the name. The mission is so cheap (6 billion dollars) because it's a one-way trip. Sending people from Mars back to earth is very expensive. Also, they're not a big wasteful government agency.
    The falcon heavy for example costs only $77-135M to launch (2013). Technology has come a long way, this combined with the privatization of space has caused costs to drop significantly.

    Comparison Olympics/Moonlanding:
    http://www.theguardian.com/med... [theguardian.com]
    According to this the 2008 olympic openings ceremony was watched by 1 billion people. According to wikipedia in 1969 (the world population was only half of what it is now, and people weren't as well connected as they are now) the moon landing had 500 million people watching. So, just imagine, how many people would watch a landing on Mars in 2023.

    Other:
    Not saying they're actually going to be able to pull it off, but there's no evidence that their efforts aren't sincere.
    Here is a press conference that answers most of the questions you may have: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
    I am aware that reddit AMA was badly received and too

  • Any scientific organization taking part in this effort, under the prepositions which are assumes now, is, in my opinion, unethical. The life and health of humans involved must be the first priority in any experiment; and this is what it is - its an badly planned, underfunded, and dangerous experiment.

    My wife works in pharmceutical research, and if they did the same thing to mice (namely put them in a badly expected experiment without a clear purpose, but a high change of dying in an uncontrolled and unpleas

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close