Mars One Does Not Renew Contracts For Robotic Missions 110
braindrainbahrain writes Mars One is, of course, the highly speculative, low credibility project to land humans on Mars after a one-way trip. In 2013 they had announced that two contracts had been awarded to the aerospace industry to develop a Mars orbiter and a Mars lander to carry a science experiment payload to the surface. Both contracts have been completed, but so far, Mars One has no immediate plans to renew the contracts and pursue further development of the crafts.
They better get their act together. (Score:1)
The giant space goat is getting closer!
We should all be pitching in. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This Just In! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This Just In! (Score:4, Insightful)
And a bad reality TV show is much cheaper, safer and offers at least theoretical returns on investments. Bad reality TV shows don't need rocket scientists either.
3. Profit !
Re:This Just In! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep.The funny thing about reality TV shows is they don't really rate that well in the scheme of things. They don't rate poorly either, but not great. But they are *dirt cheap* to make, so TV companies just bulk order them because its low investment for medium returns. Star trek shows consistently topped ratings charts, but they where ridiculously expensive to make. So they stopped making them. "Duck tamers vs Nazi skinheads season 19" on the other hand won't get barely half that rating, but because it costs next to nothing, its the safer bet.
The end result however is that TV is dying. People are increasingly just reading the net, and at most maybe keeping up with a few well made cable series. The short term pursuit of profits have killed TV in the long term.
And this is the environment Mars One wants to base the future of space travel. I don't think so somehow.
Re: (Score:2)
The end result however is that TV is dying. People are increasingly just reading the net, and at most maybe keeping up with a few well made cable series. The short term pursuit of profits have killed TV in the long term.
Actually, I think we're heading into a new golden age of TV. Besides actual airtime on TV, there are now plenty of outlets for the same shows on demand. There seems to be an endless supply of new series coming out that are actually well done that people are watching. Steaming, recording, and on demand seem to be the future and it is TV that is happily supplying the content.
Re: (Score:3)
Reality TV space mission? It's not rocket science! [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
But I've been assured that with 3D printing and glorious Job Creators in Space that the Game (tm) has Changed(c).
The Species is still on schedule to colonize Andromeda by 2035?
News Media (Score:5, Insightful)
When will the news media wake up to the fact that this is a scam and stop giving Mars Zero (zero because they have zero chance of actually going to Mars) free advertising?
Re: (Score:1)
When the news media actually gets enough savvy to tell the difference between legitimate technological efforts and snake oil. Don't hold your breath waiting for this.
Re: (Score:2)
The objective of most news media is not to spread the truth, but rather to attract eyeballs. Hence the number of intentionally misleading headlines and reporting, and especially the choice of topic.
Re: (Score:2)
It couuld be useful for one thing: If a list is obtained of who supported or applied for this bullshit, I'd consider that an overall win.
Re: (Score:1)
Because stories like this get good ratings and lots of page hits and comments, thus ad rates. Better to put "news" media into quotes. It is tabloid press, paired with the yellow journalism that leads us to war.
Re:News Media (Score:5, Insightful)
So far there's no evidence that it's an outright fraud; it's just REALLY wishful thinking. But that's almost equally bad, because when it inevitably fails it's going to hurt the space community because they will be permanently associated with failures and scams. This is why I think the onus is on the space community (The Planetary Society, the Mars Society, etc.) to quickly refute and bury Mars One as fast as possible.
Plenty of circumstancial evidence of fraud (Score:5, Insightful)
Firstly, their claim on their website "While complex, the Mars One Mission is feasible. The science and technology required to place humans on Mars exists today. ", is provably false and it is reasonable to expect authors of this statement know this to be false. First thing that always comes to my mind is delivery configuration for soft land something closely resembling required tonnage on the surface, including the 4 meat bags they claim they are able to send. Simply put, no viable configuration currently exists. When you look at tonnage Apollo landed on the moon, vs what government space agencies have successfully landed on Mars so far, vs what NASA is currently developing, there is an enormously absurd leap of faith to say landing ppl on Mars is feasible with today's tech.
Secondly, a document like this : http://www.mars-one.com/images... [mars-one.com], just stinks of handwaving with overuse of technical flourishes, fails to deal with funadmental issues, i.e. the weight issue, and seems to be created with an intent to deceive and create false assurance that mission profile is both well defined and accessible.
Accepting that proof of fraud is far from conclusive, the whole thing just reeks to high heaven of fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
If those meat bags are sent dead, or don't breathe, drink, or eat along the way, it might be possible.
You could also do it with multiple launches and in-orbit assembly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First human-meat-covered crater on Mars! There'll still be volunteers.
