Mars One Delayed Its Mars Mission -- Again (time.com) 99
Mars One says its project to start a human colony on the Red Planet will be delayed by five years. The Dutch company says it will send its first crews to Mars in 2031 instead of its previous target date of 2026. From a report on Time: The venture is delaying its missions so it can raise more money, according to CEO Bas Lansdorp. "Of course the whole Mars One team would have preferred to be able to stick to the original schedule, but this new timeline significantly improves our odds of successfully achieving this mission roadmap," he said in a statement. This is far from the first time Mars One has delayed its project. Despite Lansdorp's confidence, other scientists have expressed significant doubts about the mission's feasibility.
just send them more money (Score:5, Insightful)
that's all they need to get back on track
they pinky swear they won't steal it
Re: (Score:1)
And even if they don't steal it, if there are more fundaisers than engineers at Mars One, then the company might focus on what they do best and drift in the direction of perpetual fundraising.
Re: (Score:2)
So, Star Citizen, writ large ??
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, so..
Have they solved the problem of how to get people there with out giving them cancer? No.
Have the solved the problem of how to live on Mars with out getting cancer? Otherwise you'll be spending your life on Mars underground.
Gonna grow some vegies there? Better take some nice heavy dirt with you, the soil on Mars is toxic.
Enjoy wasting everyones money on something pretty pointless.
Re: just send them more money (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately, there are some people who haven't actually taken a look at the board of directors and realised that only a handful of them has a relevant degree and many of them have only marketing degrees (basically a piece of paper that means nothing)
Re: (Score:1)
The Cassini probe has already located the main transceiver array in Saturn's northern atmosphere that sends the lizard people's signal from Thuban to the transmitter on the inside of the moon for rebroadcast, so I don't understand what they would have to lose.
Lol! (Score:1)
Who really expected otherwise?
Seriously, you have a better chance of starting a seastead by 2020 than of getting to Mars by 2040.
MarsOne doesn't seem to have real plans for getting there, and IMHO is just set up like Seasteading.org, as an elaborate donation/money laundering scheme with a goal just believable enough to get donation dollars while being unbelievable enough to have setbacks without getting demands for refunds.
New idea for reporting on Mars One (Score:3)
I'd like to only read news about Mars One when they /do/ do something, not when they don't do something. Especially when what they're trying to do now is raise more money.
Don't get me wrong, I hope they go to Mars, but this project seems like a massive moonshot (ahahaha) and I think I had enough of project delay updates with Duke Nukem Forever.
Lame article about a crooked company (Score:2, Insightful)
What a scam! Shut these fuckers down... Don't give 'em a dime, except to make a call to their lawyer..
C'mon Slashdot, you're posting some pretty crappy stories here. Put this one in the tabloid section
Moller Air Car (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, hell, sure - we're still going to do this thing, we just need another round of funding. I swear just a few million (billion) more and we're going to absolutely get this to fly. Right after I finish paying of the yacht.
Have they actually prodcued anything? (Score:5, Interesting)
I know they have concepts and maybe some engineering drawings but have they actually contracted out for the development of anything? There has to be some supporting equipment they could be accumulating right now, right?
I wonder if they ever considered partnering with a company like SpaceX?
I could see this going somewhere with the right mix of companies, but right now I just don't see one organization pulling it all together.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The hard part is figuring out that you need to "add asteroid dust to the hull to block radiation".
This is how you shield a spaceship [physicsworld.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only nutter I see around here is you, who for some reason argue against something that isn't true, usually with yourself as AC, and shout out space nutters as if you have actually disproven space travel.
Do you also believe the moon landings were a hoax?
It's a scam. Nothing to see here. (Score:5, Insightful)
I know they have concepts and maybe some engineering drawings but have they actually contracted out for the development of anything?
No. It's a scam and an obvious one. Do not take any of it seriously. It's annoying that they keep getting headlines in spite of their lies.
I could see this going somewhere with the right mix of companies, but right now I just don't see one organization pulling it all together.
