While We Wait: Writer's Block & Other Lame Excuses

Status
Not open for further replies.
The fact that agriculture was possible here, the air was breathable, and the air pressure and temperature were enough to keep you alive for extended periods of time helped them a little bit. ;)

As Crezth points out, the challenges of martian colonization are daunting. Still, I'm always happy to see some attention being put towards space exploration.

I understand that we will have to figure out how to compensate for the lack of these neccessities if we are to start a colony on mars. You make it sound like we will be waltzing around the outpost in casual clothes; this is not the case. The astronauts being sent there will be equiped with suits like previous astronauts have worn, Life Support Units that:
Spoiler :
This is taken straight from their website:
The Life Support Unit is a Lander rigged with extra technologies which capitalize on the natural resources available on Mars. It uses these resources to create a habitable living environment for the astronauts, as follows:
•Electrical energy is generated through the application of thin film solar photovoltaic panels. These are flexible and can be rolled up for compact transportation to Mars.
•Potable water will be created through the heating of water ice in the local ground soil. About 60 kilograms of soil is loaded into a container within the Life Support Unit by the Rover and heated to evaporate the water. The water is condensed and the dry soil returned to its origin. A portion of the water is stored while a portion is used to produce oxygen. The Life Support Unit is able to collect 1500 liters water and 120 kilograms oxygen in 500 days time.
•Nitrogen and argon gas are extracted from the Mars atmosphere and injected into the habitable space as inert gases. Remember, 80% of what we breathe on Earth is the element nitrogen.

The Life Support Unit is connected to the Living Unit by a tube which feeds the oxygen, nitrogen, and argon to create a habitable atmosphere. Once the astronauts have landed, it will also be in charge of the water purification and removal of waste gas (carbon dioxide) from the Living Unit atmosphere.


I whole-heartedly agree that the challenges presented are daunting, almost fearful even. But, we already have the technology to produce life-essential materials and resources for a team of four. All the technology that will be used in this trip already exists.

Tripe. Essentially feel-good nonsense. Yes, we've done "great" things before; and yes, it was seemingly on a moment's notice. That has nothing to do with the contours of this particular project nor the challenges it presents.



One of the promises of Mars One is that it is a governmentless endeavor, but you have correctly identified the reality which is that they will rely on NASA, the ESA, etc. And for more than just money, too: they require expertise and seasoned technicians. Of course that's what they're subcontracting out for, and that's what's gonna cost big money. We're talking billions.

Is it technically possible to have that much money? Of course. Is it realistic to expect? Not really.

This is not just "Feel-good nonsense." There are indisputable facts that I believe make this mission a reality. More so comes from the fact that they are using pre-existing technology. No new technology needs to be developed to make this reality, it already exists.

Yes, they do indeed promise that it is a governmentless endeavor. And yes, they will indeed need to rely on other space agencies. One reason is that they are colonizing mars... They clearly stated that they want the entire global community to take part in the mission, not just one nation or space program to achieve this. They will rely on all of those different space agencies to build their corresponding parts that they already promised the organization that they will provide.

I agree that its not just about money. They do/will require expertise and seasoned technicians. But look at the team they have already assembled. Then look at how many advisors they have obtained in the last few months. This is only one the first years of the organization, do you actually think that they will not acquire anymore 'expertise and technicians' in the ten years still to come? Would any well reknowned physcist or expert want to be left out of what could become one of the most historical moments in human civilization to-date?

Have you read further into the wikipedia (Not incredibly reliable anyway) article that you have also added to your post? Just a couple sentences after it mentions the reality TV show (Okay, so I was wrong about that) it says it would estimately cost about $6 Billion US Dollars. $6 Billion dollars is a large number I realize, but not unattainable. Provided below in the spoiler is one way they will plan to raise money for the trip:
Spoiler :
Mars One has only received initial sponsorship money so far and has not yet begun the global reality-TV media event which is intended to provide most of the funds for the trip to Mars. Corporate sponsorship money will be used mostly to fund the conceptual design studies provided by the aerospace suppliers.[7] On 31 August 2012, company officials announced that funding from its first sponsors had been received.[7] Sponsors for Mars One include:[7][8]
Byte Internet (Dutch internet service provider)
VBC Notarissen (Dutch law firm)
MeetIn (Dutch consulting company)
New-Energy.tv (Dutch web station)
Dejan SEO (Australian search engine optimization company)
Intrepid Research & Development (U.S. engineering company)[9]
Gerald W. Driggers (author of The Earth-Mars Chronicles)[9]
AdKnowledge (Advertiser marketplace)[10]
Aleph Objects, Inc. (developer and manufacturer of rapid prototyping 3D printers)[11]


Don't forget that these are only initial sponsors. It is foreseen that they will acquire more sponsorships later on.

