# Mars One



## KaeJS

Interesting, but the people who are going are nutso.

All I can think of in this situation is a Lord of the Flies style ending.

Let us discuss:

http://www.mars-one.com/


----------



## none

KaeJS said:


> Interesting, but the people who are going are nutso.
> 
> All I can think of in this situation is a Lorf of the Flies style ending.
> 
> Let us discuss:
> 
> http://www.mars-one.com/


I would love to be the Lorf of Mars.


----------



## indexxx

This never gonna happen for them.


----------



## 6811

KaeJS said:


> Interesting, but the people who are going are nutso.
> 
> All I can think of in this situation is a Lord of the Flies style ending.
> 
> Let us discuss:
> 
> http://www.mars-one.com/


Nuts? Maybe, but I'm sure there was similar sentiment to the discoverers and colonists of the "new world" just a few hundred years ago. 

The human race may not ever be able to travel between the stars as in the Star Trek fantasy, but there will always be the adventurers like these Mars volunteers who may eventually populate other planets and moons around our sun, and perhaps even other stars. I think of it as not having all of our eggs in one basket; a kind of diversification on a species level.


----------



## m3s

I've always been intrigued by crowd sourcing and crowd funding etc and this is going to the extreme. When you think of how much money people spend to see their idols, and how many people are interested in space exploration etc, I think it's ingenious in that regard. I'm worried about the reality tv style dramatization though...


----------



## Retired Peasant

We should give lifers in prison the option of going to Mars; they could actually contribute something.


----------



## andrewf

Why, when there are non-degenerate volunteers who might be able to do something useful there?

I think humans will go to Mars in the next 50 years, but I don't think this particular private effort will be successful. I suspect, if anything, they'll get people to Mars and then when revenues fall short governments will contribute money to help ensure that they don't die.


----------



## bgc_fan

Retired Peasant said:


> We should give lifers in prison the option of going to Mars; they could actually contribute something.


Like Australia? ;-)


----------



## donald

There is apparently no liquid water inhabitating mars presently so with that =no chance of sustainable living on the planet and the weather....a wretched cold wasteland.
what's the point than,not like we human can manufacturer a environment for humans.


----------



## physik3r

I would go. Not kidding


----------



## none

I've spent enough time in time cans to last a life time. it all sounds romantic and cool until you've been there for a week. Going to mars I suspect would be extremely boring. NO THANKS!


----------



## Nemo2

Retired Peasant said:


> We should give lifers in prison the option of going to Mars; they could actually contribute something.


I was thinking the same about Justin Bieber.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

I think we should send politicians. Contribute $100 and you get to vote for your favorite politican to send. They could raise the money in no time. When they get there they can straighten out the planet. Just pass a bunch of laws making air, water, food, etc appear out of nowhere like they do on earth.


----------



## none

Rusty O'Toole said:


> I think we should send politicians. Contribute $100 and you get to vote for your favorite politican to send. They could raise the money in no time. When they get there they can straighten out the planet. Just pass a bunch of laws making air, water, food, etc appear out of nowhere like they do on earth.


Wouldn't it make more sense to send scientists? How would a likely ex-lawyer benefit the mission? Also, just because someone votes for something it wouldn't automatically create air and water as you suggest. It sounds like you have a loose grasp on how they physical world works.


----------



## andrewf

donald said:


> There is apparently no liquid water inhabitating mars presently so with that =no chance of sustainable living on the planet and the weather....a wretched cold wasteland.
> what's the point than,not like we human can manufacturer a environment for humans.


There's plenty of water on Mars, and Mars isn't all that cold compared to space.


----------



## james4beach

Parts of Mars are warmer than Winnipeg


----------



## andrewf

It gets up to 20C on a warm summer day on Mars.

All the comparisons of weather here to Mars is pretty misleading/meaningless. Mars is on average far colder than Earth, and yet there is always a part of Earth that is colder than a part of Mars.


----------



## donald

andrew,it is clear you are one of the smartest guys on cmf.
but,mars atmosphere is thin!It does not have the protection like planet earth(i read so briefly on mars,because of this post)
"they'' say liquid water used to be on mars but not @ present(according to scientists)
There is no clear answer there is,if not(which looks like the consensus)human life can't survive outside of a space ship.


----------



## donald

human life needs water(all organisms)without it,it's a pipe dream,goggle liquid water mars(you will notice it looks like it used to have water)not now,because of the atmosphere,i ain't a space geek but it is enough to think it is prob true.


----------



## sags

If you weren't "nuts" before you left for Mars.........you would be by the time you got there.


----------



## Nemo2

none said:


> Wouldn't it make more sense to send scientists? How would a likely ex-lawyer benefit the mission? Also, just because someone votes for something it wouldn't automatically create air and water as you suggest. It sounds like you have a loose grasp on how they physical world works.


fa·ce·tious [fuh-see-shuhs] 
adjective
1.
not meant to be taken seriously or literally: a facetious remark.
2.
amusing; humorous.
3.
lacking serious intent; concerned with something nonessential, amusing, or frivolous: a facetious person.


----------



## KaeJS

^ LOL, Nemo2.

Best response.


----------



## KaeJS

There is no known liquid water on mars at the present time.

The only way these people will survive is with food and fuel supply.

They need fuel for:

Melting Ice, Keeping Warm.

They could then use the water from the ice to drink, bathe, etc. If they were smart, they would send them with seeds so they could grow crops indoors to at least have some sort of sustainability.

Right now, it all looks to me like they are tied to an umbilical cord.

There IS no sustainability. What are they doing up there?

If they want to populate, they need to go wayyyyyyyy back to the old days. They need to start with irrigation and making building with rocks.

That's the only way.

Doesn't matter if you're a scientist, lawyer, ex-con, wife and mother, whatever.

You need to go back to the farming ages.


----------



## Toronto.gal

KaeJS said:


> Interesting, but the *people who are going are nutso*.


Lots of nutsos in this world, so I agree LOL, though I have a certain admiration for some of them, just like I admire the only pair [I believe], who reached the summit of Siula Grande, but I certainly don't understand the desire to climb the most dangerous & challenging mountains on Earth. However, I certainly believe in space exploration, it's not there for nothing [some might say neither are the mountains].

*'Dubai man on one-way trip to Mars: I’ll miss mum’s caramel dessert'. * - yummy, my fav. dessert!

*'One of the saddest facts I had to grow up to is that every surface land of Earth has been discovered.'* 

How sad indeed, LOL. Having high-resolution Earth images does not mean all have been explored, or even discovered. And what about oceans, which cover about 3/4 of the Earth’s surface, do they not count? I say there is plenty of discovery & exploration left to do right here as well.
http://gulfnews.com/about-gulf-news...ars-i-ll-miss-mum-s-caramel-dessert-1.1278079

So what CMFers are joining the Mars One community?


----------



## andrewf

Donald, there is no persistent liquid surface water on Mars, but there is plenty of the frozen water in the soil.