Unless one or more of the bigger nation states gets involved there simply won't be adequate funding to make it happen. We're talking tens to hundreds of billions to actually pull off a mission to Mars. For profit companies aren't going to get involved because shockingly enough there is no profit in such a venture even if it were a serious endeavor, which it is not. Private funding wouldn't remotely be sufficient and governments aren't involved. The only organizations that are capable of developing the technology to make a Mars mission happen are not involved with Mars One.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless one or more of the bigger nation states gets involved there simply won't be adequate funding to make it happen. We're talking tens to hundreds of billions to actually pull off a mission to Mars. For profit companies aren't going to get involved because shockingly enough there is no profit in such a venture even if it were a serious endeavor, which it is not. Private funding wouldn't remotely be sufficient and governments aren't involved. The only organizations that are capable of developing the technology to make a Mars mission happen are not involved with Mars One.
Elon has said that a manned Mars mission would cost at least $200 Billion and possibly $600 Billion. I doubt that Mars One has anything to offer Space X. Their funding is small and drying up. I doubt their engineering is anything better than Space X could come up with in a weekend. Their hype machine is probably less than Elon himself let alone a project he could start. Their idea that the cost to Mars can be magically reduced by leaving everybody there to die is a farcical nonstarter.
Re: (Score:1)
To get from mars to earth requires you to either ship fuel or make fuel their.
You remove that and you remove some cost.
Re: (Score:2)
To get from mars to earth requires you to either ship fuel or make fuel their.
You remove that and you remove some cost.
A trivial cost in the total cost of such a venture and much less than the extra materials they'd have to take to make an attempt at a self sustaining colony. the way things are shaping up now, they (Space X, as those are the only people seriously looking at going to Mars) will test their landing craft and need to do so to make sure they can land and do it where they want. One of these will contain the apparatus to collect the fuel from the Martian air and prove that it will work before humans ever leave for
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.mars-one.com/news/p... [mars-one.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I know they have concepts and maybe some engineering drawings but have they actually contracted out for the development of anything? There has to be some supporting equipment they could be accumulating right now, right?
Exactly. To meet the original schedule there would very soon be evidence of physical progress. Since they haven't done anything real, the schedule had to slip.
What? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
There's been a last minute change to the colour of the uniforms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Darn. I looked so good in orange too.
They're all "red shirts" now . . . as in:
"Captain Kirk, Spock and a few "red shirts" will beam down to the planet now.
. . . later . . .
"Two to beam up."
Re: (Score:3)
Dammit, Scotty man, we need more redshirts, I mean, CONTRIBUTORS, now. . . .
Re: (Score:1)
Polygamous Ranch sounds like an interesting salad dressing.
Re: (Score:2)
MINS. They don't just let anybody in.
They'll be ready to go... (Score:2)
...right after the perfect practical fusion.
Once that tiny little hurdle is overcome, it's off to Mars!
Re: (Score:1)
Is slashdot trolling us? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does this obvious scam continue to get headlines from slashdot? Or anyone else for that matter. This is nothing more than some crooked and/or delusional people preying on the credulous. Without the resources of a nation state backing the project there is absolutely no way this could possibly happen. The technology to make it happen does not (yet) exist and the organizations who are capable of developing it (read NASA and peers) aren't involved with any of this. Furthermore any credible mission to Mars will cost tens and more likely hundreds of billions of US$ to even have a prayer of working at all much less in such a ludicrously short time span.
Seriously, why does this drivel keep getting the time of day?
Re: (Score:1)
We've been sending heavy things to Mars reasonably reliably
We've been sending heavy inanimate things. That's a totally different ball game to sending people with some sort of expectation of long-term survival.
Re: (Score:3)
That is completely untrue. We've been sending heavy things to Mars reasonably reliably since the late 1970s
Yes - We know how to send metal things to Mars. And even in that case, the list of failures in the last 20 years is impressive -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
What we don't know how to do is send soft squishy humans to Mars, and, perhaps more importantly, bring them home again.
(Yeah, yeah, I know the Mars One plan is meant to be a suicide mission...)