Well, those bits and bobs are being speculated upon by subcontractors, which does not only include space agencies. It includes this motley crew, which does have some big names (SpaceX, Paragon, Alenia) but also some dubious new faces (Astrobotic, Surrey). And it makes no mention of concrete plans vis a vis being promised all components for the mission - these are simply those groups that sent "letters of interest."

The big thing Mars One has going for it is its ambitious pitch. But if it can't convince those suppliers and its sponsors that all are going to play ball, it's going to fall apart fast.

Yes, the sponsors for the components have mostly only sent "letters of interest" back. I'm not denying it. But once again think about how new the organization's mission is. Mars One has only just recently got around to visiting the suppliers, December 27 of 2012 to be exact. They are only a few weeks into asking the sponsors. I'm sure that none of those companies want to just jump right into anything, they will want to carefully go through all their options and opportunities first.


Yes, so I misunderstood that part. I understood that they intended to have around four 24/7/365 live camera feeds being broadcasted back to earth
constantly for anyone to view. And what would be so bad about educating the audience (the globe) about what it takes to live in such a hostile and new environment and how lucky they are to have the utilities that they use everyday.

The bottom line is that while it'd be nice to have every space agency and aerospace firm get along and band together in one virtuous mission, it is unrealistic to expect it on such flimsy bases as "humans have done great things before, like the pyramids and indoor plumbing." Any other model you propose for the mission must either admit a profit margin or be heavily government-funded: the former is, has been, and will continue to be impossible for the foreseeable future; the latter gives us no more than what we have now. Which is a lot, but not enough.

I understand that it would be a trying task to keep everyone happy. Also, I recognize the difference in inventing indoor plumbing and colonizing a new planet. The mission does not require a profit margin. For example the Apollo Program did not have a profit margin. Instead it spent millions and billions of dollars trying to compete with the Russian space program. Neither does the program have to be heavily government funded. There are quite a few billionaire corporations and industries around the globe, and even if they only have the support of millionaires, figures will eventually add up if they get enough sponsors.

e: I should add that I'd love to be proven wrong on this, and I'd love it if Mars One worked out like the Apollo Program (is a grand success); but the Apollo Program was a heavily regimented, ordered, and exceedingly well-funded government project that was given major priority by every upwards-facing aspect of the most powerful economic, militaristic, and technological authority of the time. Mars One has not so much going for it. Engineering for space is incredibly complicated, and the type of deep-space exploration this mission demands has never been accomplished by any official partner or supplier or sponsor of the Mars One group. It's simply far too much to expect.

I think everyone here in the CFC forums would absolutely rejoice if we were successful in settling mars (Or even just getting there). Yes, the Apollo Program was as you put it, "exceedingly well-funded government project that was given major priority by every upwards-facing aspect of the most powerful economic, militaristic, and technological authority of the time." But one of the things that I believe they are trying to do is to degovernmentize (New word :p) the idea of space flight. Alot of experts today even state that private space agencies are the only way to keep moving forward at this time. Yes, it has never been accomplished before. But neither was landing on the moon was it? Or even inventing indoor plumbing (Even though it has little significance in relation). Like the popular quotation, "Theres always a first time for everything," and I believe that we have finally reached that time.

And is anyone else thinking that setting up a permanent colony before the first human landing has even taken place is... grossly irresponsible? Or am I just uninformed about the current, sorry state of the world's non-robotic space programs?

Well Iggy, setting up a permanent settlement is the only way to get it done. Not only would it be ridiculously expensive to reach orbit there, but its tough enough to reach orbit here. It would be like trying to take off with a rocket that would carry another rocket on top and a lander capable of bringing it down safely to the martian surface without using the return rocket's fuel. Then the return rocket would have to enter obit around a planet that we have never returned from from the ground as of yet and still make it back to earth with a capsule capable of surviving the atmosphere. It's much simpler and less expensive to just have them stay there permanently.
 