Kae, busting out the hoe isn't going to work either. Any Mars mission will require some food production on site due to the impracticallity of launching years worth of food, but that food production is likely to be of the hydro/aeroponic variety and likely highly automated.

You can't live in a ramshackle hut on Mars.


----------



## donald

From my reading{by the way,i know jack **** about mars so i could be interpreting it wrong}Even though there is frozen water you can't liquify it because of the condition of the thin layer of mars atmosphere,unless you had a processes once liquid you had measures to protect it,that seems like a hard challenge for mankind.


----------



## none

Nemo2 said:


> fa·ce·tious [fuh-see-shuhs]
> adjective
> 1.
> not meant to be taken seriously or literally: a facetious remark.
> 2.
> amusing; humorous.
> 3.
> lacking serious intent; concerned with something nonessential, amusing, or frivolous: a facetious person.


Wooosh...


----------



## andrewf

donald said:


> From my reading{by the way,i know jack **** about mars so i could be interpreting it wrong}Even though there is frozen water you can't liquify it because of the condition of the thin layer of mars atmosphere,unless you had a processes once liquid you had measures to protect it,that seems like a hard challenge for mankind.


All human habitation (including agriculture) will have to occur in closed structures.


----------



## none

donald said:


> From my reading{by the way,i know jack **** about mars so i could be interpreting it wrong}Even though there is frozen water you can't liquify it because of the condition of the thin layer of mars atmosphere,unless you had a processes once liquid you had measures to protect it,that seems like a hard challenge for mankind.


You have it backwards. When there is little pressure it is more difficult to keep things is a denser physical state. But really they are trivial differences.


----------



## KaeJS

Toronto.gal said:


> *'One of the saddest facts I had to grow up to is that every surface land of Earth has been discovered.'*
> 
> And what about oceans, which cover about 3/4 of the Earth’s surface, do they not count? I say there is plenty of discovery & exploration left to do right here as well.


Absolutely.

I am more interested in what's in the water than what is above the water!



andrewf said:


> Kae, busting out the hoe isn't going to work either. Any Mars mission will require some food production on site due to the impracticallity of launching years worth of food, but that food production is likely to be of the hydro/aeroponic variety and likely highly automated.


Definitely true, but I think agriculture should be a big part of their misson if they are truly trying to colonize and be as self sufficient as possible. You are right. Might be a little hard to use the hoe on some permafrost..... lol



none said:


> You have it backwards. When there is little pressure it is more difficult to keep things is a denser physical state. But really they are trivial differences.


This is true.


----------



## Retired Peasant

andrewf said:


> Why, when there are non-degenerate volunteers who might be able to do something useful there?


Degenerates are capable of doing something useful - don't you believe in redemption?


bgc_fan said:


> Like Australia? ;-)


I said option - I don't think those sent to Australia were given the choice.


----------



## KaeJS

Retired Peasant said:


> Degenerates are capable of doing something useful - don't you believe in redemption?


No.

We live in a dog eat dog world.

If they made a mistake in their life, that's not my problem. It's theirs.

They have now been permanently branded.

People will disagree with me, but hey. That's called a fact of life.

Personally, if I was funding this Mars One operation, I wouldn't want any degenerates going up there.

I would want the cream of the crop, top shelf, best seller type people.


----------



## andrewf

They'd be welcome to apply as well. I don't see any merit in sending inmates for the sake of getting rid of inmates. Being among the first humans to go to Mars is a privilege, not a punishment. There are thousands of reasonably qualified volunteers.


----------



## tygrus

This is a total waste of time and resources and until our technology catches up, it should be shelved. Much better use of the resources here and in near earth orbit.

These people are just going on a one way long term suicide mission and will just die indoors in some cramped trailer out in the barren rocks. There is no exploring they can do because the environment is too hostile. Much better handled by robots and drones and 10 times the science can come out of it at 1/10th the cost.


----------



## none

^ +1


----------



## carverman

> After discussions with potential suppliers for each component and close examination, *Mars One estimates the cost of putting the first four people on Mars at six billion US*$. The six billion figure is the cost of all the hardware combined, plus the operational expenditures, plus margins. *For every next manned mission, Mars One estimates the costs at four billion US*$.


No problem for some of you CMF investment "fat cats"...hey what's a billion per person, even it's discounted when converted from Canadian at the current exchange rate...ok add another
$300K if you happen to be chosen and Canadian.

Some things to consider on this "fantastic trip of a lifetime":
1. You will be weightless in a space ship for 9 months or so.
2. Your iphones/ipads etc won't work on the space ship because Rogers/Bell/Telus don't have any arrangements with them and even if they did..add another $300K a year (plus HST?)
3. There is nothing but darkness in space for 9 months. You may see a tiny celestial object (that's the sun..not sure about earth..you probably won't see earth after a few weeks)
4. Just don't get sick up there, have a heart attack, appendicitis or any other medical emergency that requires some medical skills (like operating in space).
5. Be prepared to drink your own filtered urine over and over and over again..
6. Nothing like MRE's (Meal ready to eat)that come in those sealed packages..just dont mess up, because you will have lots of floaties in Zero gravity.
7. Get used to suction toilets..not sure what they do with the ahem..solid matter..hopefully it is not ejected into space..to attach to another space ship
8. Be prepared for extreme cold on Mars..in the winter it can get down to 110c in some places...take lots of magazines and dvds to amuse yourselves because the
Martian year (not sure about their winters) is 2 Earth years
9. Summertime on Mars isn't too bad, the sun heats up to about 35C in some places
10. Be prepared to crawl on your hands and knees after being 9 months confined in space...your leg muscles will atrophy even with daily exercise.
They had to carry the space station cosmonauts and even our own astronaut (Chris Hadfield) after he came back after 5 months in a zero gravity environment
11. Atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide, you will passout and die from exposure outside those cubicles
12. There are no Tim Hortons, Pizza Huts, McD's or any fast food takeout on Mars yet.
13. Then there will be the disagreements between male and female Martian colonists...requiring Martian lawyers...oh well, it seemed like a good idea in theory.:stupid:


----------



## carverman

tygrus said:


> This is a total waste of time and resources and until our technology catches up, it should be shelved. Much better use of the resources here and in near earth orbit.
> 
> These people are just going on a one way long term suicide mission and will just die indoors in some cramped trailer out in the barren rocks. There is no exploring they can do because the environment is too hostile. Much better handled by robots and drones and 10 times the science can come out of it at 1/10th the cost.


Boredom is right! Some may even develop physiological depravation problems. Not only is the cost prohibitive, but getting there is a real drag (8 months of being cooped
up in some kind of capsule that gets "kicked" by the gravitation fields of earth and the moon, and still expend fuel via retro firing small rockets, unless they come up with faster ways of space travel..and then there is the hostile environment as well to deal with.

For safety and operational reasons, the spacecraft that will travel to Mars will likely not land on the surface immediately upon reaching the Red Planet.