Re: (Score:1)
Seriously.
If they can find oil and gold/diamonds beneath the martian surface and shuttle it back to Earth profitably, we'll colonize Mars sooner than you think.
Re: (Score:2)
Let the oil and mining industries figure it out.
Even Harry Stamper needed NASA to get him to the asteroid.
We don't know how to send live humans (Score:2)
That's not really accurate. We DO know how to send humans to Mars.
Not live ones. If you are looking to sent a dead human to Mars then your statement is accurate.
The problem is we don't know how to do it on a budget that is remotely achievable
No, right now we don't know how to do it period. Not for any amount of money. We probably could invest several tens (hundreds maybe?) of billions of dollars to figure it out but today as I type this we do not know for certain how to pull off a manned mission to Mars. And in matter of fact until we actually do such a mission successfully we cannot say that we know how to do it because until then we don't. We d
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really accurate. We DO know how to send humans to Mars. (the process is similar to building the ISS with mutiple launches putting modules and supplies in orbit where the huge spacecraft is assembled)
Well, more specifically we don't know how to *land* humans on Mars, and then return them safely back to Mars orbit.
All of the different ways we've landed on Mars to date would be unsuitable for a manned craft.
Re: (Score:2)
All of the different ways we've landed on Mars to date would be unsuitable for a manned craft.
Just curious, why? The Mars Viking landers used the same approach as the LEM, and it landed a dozen people on the moon
Re: (Score:2)
By contrast, the Lunar Module weighed 34,000 pounds.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If by heavy things, you mean something the size of a sub-compact car, sure. Now go live in a sub-compact car for 6 months, including all air, water, and food you'll need for 6 months. No cheating! I'll stick you in a vacuum chamber and weld the door shut for 6 months!
But I'll let you have a 3D printer.
Wanna do it?
So sorry, the technology DOES NOT exist yet, your fixation on unrealistic sci-fi dreamed up by software nerds notwithstanding.
We do not have the technology (Score:3)
That is completely untrue. We've been sending heavy things to Mars reasonably reliably since the late 1970s.
There is a huge difference between sending a robot the size of a car and sending a human landing party with the VAST amount of equipment they would need to survive the trip to Mars. It's like the difference between sending up a sounding rocket versus the Apollo program. You're talking orders of magnitude difference in complexity and cost.
We do NOT have the technology to send humans to Mars at this time. We don't have the life support systems, we don't have the landing craft, we don't have the radiation s
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people always say "we don't have the technology" when we clearly have it?
Mars missions are not a technology problem, particular radiation and life support are solved problems.
What we lack is know how, and cost efficient approaches: know how why so many landing operations failed, e.g.
Very likely simply due to weather phenomena and atmosphere pressure changes (anomalies).
I agree that manned Mars missions, especially by mini companies, are unrealistic ... but it is a mere monetary and time frame problem
Re: (Score:2)
/me points up
Perhaps you should consider that the ISS has been continuously habitated for 16 years.
http://www.popsci.com/science/... [popsci.com]
Clearly, we have the technology, but as always it is a financial issue.
Mission ready and economically realistic (Score:2)
Why do people always say "we don't have the technology" when we clearly have it?
We clearly do NOT have the technology to send a successful manned mission to Mars today and we are in no danger of having such technology mission ready in the next 10-15 years minimum. For a non-suicide mission we currently lack radiation shielding, life support systems, a functional ship, a landing system, a return system, and a host of other mission ready systems necessary to make such a journey viable. If we had such technology ready today the discussion surrounding a manned Mars mission would be quite
Re: (Score:2)
For a non-suicide mission we currently lack radiation shielding, life support systems, a functional ship, a landing system, a return system
First of all: this is not "technology".
This is hardware we can built mostly from off the shelf parts.
And you are wrong on all regards anyway. When the ISS can support half a dozen astronauts for month, then we obviously have the life support system. A ship is the least problem ... and the return trip only requires a ship in orbit of Mars and a landing/relaunch system. Al
Apollo technology != Mars technology (Score:2)
And you are wrong on all regards anyway. When the ISS can support half a dozen astronauts for month, then we obviously have the life support system.