Re: (Score:2)
> Firstly, their claim on their website "While complex, the Mars One Mission is feasible. The science and technology required to place humans on Mars exists today. "
Yes, as I said, wishful thinking. Fraud is "deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain." There's no evidence here that people are being deliberately deceived. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Re: (Score:2)
What more evidence do you need?
Re: (Score:3)
So far there's no evidence that it's an outright fraud
Sure there is. I see two repliers who noted both the application fee (classic scam warning right there) and making false claims. To this I'd add the elephant in the tent: they completed astronaut selection for the alleged mission to Mars before they started any physical manifestation of the project. Where's the working prototype spaceship these astronauts will fly in? Where's the working prototype habitat these astronauts will stay in on Mars?
Even on their unjustifiably aggressive schedule, they picked t
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. When do people like you and the mass media get it: you don't know if it is a scam.
It is as simple as that. Unless the thing 'is over' and we have the facts, no one knows.
Accusing them right now for scam is lible and insult.
We have the technology to send people there and let them build up their own homes since decades. The only thing preventing that to happen is either political will or money.
Believing otherwise is simply stupid or lack of knowledge.
Re: (Score:3)
Every scientist in the field who does not have in interest in Mars 1 who have commented have commented negatively about the project. Take a look at this paper [mit.edu] from some MIT students.
The only thing preventing that to happen is either political will or money.
You are absolutely correct. The big problem with this scheme is money. They have no viable plan to gather the money to do it. Sorry but selling media rights to watch people die on another planet is not going to bring in the billions of dollars necessary to keep things going. Have you ever heard of a reality show pull in over $4.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are smart enough to plan a manned mission to Mars yet stupid enough to not be able to do simple math. Sorry but those two ideas don't go together. Considering the marketing might behind this scam fraud is a much higher probability.
Re: (Score:1)
Would it only cost $4.5 billion? Bill Gates' net worth is $79.2 billion, Zuckerberg has $33.4 billion, Elon Musk has $7.9 billion and then I've skipped a lot of billionaires in between. If a few of those guys pool together, $4.5 billion sounds like peanuts. I suspect that figure was wildly optimistic, though. And anyway, even with all the money in the world, pulling off such a mission is simply unlikely with current technology. They'll get something wrong, or some vital equipment will fail unexpectedly, and
Re: (Score:2)
I got the $4.5B cost from an independent MIT paper. I agree with you completely that this is not feasible with current technology.
Re: (Score:3)
We have the technology to send people there and let them build up their own homes since decades. The only thing preventing that to happen is either political will or money.
Please show the technology that can land people safely on the surface.
Re: (Score:1)
The same technology that land people safely on the moon. And/or parachutes.
Re:News Media (Score:4, Informative)
Mars has significantly stronger gravity than the moon, so the little rocket engine that they used on the moon lander wouldn't be able to reduce much of the orbital speed until it slammed in the surface. Also, the moon lander was operating in a vacuum. Designing a rocket engine that works against supersonic atmospheric flow is an entirely different matter.
And while parachutes are an existing technology, a parachute big enough to help with a Mars landing is not. You can't just scale up existing technology that's already at the edge of what we can do.
Re: (Score:2)
The Mars has not a significant higher gravity, moon is roughly 1/6th of Earth, Mars is roughly 2/6th of Earth.
Parachutes work fine on Mars, plenty of landings used them already.
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V... [wikipedia.org]
Approached with parachutes, final landing with rocket engines.
So, we have the technology since decades!
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. When do people like you and the mass media get it: you don't know if it is a scam.
I don't care at this point. I'm not going to wait ten years for the gloating emails and other solid evidence to come to light.
Accusing them right now for scam is lible and insult.
It's legitimate opinion. That might be libel in UK and elsewhere, but there's no bag limit in the US.
We have the technology to send people there and let them build up their own homes since decades. The only thing preventing that to happen is either political will or money.
Remember how movies used to treat things different just because they happened to be in space? Vampires were totally more dangerous if they were "space vampires". Pirates were far more awesome if they were "space pirates". Sex was more awesome because it was ... in spaaaace. Most of th
Re: (Score:2)
Libel laws are pretty the same in the USA.
Perhaps they are rarer applied or juries harder to convince.
Anyway, habitation structures are tested in deserts (and antarctica counts as that) for one simple reason: the inhabitants should feel a similarity to mars. That has nothing to do with the structures themselves. They only need to be airtight, need insulation and either cooling or heating, depending on situation. How to regenerate atmosphere we in principle know for our space stations and subs.
But bottom lin
Re: (Score:2)
Libel laws are pretty the same in the USA.