Wow, spent over an hour writing that... :D
 
Well Iggy, setting up a permanent settlement is the only way to get it done. Not only would it be ridiculously expensive to reach orbit there, but its tough enough to reach orbit here. It would be like trying to take off with a rocket that would carry another rocket on top and a lander capable of bringing it down safely to the martian surface without using the return rocket's fuel. Then the return rocket would have to enter obit around a planet that we have never returned from from the ground as of yet and still make it back to earth with a capsule capable of surviving the atmosphere. It's much simpler and less expensive to just have them stay there permanently.
You're not very familiar with the history of proposed Mars missions, are you? Protip: it's not a question of engineering, it's a question of cost and mission planning. Writing off crew return says a lot about this program by itself. I can't even imagine how long the contract must be to sign on. A lot of "the plaintiff is not legally liable or responsible for," no doubt.

Also, I see no possible downsides arising from a loose, corporate affiliated group trying to...



Oh. Ohhh...
 
Guys, I think I have a solution to the problem of how to settle Mars.

Mars is a barren, red wasteland where the environment will slaughter you if you step outside unprotected. You know where else is a barren red wasteland where the environment is actively trying to kill you?

AUSTRALIA.

Now, Australia is such a barren wasteland that the British had to force people to go there as prisoners. In one fell swoop, they solved the issue of colonising another continent where nobody wanted to go as well as their issues of overcrowding in prisons, as well as the problem of people breaking out all the time - you break out in Australia, well, you're as good as dead anyway.

So what I'm proposing is that the United States starts sending its prisoners to Mars. Big Business will get on boards, particular the corporate prison industry, because they have a way to turn a profit on the program. The United States has a way to deal with its growing prison population - it can pack those in there for life off to Mars. And NASA and the scientific community gets funding for a target oriented, goal focused program that they can get behind. Everybody wins!

Mars. Its the perfect penal colony.
 
I think you missed that Australia had air, water, food, and people already living on it (racist!), and besides, the Moon is closer, cheaper, and deadlier, so it's a better prison. Try again.
ynNT4.gif
 
I'm with Grandkhan. We should abolish the death penalty and replace it with Martian exile.
 
You're not very familiar with the history of proposed Mars missions, are you? Protip: it's not a question of engineering, it's a question of cost and mission planning. Writing off crew return says a lot about this program by itself. I can't even imagine how long the contract must be to sign on. A lot of "the plaintiff is not legally liable or responsible for," no doubt.

No, as a matter of fact, I'm not very familiar with Mars Direct. Also, no where in the article has it been mentioned that any variation of the ERV has been built. It only says that the Mars Habitat Unit has been built. Also, it notes what I had also said earlier, that sending 20 people to Mars would still be cheaper than recovering even a 4 person team. It is much cheaper to send them for the foreseeable future than to return them.

EDIT: And besides, It's not like the astronauts could sue the organization when they're on Mars. As long as the astronauts volunteered to go, I see no problem with allowing them to.
 
I doubt we will see any long term settlement on Mars this century. If people go, it will be for propaganda and flag planting. Everything else will be robots, robots, robots. IMO.

But with single-stage-to-orbit craft appearing, its fun to think of people going to the Moon again, easier and cheaper. Tourism and scientific base(s), similar to what we have in Antartica now?

Seriously though, it seems to me that the global economy is due a massive re-adjustment. IMO the signs are clear that the whole finance system will fall apart sooner or later, due to the fact its built on imaginary wealth and manipulation. Space programs are probably going to be on the back burner for a few decades, or even longer, when we have economic collapse and massive civil disturbances going on.
 
The moon isn't a good penal colony because gravity on the moon is only 1.6 m/s/s. That means that being on the moon is fun - you can bounce around and all that jazz. Mars' gravitational attraction is 3.69 m/s/s, meaning you can't jump around as much and ergo its less fun.

And you can't have a prison thats fun, can you?
 
No, as a matter of fact, I'm not very familiar with Mars Direct. Also, no where in the article has it been mentioned that any variation of the ERV has been built. It only says that the Mars Habitat Unit has been built.
Broheim, let me stop you right there. If your method of validating the merits of a thing consists entirely of whether or not it physically exists already or not, I cannot continue this conversation in good faith.

EDIT: And besides, It's not like the astronauts could sue the organization when they're on Mars. As long as the astronauts volunteered to go, I see no problem with allowing them to.
Right, because voluntary suicide and voluntary slavery are not thorny moral issues. Also, these hypothetical astronauts would not have unscreened communications with people back home!

And you can't have a prison thats fun, can you?
Bone loss isn't fun. And Norwegian prisons are fun. So you lose both ways.
w5Hrh.gif
 
Wow, spent over an hour writing that... :D

I'm sorry to hear that.