The life support systems for the ISS are different than those for a trip to Mars. We understand basically how to go about it but that's a far cry from actually building a working one that is ready for a mission to Mars. We've never built one designed to survive and perform outside of the Earth's magnetic shield for more than a few days. (The moon is inside the Earths magnetic tail for a significant portion of every month) Though it sounds like a tautology you don't know if you can do something until you
Re: (Score:2)
I did not say it is easy or cheap. I said: there is no new technology required.
But perhaps the word "technology" has for you a complete different meaning than what is written in my dictionary/lexicon?
We know perfectly well why the missions failed in almost every case.
No we don't. Perhaps we know it reasonable accurate for half the failures, but I doubt it.
E.g. a parachute opening late is the last step, the reason why it opened late however is what we need to know. Or Schiaparelli not firing its trusters "l
Re: (Score:2)
We've been sending heavy things to Mars reasonably reliably since the late 1970s.
Getting things to Mars is the easy part. Landing them on the planet, intact, has been the snag - for some of the agencies, anyway...
Re: (Score:1)
Why does this obvious scam continue to get headlines from slashdot?
Because it's an obvious scam that's unfolding over a period of years into a confirmed scam. I'll pop a bottle of champagne when Bas Landsdorp is convicted of fraud, and throw in jail. (Sadly this is unlikely to happen). It's like watching a slow speed train wreck happen. Some people get hurt, and you try to tell them of the wreck that's unfolding, but they don't listen. So all you can do is stand aside and watch.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does this obvious scam continue to get headlines from slashdot? Or anyone else for that matter. This is nothing more than some crooked and/or delusional people preying on the credulous. Without the resources of a nation state backing the project there is absolutely no way this could possibly happen. The technology to make it happen does not (yet) exist and the organizations who are capable of developing it (read NASA and peers) aren't involved with any of this. Furthermore any credible mission to Mars will cost tens and more likely hundreds of billions of US$ to even have a prayer of working at all much less in such a ludicrously short time span.
Not entirely true, I think a private organization could go to Mars, but it would have to be a big established organization (like a Boeing, or maybe SpaceX in 10 years) who has a lot of credibility, expertise, and resources to throw behind the project.
I don't think Mars One has a chance because even if they had the capability to pull off a major project like this they don't have anyway to demonstrate that. And if people aren't convinced they're capable they won't attract the big money and expertise they need
No for-profit company is going to Mars (Score:2)
Not entirely true, I think a private organization could go to Mars, but it would have to be a big established organization (like a Boeing, or maybe SpaceX in 10 years) who has a lot of credibility, expertise, and resources to throw behind the project.
No profit making public company can possibly go to Mars. There is no profit to be had in doing so or if there is, nobody has found it yet. If you were CEO of Boeing and you went into a board meeting and proposed going to Mars, you would be out of job 5 minutes later. It would be the shortest board meeting ever. A Mars mission is HUGELY expensive, there is no discernible profit to be had in doing so, and the risks of failure are enormous. Businesses can't do things with huge costs, minimal if any revenu
Re: (Score:2)
but Boeing would gladly made the rockets for a Mars mission, or even be the primary contractor for such...as long as there was a paying customer. Of course that's a big difference from being a "Mars starup" looking for investors
Re: (Score:2)
No profit making public company can possibly go to Mars. There is no profit to be had in doing so or if there is, nobody has found it yet. If you were CEO of Boeing and you went into a board meeting and proposed going to Mars, you would be out of job 5 minutes later. It would be the shortest board meeting ever. A Mars mission is HUGELY expensive, there is no discernible profit to be had in doing so, and the risks of failure are enormous. Businesses can't do things with huge costs, minimal if any revenue, and high probability of failure.