No, they aren't. For example, US law requires "actual malice" (intent to harm or willful neglect) in the uttering of such statements while in UK law one merely needs to show that the statement is defamatory.
Anyway, habitation structures are tested in deserts (and antarctica counts as that) for one simple reason: the inhabitants should feel a similarity to mars. That has nothing to do with the structures themselves. They only need to be airtight, need insulation and either cooling or heating, depending on situation. How to regenerate atmosphere we in principle know for our space stations and subs.
But they have not been tested on Mars. I'm not being a pedant here, this is actually formalized in technology readiness levels [wikipedia.org] (TRL). At that point in the Wikipedia article, there are two similar scales of technology readiness for NASA and the ESA, each from 0 to 9. To get past level "6", one has to test
Re: (Score:2)
No, they aren't. For example, US law requires "actual malice" (intent to harm or willful neglect) in the uttering of such statements while in UK law one merely needs to show that the statement is defamatory.
Actually as a non native english speaker, and a layman, I don't see a difference between the two.
But they have not been tested on Mars.
Sorry, the stuff we sent to moon was not tested on the moon, but in vacuum chambers. That should be enough for Mars stuff, too.
Because they talk about such things when th
Re: (Score:2)
Actually as a non native english speaker, and a layman, I don't see a difference between the two.
You should. The US side one says intent matters. You can say things that happened to be defamatory in UK law, but aren't in US law because you don't intend to be defamatory nor exhibit willful neglect.
Sorry, the stuff we sent to moon was not tested on the moon, but in vacuum chambers. That should be enough for Mars stuff, too.
Actually a lot of it was. For example, NASA had prior to landing people on the Moon already tested in space the Apollo systems, including atmospheric reentry of the crew module and operation of the lunar module in space, the launch abort system, and landing objects on the Moon.
So they have not started yet. What about tomorrow?
Because about two years ago was a
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I believe you are mistaken about the US versus UK difference in linel laws.
Of course intent or 'objectivity' matters in both situations.
Not sure about the crews, I would not call them crew, but settlers. If they are selected today and start in 10 years, what is the problem?
They need to be trained anyway. As much as I believe in my out door survival skills, I doubt I have the knowledge required for a sandy/dusty low gravity nearly no atmosphere environment regarding safty for my suit and repairs for h
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I believe you are mistaken about the US versus UK difference in linel laws.
Then educate yourself on these laws. I told you why they're different. It's not my responsibility to change your mind for you.
Not sure about the crews, I would not call them crew, but settlers. If they are selected today and start in 10 years, what is the problem?
15 years at the bare minimum. I think that will result in at least a two thirds attrition rate over the time period. Circumstances change and 15 years is a long time to volunteer for something even if you really want it.
And my view is that the lack of serious bending of metal now will mean that they aren't going to achieve their aggressive schedule.
Re: (Score:2)
"When will the news media wake up to the fact that this is a scam"
When will *you* wake up to the fact that the news media are part of the scam?
Re: (Score:2)
When will the news media wake up to the fact that this is a scam and stop giving Mars Zero (zero because they have zero chance of actually going to Mars) free advertising?
My new start-up, Jupiter Zero, will soon replace Mars Zero in the news anyhow
(Actually, this is probably what's going to happen...)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you reference that news report? The landing was a failure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A reference includes a link to the actual information or at least the date and station (NBC has many stations). Saying a news show's name is not a reference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And they have at least 365 shows a year. Which one? According to a search [nbcnews.com] on their site their only reference to a failure at that time are [nbcnews.com] these [nbcnews.com]. Those are coverage of the failed landing.
Mars one has now (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
abandoned it's plans to build a vehicle and are now building a giant horeshoe magnet to pull the planet closer to earth so that they can board it with wooden planks ..
Wow that should double their change of success. Probably even triple it too. At the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Zero times any number is still zero
Re: (Score:1)
>Zero times any number is still zero
If you think that's spiffy, just look at the universal big-bang equation. I won't bore you with the whole thing, but it is sufficient to say that the key functionality is defined by a divide by zero.
So was the universe intentional, or the result of a math error?
Robots have much potential, but a good cook depends more on feedback than on watching a timer. Things like sensing the mold on cheese or how hot the peppers are might not be trivial.
Will the designer have allo
Re: (Score:1)
but when the robot takes your job the gop gets rid of food stamps and you are in the prison you will push hard to get that $0.13 hr job in the kitchen
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks to quantum mechanics, there is never a true zero in physical probability. It's always possible the entire planet might tunnel over to a new orbit - it's just ridiculously unlikely. To the point where you can start talking about 'average googolyears between events.' But not zero.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately quantum effects only work on the quantum level, not on the macroscopic level.