> "For a human-scale mission, it is very likely that we will have a spacecraft that stays in orbit with food and supplies for the journey home, and also for a 'safe haven' in case something goes wrong on the surface," Engelund said.
> 
> What scientists are envisioning is to have the entire spacecraft first enter Mars orbit and then deploy a lander down to the surface. The ability to first orbit the planet before landing on it will also give the astronauts an opportunity to observe the atmosphere to ensure that there are no dust storms or hazardous weather at the location where they plan on landing.
> To enter Mars orbit, scientists are planning on using a method called aerocapture, which has never been tried before.


 Uh..we need some human guinea pigs to test that one out too!


as it being a one way trip..even if you happen to be "lucky or unlucky" as the case may be to get there....


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

none said:


> Wouldn't it make more sense to send scientists? How would a likely ex-lawyer benefit the mission? Also, just because someone votes for something it wouldn't automatically create air and water as you suggest. It sounds like you have a loose grasp on how they physical world works.


 I say let them try it. If anyone believes they can change the world through hand waving and bullshit, it's politicians. If they fail they starve to death. I don't see a downside.

If you prefer to send scientists I nominate David Suzuki and Al Gore. They could save the planet by not releasing carbon dioxide. Since there are no industries, no petroleum, and no humans on Mars (except them) it should be a cinch.


----------



## Beaver101

physik3r said:


> I would go. Not kidding


 ... see Carverman's posts #36 and 37 ... still want to go on this once-in-a-lifetime- trip? 

As usual, excellent post *Carverman* .. +1 :encouragement:

:highly_amused: ROFL on points #2 and #12 ...


----------



## andrewf

Aerocapture has never been tried before? That's just plain incorrect.


----------



## donald

apparently 20 light years away there is a planet that scientists say can inhibit life,planet "g"
Better prospects than mars,pretty sure its impossible to get there(different solar system)pretty interested read though on it.discovered 2010.


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> Aerocapture has never been tried before? That's just plain incorrect.


It's just another buzzword for areo braking. 
On re-entry to Earth years ago (Mercury/Gemini/Apollo missions), the atmosphere heated up the re-entry capsule so much, they had to install an ablation shield 
to keep the astronauts from burning up because of the speed and temperatures of re-entry. We all know what happened to one of the Shuttles when one of
the tiles got knocked off it's wing...nothing left of it or the crew but pieces by the time it came down.

The parachutes are deployed after the space craft has slowed down in the final descent and parachutes don't work too well in a thin atmosphere
like Mars has, so areocapture/areobraking can be used on some space craft that will descend (eventually)...but it is very risky, especially with human cargo.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/marsconcepts2012/pdf/4227.pdf

For the unmanned missions to Mars, they just use the bouncing ball technique to drop the lander.. Put it in as beach ball contraption and let it descend on it's own in the thin Martian
atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide) and let it bounce around until it stops, then deflate the bag and let the Mars Rover (Curiosity) get out and unfold. 
Can't drop humans from Mars Obit that way....the g forces would be too much.



> In the past, US space engineers had adopted the bouncy castle approach to putting their rovers on Mars. A robot vehicle was secured inside a bag which was inflated during descent so that it simply bounced over the surface until it came to a standstill. For Curiosity, this was not an option. Five times bigger than its predecessors, it would have required an airbag so big, the stresses of descent would have ripped its fabric apart. Similarly, landers that use legs were considered too unstable to settle on Mars.


Here's the other issue, with our current propulsion systems, it takes what they call "gravity field kicks" (proximity flybys) , to get outer space craft going with enough velocity to get there. *So Everything within the Mars orbit has to be in the correct alignment*...they may even have to do a Venus flyby to get the Mars colonization space craft kicked in the right direction to gain enough velocity by the gravitational field of Venus in order to arrive at Mars orbit in 8 months time. 

Nothing is simple in extraterrestrial exploration. Timing is everything....and then there is that huge asteroid field between Earth and Mars to deal with too.


----------



## andrewf

There are some asteroids between Earth (there are even some asteroids that 'orbit' Earth) and Mars, but the asteroid belt is between Mars and Jupiter.

For the last rover mission to Mars they used a technique called Sky crane.

carver, no one said going to Mars would be easy. But it is by no means an insurmountable challenge. Personally, I don't think it is an effective use of resources. A better bet would be continuing to put energy toward current efforts to reduce launch costs (with SpaceX leading the way toward re-usability and order of magnitude reductions in cost) as well as asteroid mining to provide basic materials such as water already outside of Earth's gravity well. So, while manned missions are likely of limited value, I don't doubt that eventually there will be permanent human residents on Mars.


----------



## Taraz

If at least one of them manages to land on mars alive, I'd count it as a win. They'd be famous forever.


----------



## none

Not really. They'd be famous until they're dead.


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> No problem for some of you CMF investment "fat cats"...hey what's a billion per person, even it's discounted when converted from Canadian at the current exchange rate...ok add another
> $300K if you happen to be chosen and Canadian.
> 
> Some things to consider on this "fantastic trip of a lifetime":
> 1. You will be weightless in a space ship for 9 months or so.
> 2. Your iphones/ipads etc won't work on the space ship because Rogers/Bell/Telus don't have any arrangements with them and even if they did..add another $300K a year (plus HST?)
> 3. There is nothing but darkness in space for 9 months. You may see a tiny celestial object (that's the sun..not sure about earth..you probably won't see earth after a few weeks)
> 4. Just don't get sick up there, have a heart attack, appendicitis or any other medical emergency that requires some medical skills (like operating in space).
> 5. Be prepared to drink your own filtered urine over and over and over again..
> 6. Nothing like MRE's (Meal ready to eat)that come in those sealed packages..just dont mess up, because you will have lots of floaties in Zero gravity.
> 7. Get used to suction toilets..not sure what they do with the ahem..solid matter..hopefully it is not ejected into space..to attach to another space ship
> 8. Be prepared for extreme cold on Mars..in the winter it can get down to 110c in some places...take lots of magazines and dvds to amuse yourselves because the
> Martian year (not sure about their winters) is 2 Earth years
> 9. Summertime on Mars isn't too bad, the sun heats up to about 35C in some places
> 10. Be prepared to crawl on your hands and knees after being 9 months confined in space...your leg muscles will atrophy even with daily exercise.
> They had to carry the space station cosmonauts and even our own astronaut (Chris Hadfield) after he came back after 5 months in a zero gravity environment
> 11. Atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide, you will passout and die from exposure outside those cubicles
> 12. There are no Tim Hortons, Pizza Huts, McD's or any fast food takeout on Mars yet.
> 13. Then there will be the disagreements between male and female Martian colonists...requiring Martian lawyers...oh well, it seemed like a good idea in theory.:stupid:


Great list! :chuncky:

But considering the trip is 11 years away, some of the above might indeed be possible.

Can we have another list plz?