SpaceX can only talk about Mars because they are privately held and Elon Musk effectively controls the company so the board has to indulge him. It's a vanity project for him but even they aren't seriously doing the things that would be necessary to make a Mars mission actually happen within my remaining lifespan. They have a business sending rockets into low earth orbit and still working the kinks out for that. Explain to me how they make enough money to finance even a vanity project to Mars much less do it as a profit making enterprise. Talk is cheap. Rockets to Mars aren't.
For profit there are two main ways.
First is a massive 20-10-5 billion dollar X-prize to the first three groups to successfully colonize. I don't know if those are reasonable incentive numbers but they're certainly cheap enough for a major government to fund just for the prestige.
Second is homesteading. There's no value in Martian real-estate right now, but in 200 years? 500? How much would companies pay to have governments recognize their property rights over a decent sized chunk of Mars? I'm not sure how m
Private companies cannot lead us to Mars (Score:2)
First is a massive 20-10-5 billion dollar X-prize to the first three groups to successfully colonize.
$20 billion won't even be close to enough money. It certainly won't cover the cost of such a venture. $20 Billion is roughly NASA's annual budget today in 2016. It's certainly not enough to cover the cost of a colonization. Colonizing Mars will cost TRILLIONS of dollars. Probably tens or even hundreds of trillions. $20 billion wouldn't even buy you the Apollo program on an inflation adjusted basis.
Second is homesteading. There's no value in Martian real-estate right now, but in 200 years? 500? How much would companies pay to have governments recognize their property rights over a decent sized chunk of Mars? I'm not sure how markets would treat it, but property rights are very stable, I'm betting the value would be substantial.
I think you don't understand how capital markets work. The value of Mars real estate is zero and will re
Re: (Score:2)
It gets attention because of people remembering that we managed to send people to the moon in just a few short years, and thinking that with the technology improvements between then and now, it shouldn't be too hard.
Unfortunately, it is quite a different challenge than sending a few men wearing diapers on a 3 day trip in a tin can. It's not even in the same ballpark as problems go. It's like if 15th century men were comparing rowing across the English Channel to sailing around the world. One is a stunt,
Re: (Score:2)
We live in a world where people are no longer capable of recognizing well-marketed scams. Hence this, and the president-elect.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does this obvious scam continue to get headlines from slashdot?
At this point, it's because /. likes Mars and we like to bitch. It gets the hits and the comments, so they keep posting them.
Scaaaaaam (Score:2, Insightful)
The instant they announced a fee to "apply" to be one of their "astronauts," anyone with half a brain could see these idiots were grifters. Of course, the other option was pie-in-the-sky delusionals, but at least that would have been honest.
15 years in the future (Score:2)
And it always will be.
obama got one thing right... (Score:1)
www.space.com/34351-obama-says-america-will-send-people-to-mars.html
THIS is the year! I promise.... (Score:2)
Of the Linux Desktop overtaking Windows...
Of the Mars One space craft liftoff...
This will be the year, I promise..... Oh, wait... NEXT year will be the year, I promise..... (lather, rinse and repeat..)
Just a guess.. Neither will happen in my lifetime.
Make it stop! (Score:2)
Isn't there something someone can do to shut these clowns down?
Sue them into oblivion, arrest them for false advertising, or libel or something?
don't be fooled (Score:2)
Much more accurate (Score:2)
''Always ten years away'' sounds much more accurate than ''always five years away''.
we're not going anywhere because (Score:2)
hilarious - delayed five more years (Score:2)
a company devoid of the technology and money it would take to make a manned Mars mission says the mission is delayed. Nothing was delayed, that company is not going to Mars in 2031, even a global superpower pouring hundreds of billions won't go there within two decades, technological impossibility. I'm all for colony on Mars, but that will be by USA or China and in 40+ years, that's reality.
Mars one delayed... (Score:2)
And in other news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead...
Oh, _those_ guys (Score:2)
For a moment I was worried that SpaceX's attempt to land on Mars (without humans) was going to be delayed. Oh no, that would push it back by two years until the orbits line up again! (not that it won't probably get delayed by a cycle anyhow)
Then I realized it was those scammy Mars colonly guys that I had forgotten about.