So the chance that Mars quantum leaps closer to earth is not only zero, it is in fact minus zero.
Re: (Score:2)
Where does quantium stop and macroscopic begin? The boundry isn't clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Ofc the boundary is clear.
Quantum effects happen on subatomic to atomic level. The biggest 'things' that have 'quantum properties' are Bose-Einstein condensates and so called quantum points on the surface of so called exotic matter.
In other words if a thing is so big you can see it with the bare eye then it unlikely has any quantum properties.
What will really happen (Score:5, Interesting)
If the funders are really serious about creating a Reality TV experience about volunteers taking a one way trip to Mars then this is the only way they can do it at this time:
1. They will publicly do exactly what they have been doing so far, all the while screening the applicants for those most likely to buy in to what they are being told.
2. Once they have the final applicants sequestered and completely removed from the public and communication with the outside world they may or may not give hints to the public about what is really going to happen:
What will really happen:
The "Winners" will be totally isolated from communication with the public with the exception of very carefully screened media and family communications etc.
They will be constantly filmed documentary style, which they already expect.
After the Training "Season" and drama they will be boarded onto what is described to them as a top secret craft built by the Russians or whoever and carefully told that space travel technology is actually far advanced of what the public has been told and that they will be Pioneers in space exploration.
They will actually be entering an expensive yet economically viable simulated ship (ala Ascension http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org] where they will then spend a number of months "traveling" to Mars with cameras in every room.
After that season they will have a dramatic yet fright-filled arrival and landing at Mars. I assume at this point that they will pull a Capricorn One in some desert. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org] ).
At some point, as each person dies for some reason, the truth will be revealed to each one and we will have the Drama of them having their 'Second Chance' at life.
-- If done successfully and done right I would actually watch this drama. So everyone, please, shush! Don't tell those final 100 anything!
Re: (Score:1)
Re:What will really happen (Score:4, Funny)
If the funders are really serious about creating a Reality TV experience about volunteers taking a one way trip to Mars then this is the only way they can do it at this time: (...) At some point, as each person dies for some reason, the truth will be revealed to each one and we will have the Drama of them having their 'Second Chance' at life.
So what you're saying is ditch the space tech, invent resurrection tech? Because if you die on reality TV you're dead. Or have you got it confused with fake scripted "reality" shows played by actors pretending to be ordinary people?
Re: (Score:1)
So what you're saying is ditch the space tech, invent resurrection tech? Because if you die on reality TV you're dead. Or have you got it confused with fake scripted "reality" shows played by actors pretending to be ordinary people?
No. Lets use a little imagination on this. The "Missions" and directives will all be coming from those running the show, or "Truman Show Conspiracy". They merely need to set things up so that one member of the team needs to separate from the others due to environment or planned circumstance, or at least create a high probability of it.
Once that member is out of sight they can shut off that members communication and have security "apprehend" them and take them off set. At that point they will film the emotio
Re: (Score:2)
Simply, Wow. +6 for effort, producing a working business model, and because I'm literally watching the Oscars right now.
I have been watching this Mars One drama for a little while now, and besides my main question of "Why not Moon First?", I was always trying to figure out the actual economics of it all. As others in this thread have pointed out NASA + ESA + RSA + JAXA, et all., are still firmly in LEO. Currently only one option available for human taxi service to said LEO.
However, your description sounds l
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the "winners" are completely stupid - but then this is reality TV so who knows - they'll probably notice the complete lack of G's at "take off" and the persistence of gravity once they're supposedly in space.
Personally I think 99.9% of the contestants know full well the whole thing is dubious but are going along with it simply to get the experience of astronaut training and have a bit of fun knowing the nearest they'll ever get to space is on the 747 on the way to the training centre.
time to learn from history (Score:5, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... [wikipedia.org]
history lesson:
some time in the next few centuries, there will be an interplanetary exploration/ colonization pyramid scheme that will bankrupt millions of people, maybe even a nation or two
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True. You really need to look at the cowboys/covered wagon period of the American Old West, that's the appropriate model.
Re: (Score:2)
safety (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
so setting up a system where there is an even chance for some heroes to live out their lives and explore the planet would be good.