----------



## andrewf

carverman said:


> Some things to consider on this "fantastic trip of a lifetime":
> 1. You will be weightless in a space ship for 9 months or so.
> 2. Your iphones/ipads etc won't work on the space ship because Rogers/Bell/Telus don't have any arrangements with them and even if they did..add another $300K a year (plus HST?)
> 3. There is nothing but darkness in space for 9 months. You may see a tiny celestial object (that's the sun..not sure about earth..you probably won't see earth after a few weeks)
> 4. Just don't get sick up there, have a heart attack, appendicitis or any other medical emergency that requires some medical skills (like operating in space).
> 5. Be prepared to drink your own filtered urine over and over and over again..
> 6. Nothing like MRE's (Meal ready to eat)that come in those sealed packages..just dont mess up, because you will have lots of floaties in Zero gravity.
> 7. Get used to suction toilets..not sure what they do with the ahem..solid matter..hopefully it is not ejected into space..to attach to another space ship
> 8. Be prepared for extreme cold on Mars..in the winter it can get down to 110c in some places...take lots of magazines and dvds to amuse yourselves because the
> Martian year (not sure about their winters) is 2 Earth years
> 9. Summertime on Mars isn't too bad, the sun heats up to about 35C in some places
> 10. Be prepared to crawl on your hands and knees after being 9 months confined in space...your leg muscles will atrophy even with daily exercise.
> They had to carry the space station cosmonauts and even our own astronaut (Chris Hadfield) after he came back after 5 months in a zero gravity environment
> 11. Atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide, you will passout and die from exposure outside those cubicles
> 12. There are no Tim Hortons, Pizza Huts, McD's or any fast food takeout on Mars yet.
> 13. Then there will be the disagreements between male and female Martian colonists...requiring Martian lawyers...oh well, it seemed like a good idea in theory.:stupid:


1. Yup.
2. I have a tablet and don't have service from Robellus.
3. The sun is about the same size as it appears on earth. It's not darker that it is on the day side of earth--and you never get a night time.
4. They will select people unlikely to suffer such conditions, as well as have people with basic medical training if not a doctor along for the ride. Add in robotic surgery (which is already becoming quite common). But yes, there is a risk of death due to worse health care. But is it really worse than being stuck at a research outpost in Antarctica?
5. /6. Yum! We already drink recycled urine.
7. More space debris! Hitting another spacecraft with frozen poo is pretty unlikely though.
8. They have much cooler (or should I say warmer) coats/pressure suits. Very little snow to shovel, though.
10. On the bright side, you'll weigh 60% less.
11. Again... pressure suits.
12. Hey, a TH franchise opportunity!
13. Legal services can be provided from earth. Of course, I'm sure earth could spare a few lawyers.


----------



## Beaver101

^ Re above post and your #15 & 17, sounds like you have been to Mars before ... :cocksure:


----------



## m3s

andrewf said:


> 7. More space debris! Hitting another spacecraft with frozen poo is pretty unlikely though.


Frozen waste flying around apparently damaged the old space station solar panels over time.. Now they put all their waste into a capsule and send it into the atmosphere to be incinerated.

I think the resources wasted to send a few people to Mars would be relatively tiny compared to the resources completely wasted by billions of people on Earth everyday for no good reason at all.


----------



## andrewf

^ Low earth orbit is a relatively crowded neighbourhood. In the interplanetary space between Earth and Mars, the chance of a later space craft colliding with frozen ballistic waste is pretty well zero. That said, it would probably be recycled rather than dumped.


----------



## KaeJS

m3s said:


> I think the resources wasted to send a few people to Mars would be relatively tiny compared to the resources completely wasted by billions of people on Earth everyday for no good reason at all.


This is funny, sad, and true at the same time.


----------



## sags

I think it is all an elaborate scam anyways.

The sponsors are going to sell a reality television show that will start with their training and last 10 years or more.

By the time the date of departure arrives, they will have already pocketed millions from the television revenue.

Then the trip will be cancelled due to technical difficulties or the company will go bankrupt.


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> I think it is all an elaborate scam anyways.
> 
> The sponsors are going to sell a reality television show that will start with their training and last 10 years or more.
> 
> By the time the date of departure arrives, they will have already pocketed millions from the television revenue.
> 
> Then the trip will be cancelled due to technical difficulties or the company will go bankrupt.


Well you can't blame them for trying (the scam that is).

With so many countries near bankruptcy, the last thing they will get is gov't funding. The risk factor with this kind of experience is 99 percent... at least.

With so many launch vehicle failures, and things going wrong in space with UNMANNED space ventures, the chance of the selected "Martian visitors" on
actually going on the one way trip to the REAL MARS is next to nil.

However, as you say, the concept can become a popular reality series, where they can fake the launches (as most sci-fi movies are faked now with special effects)
and you can have a SURVIVOR ON MARS" mini series/reality show that will get the attention of millions of viewers...and that is huge advertising revenue
to the networks. 

I'm sure by now, those that still watch the Survivor reality shows that are now recycled with the same contestants, could use some new "eye candy" on the
"My Favorite Martian" reality series. I think that Ray Walston who starred as the Martian visiting earth is no longer around to play the Uncle..but I'm
sure that the producers can find suitable actors and this would be entertaining fodder, with the squabbling and life threatening events on "Mars".


----------



## m3s

Where is your source for the risk factor being at least 99%? The idea is to send cargo ships and demo missions over decades... I find 99% hard to believe and way to early to claim at best.

A lot of technology we have today is because governments could take on risk during the cold war that no company can today. Most of the real innovation today is opensource, crowdsource and crowd funded. Any real innovation takes a lot of risk and failure for unknown reward..

I would like to see the model used to pursue other things as well, like exploring the ocean etc. Funded by curiosity and philanthropy etc. The skeptics can go about accomplishing nothing on their armchairs.


----------



## Beaver101

^^ & ^^^... I agree! They have so far raised ~$170K out of a current target $400K (according to their website) from crowd sourcefunding. Yeah, I can see either a movie or another reality show (yuck) in the not too distant coming more than anything else. :mushroom:


----------



## Beaver101

Not to hijack the thread but this is Mars related - http://www.space.com/24356-mars-rock-mystery-opportunity-rover-photos.html .. maybe there is a Tim Hortons up on planet Mars afterall. :biggrin-new:


----------



## Beaver101

Are you one of the lucky Canadians on this list? Check it out ... 

*Six Canadians in line for one-way trip to Red Planet*

One year ago, 202,000 people worldwide applied for this one-way journey. That list has now been cut to 100 names, with the trip planned for 2025.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/02/16/six-canadians-in-line-for-one-way-trip-to-red-planet.html




> A half-dozen Canadians remain in the running for a controversial plan by a Dutch-based organization to establish a colony on Mars by 2025.
> 
> 
> Mars One, the non-profit organization spearheading the project, says the* six Canadians include four people from Ontario and two from British Columbia*.
> 
> 
> A seventh Canadian, a 29-year-old man from the Yukon, who was also selected, dropped out for personal reasons.
> 
> 
> The organization says the four women and two men are among a group of about 100 from which they will select a final 24 people to man the missions.
> 
> 
> One year ago, 75 Canadians were selected from more than 202,000 who applied in 2012. ...