Just going to put this out there, I'm a professional aerospace engineer and spend every day working with people who have been in the industry for 30 years or more. I have done contract work with NASA and am currently working on a NASA grant project. A lot of this I've heard comes from people who have been working on orbital trajectories, satellites, lunar landers, and rockets since 1957.

This is not just "Feel-good nonsense." There are indisputable facts that I believe make this mission a reality. More so comes from the fact that they are using pre-existing technology. No new technology needs to be developed to make this reality, it already exists.

If all the technology they needed to use was truly pre-existing (already designed, tested, developed, vetted), then we'd be on Mars. QED. Supposing that one could build this, that, or these, and then employ them in this or that wholly unique fashion is leagues apart from actually doing it. That's called engineering.

Yes, they do indeed promise that it is a governmentless endeavor. And yes, they will indeed need to rely on other space agencies. One reason is that they are colonizing mars... They clearly stated that they want the entire global community to take part in the mission, not just one nation or space program to achieve this. They will rely on all of those different space agencies to build their corresponding parts that they already promised the organization that they will provide.

I know full well what they want, I'm just pointing out how the reality of the matter collides with it. I reiterate: you're either bringing in private money, which won't be enough unless you can promise a profit (see the reality TV show); or government money, in which case congratulations because you're siphoning funds from worthier projects.

I agree that its not just about money. They do/will require expertise and seasoned technicians. But look at the team they have already assembled. Then look at how many advisors they have obtained in the last few months. This is only one the first years of the organization, do you actually think that they will not acquire anymore 'expertise and technicians' in the ten years still to come? Would any well reknowned physcist or expert want to be left out of what could become one of the most historical moments in human civilization to-date?

See, this is all unsubstantiated balderdash. You're appealing to emotion. By what mechanism will all these "reknowned physcists" flock to Mars One? You don't suppose maybe they aren't busy with their own crap? That maybe their skills have demand and that's why they cost money? And the "team" they've already assembled consists of half-hearted empty promises from a few big names. I'm not saying it's impossible, but other than romantic appeals to the GREATNESS OF HUMANITY, there's no reason for any aerospace group intended on profit to throw its hat in the ring.

Have you read further into the wikipedia (Not incredibly reliable anyway) article that you have also added to your post? Just a couple sentences after it mentions the reality TV show (Okay, so I was wrong about that) it says it would estimately cost about $6 Billion US Dollars. $6 Billion dollars is a large number I realize, but not unattainable. Provided below in the spoiler is one way they will plan to raise money for the trip:

See, that's what's amusing. $6 billion seems a bit low. NASA would agree: if that were the pricetag, NASA could go to Mars three times a year. Right now. Using this technology that we allegedly have access to at this very minute.

So this means one of two things: NASA is incompetent, or Mars One is practicing undue optimism. Given that NASA is bar none the most professional group of spacefarers in the world (certainly the most successful), I'm kind of leaning towards the latter.

Don't forget that these are only initial sponsors. It is foreseen that they will acquire more sponsorships later on.

Yes, the sponsors for the components have mostly only sent "letters of interest" back. I'm not denying it. But once again think about how new the organization's mission is. Mars One has only just recently got around to visiting the suppliers, December 27 of 2012 to be exact. They are only a few weeks into asking the sponsors. I'm sure that none of those companies want to just jump right into anything, they will want to carefully go through all their options and opportunities first.

Exactly! And that's why they will continue to be reluctant as the gap closes. You're relying on the good will and extra-profit interests of bloody corporations. That is a dubious proposition at best.

Yes, so I misunderstood that part. I understood that they intended to have around four 24/7/365 live camera feeds being broadcasted back to earth
constantly for anyone to view. And what would be so bad about educating the audience (the globe) about what it takes to live in such a hostile and new environment and how lucky they are to have the utilities that they use everyday.

It's a gimmick, the purpose of which is to make investment attractive. Nothing's bad about showing everybody Mars, but this is moreorless what they're depending on to keep the gristmills turning.

I understand that it would be a trying task to keep everyone happy. Also, I recognize the difference in inventing indoor plumbing and colonizing a new planet. The mission does not require a profit margin. For example the Apollo Program did not have a profit margin. Instead it spent millions and billions of dollars trying to compete with the Russian space program. Neither does the program have to be heavily government funded. There are quite a few billionaire corporations and industries around the globe, and even if they only have the support of millionaires, figures will eventually add up if they get enough sponsors.