Too bad that is not what is happening here. There is only a very small chance that the plan will ever get people to Mars. There is little chance that there will be enough money to send subsequent supply missions. There is a zero chance that an outpost will survive a few missed supply missions. Anyone sent to Mars will have their lives cut very short. The difference between Mars One and Age of Sail exploration is that there was some expectation that in worst case scenarios the explorers could live off the la
Re: (Score:2)
All very good points except #4. Life itsself is a suicide mission. Many people would be willing to cut decades off their life to advance scientific knowledge and establish a foothold for humanity on another world - remember the alternative is to simply die at a later date, a lone statistic, soon to be forgotten and having achieved nothing of note. Death is inevitable, but it doesn't have to be for nothing.
If I thought Mars One has a snowball's hope in Hell of actually getting there, I'd even be tempted myse
Re: (Score:2)
Many people would be willing to cut decades off their life to advance scientific knowledge and establish a foothold for humanity on another world
Again, too bad that is not what is happening. Scientific knowledge can be advanced much more economically with rovers than with an outpost. It is not a "foothold on another planet" when all the inhabitants will be dead withing 20 years. I doubt there will be any followup missions.
Do you realize how many rover missions to Mars could be done for the cost of having one team of 4 people live in a hole on Mars? Do the math. You would rather spend billions on a pipe dream rather than spend much less for much more
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lets look at big budget movies [the-numbers.com]. Notice that most of them returned much more than the investment.
Where government tax dollars are often seen a zero sum sort of situation, the free market is not.
Every public company in the free market has a legal obligation to make a profit. There is no multi-billion dollar return for putting people on Mars. It is a money pit. Why would any responsible company throw money at Mars with little or no hope of profit? They would have a better chance of getting their money bay by buying a lottery ticket. Company board members would be sued for investing in manned Mars missions
Re: (Score:2)
> There is no multi-billion dollar return for putting people on Mars.
Actually, there almost was, in the 1980's. A major TV network came to Boeing, where I worked at the time, and asked us how much for a Mars mission. We worked out a mission concept, and gave them an estimate. The network figured they could sell as much advertising for the mission as an Olympic games, but spread over a couple of years. Unfortunately the mission cost we came up with was twice the ad revenue, so it died at that point.
If
Re: (Score:2)
I can not find a reference to such a TV network/Boeing mission. Do you have any?
The media rights for Sochi were sold for $775M [adweek.com]. Using the MIT estimate of $4.5B for the initial outpost that would still leave it only 17% funded. This mission cost is over five times the revenue from an Olympic Games.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps we shouldn't look at everything in terms of financial return on investment. There are lots of non-financial reasons to set up a manned mission - the advancement in technology such a venture would bring, taking the first step towards the more distant goal of a perminent settlement, the cultural impact as a new generation are inspired towards science and engineering much as the moon landing inspired their grandparents. It's a money pit, yes - but not everything in life is about money. Man did not go t
Re: (Score:2)
Going to Mars is no more a suicide mission than going to Thailand or Bali to spend there 'the rest of your life'.
Re: (Score:2)
You Space Nutters are seriously mentally ill. You *CAN* LIVE in Thailand! You CAN'T on Mars!
Why is this BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS fact not registering in your tiny Space Nutter brain!!!!!?????
Well, when it gets down to it, you CAN GET to Thailand. They CAN'T TRAVEL to Mars. There's a 100% chance of survival through Mars One Program because nobody is actually going to go anywhere. But, if they are going to play at having the tech to get four people and a long term space habitat into space, on its way to Mars, and able to land reliably, then playing at having the needed tech to let them live there till they die of old age is relatively trivial. Of course, for that matter, the tech to get them back
Re: (Score:2)
Can't you see the difference between "the rest of your life" being ten years and it being 70 years? And another thing, if you get to Thailand and change your mind you can go somewhere else. Mars? Not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no trouble going to Mars for the rest of my life.
If it is so unfortunate so, that we rely to long on earth to support us, and I die there on lack of food, or what ever, I have no trouble with that either.
I like the beautiful skies there, the sunrise, the desert ...
Even if it was just the trip through space and I would die in flames during the landing, it would be worth it.
Dying in flames during lift off, that would suck, though.
Re: (Score:2)
If there was no money involved I would have no problem with that. There is money involved and it is billions. Spending billions on a few suicides is just moronic.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know if it is suicide. :D
And if they don't even start, as you imply, it certainly is not
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know if it is suicide.
Sending people to Mars without sufficient funds to keep them alive makes it a suicide mission. They may get off the ground but they will never be able to do the follow on missions.
And if they don't even start, as you imply, it certainly is not :D
Then it is a scam.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... I see very little chance and even limited desire for "the rest of my life" being 70 years. Hopefully there is a small chance of it being just 10 years but, being human, its not out of the question. As it happens I have some responsibilities on this planet I am not willing to step away from. But I fully understand people whose personal equations are different,
I thought they dropped the plans... (Score:2)