----------



## carverman

Beaver101 said:


> Are you one of the lucky Canadians on this list? Check it out ...
> 
> *Six Canadians in line for one-way trip to Red Planet*
> 
> One year ago, 202,000 people worldwide applied for this one-way journey. That list has now been cut to 100 names, with the trip planned for 2025.
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/02/16/six-canadians-in-line-for-one-way-trip-to-red-planet.html


read that...I realize this is a short list, but there are two people on that list that will be too old in 9 or 10 years time, when supposedly, the mission will begin. 

There is a 53 year old woman and a 60 year old man in the Canadian short list.

What were they thinking?

The man will be 70 (if he makes it to that age) and the woman 63 by then...to late for producing offspring
to colonize the Mars adventure. Not too mention a 7 to 9 month journey where there will be
no doctors or hospitals to take care of any outbreak of anything, or heart attacks or other serious
health problems. 
What are they going to do with the ones that don't make the long journey...toss them into outer space?
Or continue to bring them to Mars, where they will have to have to establish a "pioneer cemetery' to bury or cremate these volunteers.
Lots of human issues to consider, never mind the financial and the logistics of getting them there alive and
maybe to keep them from killing each other on the way there. 7 to 9 months to do the journey on present
propulsion technology is not going to cut it. Besides how are they going to lift off the winners?

All at once or in stages to some space station to accommodate them temporarily until they all are ready
for departure on the journey. 

However, it can make a good Hollywood series for TV...similar to Battlestar Gallactica.


----------



## Beaver101

carverman said:


> read that...I realize this is a short list, but there are two people on that list that will be too old in 9 or 10 years time, when supposedly, the mission will begin.
> 
> There is a 53 year old woman and a 60 year old man in the Canadian short list.
> 
> What were they thinking?
> 
> ...
> However, *it can make a good Hollywood series for TV*...similar to Battlestar Gallactica.


 ... I think this is what these picks were for - a reality show (yuck) for Canadians. As for figuring out the logistics and all that, I'm sure the Mars One Director has plans (the disappearing act) in place before 2025 shows up.


----------



## Beaver101

And now for some real Mars news ...

*Mysterious Mars plumes stump scientists*

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/geekquinox/mars-mystery-plumes-stumps-scientists-190653702.html



> Mars may not be as dead a planet as we thought. *There appears to be a new mystery brewing on Mars *that has scientists both puzzled and excited.
> 
> On two separate occasions back in 2012, backyard sky-watchers around the world reported seeing through their telescopes what look like gigantic plume-like features rising into space from the surface of the Red Planet. *Our current understanding of the high atmosphere of Mars cannot account for this phenomenon. These unknown plumes could also pose a hazard for future low-orbit missions to Mars*. ...


----------



## JordoR

I took a quick look through the Top 100 that they have on the website - and the criteria they used in selecting seems non-existent? Most have no formal training in anything scientific/mechanical/or anything that would really help them in the challenges of living on a foreign planet. Let alone any possible disasters that might happen. It seems a lot of people were chosen simply for online presence, and this is definitely looking more like a reality TV cash cow than anything serious.


----------



## carverman

This is just some free advertising for the Dutch company who is putting this reality show together. You really didn't think they would be sending 100 people there did you?:highly_amused: This is another 'Survivor" concept show they are planning. 



> Mars One's concept includes* launching four carefully selected applicants *in a Mars-bound spaceflight in 2024, to become the first residents of Mars, and that every step of the crew’s journey will be documented for a reality television program.





> These selected persons will then begin the interview process following which *several teams of two men and two women will be compiled*


.

Wonder what they may be doing for the 7-9 months to get there?Sitting in their chairs and watching the instruments on the space probe..or doing stuff together in reality TV? Freeze dried food and suction toilets for 7-9 months and drinking your own recycled purified urine?...uh huh..sounds like fun. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_(spacecraft)#mediaviewer/File:Dragon_V2_interior.2.jpg



> 2013: The first 40 astronauts were to have been selected;[6] a replica of the settlement was planned to be built for training purposes.[7]
> 2014: *The first communication satellite was to have been produced.*
> 2016: A supply mission would launch with 2500 kilograms of food in a modified SpaceX Dragon.
> 2018: An exploration vehicle would launch to pick the location of the settlement.
> 2021: *Six additional Dragon capsules and another rover would launch with two living units, two life-support units and two supply units*.
> 
> 2022: A SpaceX Falcon Heavy would launch with the first group of four colonists.
> 2023: *The first colonists were to arrive on Mars in a modified Dragon capsule.*
> 
> 2025: A second group of four colonists slated to arrive.
> 2033: The colony projected to reach 20 settlers.[8





> *A one-way trip, excluding the cost of maintaining four astronauts on Mars until they die, is claimed to cost approximately 6 billion USD*.] Lansdorp has declined questions regarding the cost estimate because he believes "it would be very stupid for us to give the prices that have been quoted per component". For comparison, an "austere" manned Mars mission (including a *temporary stay followed by a return of the astronauts) proposed by NASA in 2009 had a projected cost of 100 billion USD after an 18-year program*.


read more here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_One


----------



## KaeJS

All I can say is...

You must either;

A) Really hate your life to sign up for this

and/or

B) Have no future planning ability

What happens when someone "falls in love" in 5 years and then decides they don't want to go anymore because they don't want to die/be without their spouse? LOL


----------



## My Own Advisor

That's funny KaeJS.

OR, you want to be a reality TV star!


----------



## carverman

Retired Peasant said:


> We should give lifers in prison the option of going to Mars; they could actually contribute something.


They would kill each other on the way there. It would be like deep space "survivor">

Boredom is the big issue, how will they keep them sane? It's a 7 month journey and once the snacks and beer
are gone...and no showers for 6-7 months, no showers when they get there either..well I'll let you visualize the nightmare scenario.


----------



## Beaver101

^ I think the stench in the air will kill them first in the first month, let alone 6 to 7 months... space cavemen? :biggrin:


----------



## carverman

Beaver101 said:


> ^ I think the stench in the air will kill them first in the first month, let alone 6 to 7 months... space cavemen? :biggrin:


Personal hygiene..something that they haven't thought of on this Mars One "mission" 
We as humans, have lots of bacteria to deal with.

read what they have to do on the ISS just to keep clean.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/astronauts-eat-in-space1.htm

This Mars One probe has to be a large ISS style space craft, that has all the facilities for long duration human habitat.
You just can't dig a hole in zero gravity and do your daily routine. Germs, fungii, and other nasty microbes will
eventually take over, even from the air inside the cabin...that will make them all very sick and..well you can guess
what happens then...burial in space? 

What happens if there is a life support system failure..remember Apollo 13 (unlucky number?),
and the catastrophe when the oxygen tank exploded..NASA barely got them back alive! These volunteers will become
"expendable" because it is a one way trip and there won't be any rescue attempt when they are out of earth orbit. 

Apollo 13


> the lunar landing was aborted after an oxygen tank exploded two days later, crippling the Service Module (SM) upon which the Command Module (CM) depended. Despite great hardship caused by limited power, loss of cabin heat, shortage of potable water, and the critical need to jury-rig the carbon dioxide removal system, the crew returned safely to Earth on April 17.



now here is another problem//laundry..no laundry..very stinky underwear
*Astronauts change their shirts, socks and underwear every two days, and their pants once a week. Because there's no washing machine available, their clothes become disposable -- they simply put their dirty clothes in plastic bags and throw them away.*

This is a harebrained scheme to try to send humans to Mars in 10 years time....but as a reality show..anything is 
possible.


----------



## Beaver101

^


> We as humans, have lots of bacteria to deal with.
> 
> read what they have to do on the ISS just to keep clean.
> http://science.howstuffworks.com/ast...-in-space1.htm


 ... instead of using "water" to shower, why can't the astronauts simply dunk themselves in an antiseptic /alcholic (gentle on the skin of course) solution - cleaned and dried at the same time?



> Astronauts change their shirts, socks and underwear every two days, and their pants once a week. Because there's no washing machine available, their clothes become disposable -- they simply put their dirty clothes in plastic bags and throw them away.


 ... now that earth is polluted, time to pollute space (or does it matter anyways)? They should really attempt to direct these junk or dead bodies towards the sun - free incineration and cremation at the same time. 



> ... a reality show..anything is
> possible...


... I wonder if the producers of this show is able to get insurance for anything that might go wrong on the make-believe-Mars-set?


----------



## carverman

Beaver101 said:


> ^ ... instead of using "water" to shower, why can't the astronauts simply dunk themselves in an antiseptic /alcholic (gentle on the skin of course) solution - cleaned and dried at the same time?


Because that is not good for the skin for long term cleaning. Drys out the skin, cracks appear and sores.



> ... now that earth is polluted, time to pollute space (or does it matter anyways)? They should really attempt to direct these junk or dead bodies towards the sun - free incineration and cremation at the same time.


Not that simple. To propel a dead body and other refuse towards the sun for incineration..you have to have a rocket propelled garbage space vehicle with the correct trajectory..where are they going to store those? 
They will just dump all their refuse out in space and all that "doo" and other stuff will go into the asteroid orbit...going around the sun, and unfortunately another testament to the "progress of man". 
Earth's oceans are getting more and more polluted every year with plastic junk floating around.
.


----------



## andrewf

Anything you drop from the ISS would have its orbit decay within a few months and burn up in the atmosphere. ISS only stays up because they are continually boosting it. To send something out of earth orbit and onto a collision course with the sun would require quite a few kilometers per second of velocity change. Lots of energy and thus $$$.


----------



## carverman

andrewf said:


> Anything you drop from the ISS would have its orbit decay within a few months and burn up in the atmosphere. ISS only stays up because they are continually boosting it. To send something out of earth orbit and onto a collision course with the sun would require quite a few kilometers per second of velocity change. Lots of energy and thus $$$.


This is more fantasy than anything else these days First of all, it will take billions to send the habitat, if you call those
pods in the picture to Mars. The pod delivery vehicles have to have retro rockets to counteract Mars gravity, 
which is only about 38% of Earth. It would still takes retro rockets to slow down the delivery vehicle to prevent a crash. They used the "re-entry bounce" technique for the Mars Landers to save on carrying that
excess fuel needed for the reentry rockets, but it all depends on how big these things (pods etc) are.

To send someone there first to assemble these pods takes additional money and delivery vehicles...$$$billions.

To assemble the habitat, the human assemblers have to have 1) the correct air mix, as Mars is primary 96% carbon dioxide, and you wouldn't survive outside for very long breathing that.
2) water 3) food 4) sanitary facilities 5) sleep accommodations 6) hygiene facilities 7) backup space suits 8) backup everything and stay healthy all this time...as there will be no medical facilities or doctors/nurses to
take care of them if they get hurt or oxygen deprived...and the extreme cold nights and hot days. 

You may recall the Mt. Everest mountain climbers succumbing to hypoxia in one of the expeditions, and they had canisters of oxygen they carried with them. 
*



The atmosphere of Mars consists of about 96% carbon dioxide

Click to expand...

*


> , 1.93% argon and 1.89% nitrogen along with traces of oxygen and water. The atmosphere is quite dusty, containing particulates about 1.5 µm in diameter which give the Martian sky a tawny color when seen from the surface.


----------



## Toronto.gal

IMHO, the moonstruck dream of these space-explorer aspirants will crash. It won't materialize.


----------



## cainvest

carverman said:


> This is more fantasy than anything else ...


Haven't you seen Red Planet with Val kilmer and Carrie-Anne Moss ... sure it can be done, just like they did.


----------



## Beaver101

^ +1 ... Lol!


----------



## Toronto.gal

cainvest said:


> Haven't you seen Red Planet with Val kilmer and Carrie-Anne Moss ... sure it can be done, just like they did.


Nope, have not seen it; not exactly a sci-fi movie aficionado[a], but apparently the movie was quite the nail-biter: *'This is a film where much of the suspense involves the disappearance of algae.'* And also took place in 2025, when the Mars One crew #1 is scheduled to emigrate. Was the date borrowed from this movie u think? :biggrin:


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> Nope, have not seen it; not exactly a sci-fi movie aficionado[a], but apparently the movie was quite the nail-biter: *'This is a film where much of the suspense involves the disappearance of algae.'* And also took place in 2025, when the Mars One crew #1 is scheduled to emigrate. Was the date borrowed from this movie u think? :biggrin:


Movie: The Red Planet with Kilmer as Gallagher and Moss as Bowman.



> *In 2056 AD, Earth is in ecologic crisis as a consequence of pollution and overpopulation. *Automated interplanetary missions have been seeding Mars with atmosphere-producing algae as the first stage of terraforming the planet. When the oxygen quantity produced by the algae is inexplicably reduced, the crew of Mars-1 investigate;


Hmmm..it's already heading that way...better get on the Mars One project, you think? :biggrin:



> When Mars 1 is damaged in arrival, Bowman remains aboard for repair while the others land to locate an automated habitat established earlier to manufacture food and oxygen. *During insertion, the team's landing craft is damaged and crash-lands off-course. *


Mars 1 is a failure..but in the movies, they somehow manage to make the 6 month journey back to earth and start on a romantic relationship, on the way back...only in Hollywood. In real life, (if it is even possible),
they will all die there! 



> Gallagher becomes upset that f*our astronauts died so that he could live, but Bowman tells him that they didn't die for nothing. *The computer is busy analyzing the sample of Martian insects which Gallagher brought back, and research on them might lead to repairing Earth itself. With a six-month-long trip back to Earth, the computer has plenty of time to analyze the insects, and *Bowman and Gallagher have time to start pursuing a romantic relationship*.


I haven't seen that movie yet, but I saw a bizarre version of a "Mars Colony" with Arnie Schwarzenegger 
in "Total Recall" a few years back.


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> in the movies, they somehow manage to make the 6 month journey back to earth and start on a romantic relationship, on the way back...*only in Hollywood*.


For realism, I much prefer British films, including the fictional James Bond.  

Speaking of Hollywood, it's Oscar night tomorrow. My predictions for best movie/actor/actress = Boyhood/Eddie Redmayne/Julianne Moore. Though I would like to see a 3-way tie for best actor between Cumberbatch/Keaton/Redmayne.


----------



## carverman

Toronto.gal said:


> IMHO, the moonstruck dream of these space-explorer aspirants will crash. It won't materialize.


Besides the current publicity and promoting some kind of high tech development funding for Elon Musk's SpaceX project, it isn't going to go much further than that by 2025 beyond the concept stage. 
That's only 10 years from now. 
There are just too many "earth bound" obstacles to get people to colonize the Red Planet in this 21st century.

With the current propulsion systems (liquid hydrogen tanks + liquid oxygen, the weight of the fuel limits the payloads available escape earth's gravity. It's one thing to put up a satelllite, which costs in the hundreds of millions these days, another thing entirely to send up a habitat to Mars, piece by piece..that will run into tens, or hundreds of billions. Current cost estimates PlUS??, is never a good idea for a business plan!

To achieve this kind of pipe dream, there has to be something in their for investors..and unfortunately there is no gold or oil on Mars discovered yet, and even if they could, there would be no way to bring it back....so..
like any commercial project with no real returns for investors... it will fail.

*
The reality check...*
To get the Apollo project to the point that they could land 2 astronauts on the moon and bring them back safely from the lunar surface cost NASA (US gov't) 25 billion in 1969 dollars.



> The total cost turned out to be between $20 and $25.4 billion in 1969 dollars (about $136 billion in 2007 dollars). The costs of the Apollo spacecraft and Saturn rockets came to about $83 billion in 2005 dollars.


Adjusted for costing and inflation of the Apollo program over 45 years...the program and launch vehicle
would be around $220 billion in current dollars and probably a lot more, since it was sponsored by US
gov't funding.

In another 20 years, the costs of any large scale Mars project to transfer just 4 people + habitat + food etc will be approaching $300 billion PLUS! ....not the 6 billion per flight to get the habitat there. 




> But an analysis by Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers concluded that the* Mars One concept is flawed.*





> “For example, if all food is obtained from locally grown crops, as Mars One envisions, the vegetation would produce unsafe levels of oxygen, which *would set off a series of events that would eventually cause human inhabitants to suffocate*. To avoid this scenario, a system to remove excess oxygen would have to be implemented — a technology that has not yet been developed for use in space,” MIT said in a statement about the study.





> Baking out ice from the Martian soil for drinking water presents another technology gap. T*he study also found Mars One’s severely underestimated how many rocket launches it would take to send supplies ahead of the colonists’ arrival.*



Not to mention it takes 6-7 months for each flight....and there isn't much of a an atmosphere on Mars..
it's carbon dioxide, and the sunlight needed to grow food inside a habitat, is about half of what earth receives.


----------



## indexxx

Ya, but what about _Robinson Crusoe on Mars_; wasn't that a documentary?:stupid:


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> *The reality check*:
> 
> it isn't going to go much further than that by 2025 beyond the concept stage. That's only 10 years from now/There are just too many "earth bound" obstacles to get people to colonize the Red Planet in this 21st century./Current cost estimates PlUS??
> 
> *it will fail.*


+ 1 & pretty much all the elements of a phantasmagorical story: a beginning/middle/terminus. 

There will not only be spacious tech issues, but also money; and just like in clinical trials, a % of the chosen will have to cut and run b4 they get to the 4th planet Martis.

Had to check the Robinson Crusoe On Mars documentary, LOL. I will actually watch it [in tranches].
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlu55w_robinson-crusoe-on-mars_shortfilms

Speaking of monkeys, while a few have been sent to space in previous decades, it appears these days that only Iran has been doing so, or so they claim.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25378313


----------



## cainvest

carverman said:


> There are just too many "earth bound" obstacles to get people to colonize the Red Planet in this 21st century.


All obstacles could be overcome with money donated from the 10 richest people in the world, just offer each one a room on the new colony site. Then again, maybe they should put a town on the moon first as it would provide a good launch platform for space missions and companies could have a giant logo built for advertising at night.


----------



## carverman

cainvest said:


> All obstacles could be overcome with money donated from the 10 richest people in the world, just offer each one a room on the new colony site. Then again, maybe they should put a town on the moon first as it would provide a good launch platform for space missions and companies could have a giant logo built for advertising at night.


I agree that would be a better plan, since the moons gravity doesn't take as much energy to lift off and continue
on their journey to Mars. Yes, if the 10 richest guys in the world teamed together, they could raise that serious
kind of money to get the project going, but the fact remains it still takes about 6 months or so to get from the moon
to Mars..and that is a long one way flight for 4 people in cramped quarters and no separate bathrooms or showers.

What they need is to get a faster propulsion system (warp drive) to shorten the flight there, something like the aliens have...
and anti-gravity propulsion system with warp drive.

have you heard of the special rare element115 "UNUNPENTIUM? 

http://io9.com/5963263/how-nasa-will-build-its-very-first-warp-drive


----------



## cainvest

carverman said:


> but the fact remains it still takes about 6 months or so to get from the moon
> to Mars..and that is a long one way flight for 4 people in cramped quarters and no separate bathrooms or showers.


A few points to consider,
- some people already stay that long in space at the ISS.
- if they use more fuel they can shortern the travel time (if really needed), a moon launch would use much less fuel.
- if they launch equipment to Mars years in advance they could have much of the site already set for people, even a possible return home vehicle sitting in a high orbit.

Guess it all depends on the money and how serious they are about doing it.


----------



## Beaver101

> *Toronto.gal* ...
> 
> Had to check the Robinson Crusoe On Mars documentary, LOL. I will actually watch it [in tranches].
> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlu55w_robinson-crusoe-on-mars_shortfilms


 ... LOL too here! Never seen this "documentary" before, gather it was before my appearance on earth ... boy, did Adam West looked good there :biggrin: 

Hope Eddie RedMayne gets the Oscar for best actor - he deserves it for his amazing acting in A Theory of Everything. We'll find out tonight!


----------



## carverman

cainvest said:


> A few points to consider,
> - some people already stay that long in space at the ISS.


In one of my earlier posts on this subject, I did mention that, but the ISS was specially designed and put together piece by piece by the consortium of nations to achieve that goal. Being in earth orbit, it's a lot easier to send supplies by rocket booster to it, change the crew and perform an emergency evacuation if necessary. 

The shuttle was designed to be the main vehicle for that task, but it turned out to be a big money pit as well as mismanaged by NASA (ie: the Challenger disaster in 1986, where it disintegrated due to reuse of the o-rings on the SRBs..7 astronauts lost their lives on that one, 
and the Columbia disaster in 2003 where 7 more lost their lives due to damaged tile insulation),the program was cut short due to the expense of preparation and launch.



> - if they use more fuel they can shorten the travel time (if really needed), a moon launch would use much less fuel.


Yes, more fuel equals more propulsion and velocity, but the engines on these things are designed for a certain thrust ratio and if they exceed the safety margins, serious faults or even explosions could occur. And the moons gravity is about 83% of that of earths. The only engine that was designed so far for lunar lift off was the moon lander on the Apollo program back in the 60s was the LEM, and its ascent engine that only produced a force of 1600 kg with a crew of 2, and only required to get into lunar orbit for the rendezvous with the command module that would bring them all back to earth.

To lift off a crew of 4 from the moon's surface and gravity, the vehicle has to be a lot larger with 
more life sustaining equipment on board, and go into a lunar orbit to get the co-ordinates for a Mars injection trajectory.
This all has to be done perfectly without a flaw..otherwise they will go off into outer space, never to be seen again!

To develop the forces and guidance systems for a space craft to lift a crew of 4 (such as proposed in the Mars One
concept) would require a more complex system of propulsion, fuel storage (not easy to do on the moon) and other
factors. 



> - if they launch equipment to Mars years in advance they could have much of the site already set for people, even a possible return home vehicle sitting in a high orbit.


Who will be setting up the Mars site for the volunteers? Certainly not the volunteers themselves, but skilled experienced technical people that would know how to set up the site. 

Not an easy task on a hostile environment planet, where you have to be in a biological support space suit, like the ones they use on the ISS.


----------



## cainvest

carverman said:


> In one of my earlier posts on this subject, I did mention that, but the ISS was specially designed and put together piece by piece by the consortium of nations to achieve that goal. Being in earth orbit, it's a lot easier to send supplies by rocket booster to it, change the crew and perform an emergency evacuation if necessary.
> 
> Yes, more fuel equals more propulsion and velocity, but the engines on these things are designed for a certain thrust ratio and if they exceed the safety margins, serious faults or even explosions could occur. And the moons gravity is about 83% of that of earths. The only engine that was designed so far for lunar lift off was the moon lander on the Apollo program back in the 60s was the LEM, and its ascent engine that only produced a force of 1600 kg with a crew of 2, and only required to get into lunar orbit for the rendezvous with the command module that would bring them all back to earth.


Maybe construct the mars vehicle in earth's orbit and use the iSS as a staging point, that would be much cheaper and easier to do than a moon base. Space X will have a launch site in 2016 for low earth orbit vehicles so I guess that makes sense. This also requires much less fuel than a ground launch and they could even push the completed ship to a high orbit once completed and detach those extra rockets before the trip to mars. There are lots of options, some easier and more cost effective than others, so if they really want people on mars I'm sure they'll do it.



carverman said:


> To lift off a crew of 4 from the moon's surface and gravity, the vehicle has to be a lot larger with
> more life sustaining equipment on board, and go into a lunar orbit to get the co-ordinates for a Mars injection trajectory.
> This all has to be done perfectly without a flaw..otherwise they will go off into outer space, never to be seen again!
> 
> To develop the forces and guidance systems for a space craft to lift a crew of 4 (such as proposed in the Mars One
> concept) would require a more complex system of propulsion, fuel storage (not easy to do on the moon) and other
> factors.
> 
> Who will be setting up the Mars site for the volunteers? Certainly not the volunteers themselves, but skilled experienced technical people that would know how to set up the site.
> 
> Not an easy task on a hostile environment planet, where you have to be in a biological support space suit, like the ones they use on the ISS.


I don't think launch trajectories pose much of a challege nowadays and course corrections can be made during the flight. A small nudge when you are far away makes a big change to where you end up. An example of how good they can do this is the Rosetta spacecraft they sent to orbit a comet not long ago.


----------



## Toronto.gal

carverman said:


> *...it isn't going to go much further than that by 2025 beyond the concept stage*.That's only 10 years from now.


Former Canadian astronaut agrees with some of us here.

*Ms. Payette:* 'nobody is going anywhere in 10 years. We don’t have the technology to go to Mars, with everything we know today, so I don’t think that a marketing company and a TV-type of selection, is sending anybody anywhere. So, if you meet any of those people, don’t tell them they’re courageous because *the only courage they had was to sign up on a website.'*


----------



## Beaver101

Toronto.gal said:


> Former Canadian astronaut agrees with some of us here.
> 
> *Ms. Payette:* 'nobody is going anywhere in 10 years. We don’t have the technology to go to Mars, with everything we know today, so I don’t think that a marketing company and a TV-type of selection, is sending anybody anywhere. So, if you meet any of those people, don’t tell them they’re courageous because *the only courage they had was to sign up on a website.'*


 ... glad a "real" astronaut has commented on this but gotta give those wannabes abit of credit for wanting to be this courageous. It is still risk-taking to undergo scrutiny aboard the mission and trying to be "famous" afterwards. :biggrin:


----------



## Toronto.gal

Beaver101 said:


> gotta give those wannabes abit of credit for wanting to be this courageous.


I'm sure the 2,000+ applicants [or was the figure truly 7000% higher?] are/were peculiarly serious & and vice-versa [there are deserters already.] :biggrin:

Prof. Hooft & ambassador for Mars One: 'When they first asked me to be involved I told them ‘you have to put a zero after everything’, implying that a launch date 100 years from now with a budget of tens of billions of dollars would be an achievable goal. *But people don’t want something 100 years from now.'*


----------



## LBCfan

carverman said:


> .................... And the moons gravity is about 83% of that of earths. ..............


Methinks that it is 83% less than earth's or approx 17% of earth's. http://www.moonconnection.com/moon_gravity.phtml


----------



## sags

cainvest said:


> All obstacles could be overcome with money donated from the 10 richest people in the world, just offer each one a room on the new colony site. Then again, maybe they should put a town on the moon first as it would provide a good launch platform for space missions and companies could have a giant logo built for advertising at night.


A young couple laying on the grass at night, looking dreamily up into the night sky.............and a blazing GOOGLE sign on the moon...........


----------



## carverman

sags said:


> A young couple laying on the grass at night, looking dreamily up into the night sky.............a*nd a blazing GOOGLE sign on the moon..*.........


We have pretty much ruined our world with our destruction, garbage and pollution...now with money from the richest in the world, we can proceed to ruin the moon. 

I agree that as soon as "big money" becomes available for these ventures, so will "big advertising"
and on the moon they can make the signs quite visible. Isn't there a US Flag and some other left over
remnants from the Apollo moon missions left up there already..fortuately they are too small to see
without a powerful telescope.
How many Billions spent and what did they bring back? A kilogram or two of moon rocks!

Reminds me of the song..Blue Moon....you left me standing alone, with no friends of my own..everybody's flown..

then there was that weird song way back in the 70s.."Everybody's gone to the Moon"...

Streets full of people, All alone, Roads full of houses, Never home
Church full of singing, Out of tune, Everyone's gone to the moon

Eyes full of sorrow, Never wet, Hands full of money, All in debt
Sun coming out in, The middle of June, Everyone's gone to the moon

Cars full of motors, Painted green, Mouths full of chocolate Covered cream
Arms that can only Lift a spoon, Everyone's gone to the moon


----------