The Apollo Program didn't have a profit margin, yes, because it was a government project. Mars One is private industry, and that much is only sustained in good health (much less for billions of dollars) when you're looking at making money.

You are stating the obvious which is if they get enough money, then they will have enough money. I think so, yes. But I also think that they won't get enough money and there's little reason to think that they will.

You should note I have barely touched on the sheer unfeasibility of the project itself, and that is because you have deflected such concerns with "humans have achieved great things before." Uh huh. Well, as an engineer, I like to have somewhat more substantial assurances on technical details than that.

But one of the things that I believe they are trying to do is to degovernmentize (New word :p) the idea of space flight. Alot of experts today even state that private space agencies are the only way to keep moving forward at this time.

"A lot of experts" huh? You mean like Elon Musk? Whose corporation is currently the biggest in private space exploration but receives half of all of its capital from NASA?

Truly private space exploration is still a long ways off. I'd say before it can really get going, we need to do away with ridiculous ideas like "get to Mars in ten years on a third of NASA's budget!"

Like the popular quotation, "Theres always a first time for everything," and I believe that we have finally reached that time.

"Believe" is an appropriate word since this notion is rooted in a desire for wish-fulfillment rather than any rational analysis.
 
BONUS POST!

I've decided that you will win my faith if you or Mars One can satisfactorily complete a very rudimentary mission plan. This shouldn't be too difficult since apparently the problem is already solved. Whatever the rest of us are missing should be explained, too. And in an act of good graciousness, I won't require any explanation of Earth launch. Let's say the Falcon performs impeccably under all circumstances.

I just need to know:

1. Propulsion type/magnitude for transit cruise stage
2. Mars atmospheric entry details (angle of incidence, landing zone, reentry corridor, lift-based variations, ballistic variations, weight of payload*, type/contours of heat shield)
3. Landing details (powered landing, experimental design incorporation, shock absorbers, landing gears, stress analyses, weight of payload)
4. Surface operations (establishment of permanent living quarters, safety precautions, contamination procedures, sustainability in energy [if solar, that'd be a big problem; if nuclear, bigger], sustainability in food [how do you grow food on an alien planet], other amenities, radio equipment, other hi-tech gear to fulfill god-knows-what needs are created by the hellish conditions of a merciless and hostile planet).
5. Contingency plans for when things screw up (they always screw up)
6. Long-term colonial maintenance (what happens if host corporation loses all money, or in some other way is forced to cease contact/support to the Mars colony? woops!)

*Notable in itself because I guarantee the payload will exceed 3000 kilograms and there's no way to stabilize that entry ballistically (believe me: I did the math). That means you need to get creative, and our options for getting creative with reentry don't exactly inspire confidence.

I've looked all over and I haven't seen any mission plan that comes close to assuaging these concerns. I've seen lots of talk of OUR GREAT SPONSORS! and MARS REALITY TV!, but virtually nothing when it comes to hard details. And I will stand by my skepticism until I see a plan that makes some lick of sense.
 
Seriously, let's forget about Mars and get back to the moon. Soon, Mars One will become Alpha Centauri One before we're anywhere close to colonizing our own solar system. We're talking about a plan that involves things we haven't even come close to achieving on a hunk of rock so close that it occasionally blots out the sun.

Luna is where it's at, man.
 
Also, there's nothing commercially valuable on Mars*, and the profit returns on entertainment aren't the greatest (just ask Hollywood on anything that isn't a blockbuster). Also, as a different aside, private financing sucks for large-scale enterprises. For example, private relief for Hurricane Sandy took in $400 million, which is actually really good for private; the relief bill calls for $51 billion, and if Hurricane Katrina was any indication, you can probably double that. One of the unique things about stuff like space flight is that costs always go up and it's never on time or on budget. The implications are easy to draw.

* No, not even (invariably primitive) hypothetical life. There are exactly two things in space currently that worth the trip: extremely rare transition metals, and Helium-3. As to Mars itself as real estate, sure, but for it to be valuable real estate you're going to have to invest double-digit or more billions in R&D or industrial applications to get it there.
 
All the above is assuming there will be money, and functioning society.
 
All the above is assuming there will be money, and functioning society.
If you're going to be afraid of something, even the Pentagon is worried about climate change, not the demise of capitalism or something.
w5Hrh.gif
 
I'm still lost at how one links together the fact that "the world economy is built on imaginary wealth (intangible assets)" with the conclusion that "it must therefore collapse". I just don't see the mechanism? (This discussion is also rather ironic given that we're all typing on an intangible asset).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom