Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

bendy

Mars One Project

Recommended Posts

Has to be IMO. Reality TV show :blink:

I reckon the 24 who get 'picked' will be told there's no chance you're going to Mars, but you will be a celebrity!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has to be IMO. Reality TV show :blink:

I reckon the 24 who get 'picked' will be told there's no chance you're going to Mars, but you will be a celebrity!

That was my initial thought, too, but there seems to be no shortage of credible experts who opine that the technology and economics are viable (if no attempt to bring them back is factored in to the project).

What is more likely, I suspect, is either that governments of the countries involved will step in and veto the project (in other words, they won't find any suitably equipped nation that is willing to let the rocket be blasted off from its territory), and/or that one or more of the selected people will bottle out. In relation to the former, I am surprised that regulation hasn't been mentioned in all the discussion around this project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was my initial thought, too, but there seems to be no shortage of credible experts who opine that the technology and economics are viable (if no attempt to bring them back is factored in to the project).

What is more likely, I suspect, is either that governments of the countries involved will step in and veto the project (in other words, they won't find any suitably equipped nation that is willing to let the rocket be blasted off from its territory), and/or that one or more of the selected people will bottle out. In relation to the former, I am surprised that regulation hasn't been mentioned in all the discussion around this project.

Last time I looked, the combined space budgets of the world were smaller than the UK military budget..

Much easier to set up a Mars colony if the settlers are not coming back any time soon. May even be safer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24 peoples mass suicide to be broadcast to the world?

How are they going to handle the relationship side of this, is it going to be an open commune? Are the women all going to be sterilised before being sent?

If you are the last one alive will they be providing suicide pills?

Will they also be sending supplies every year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24 peoples mass suicide to be broadcast to the world?

How are they going to handle the relationship side of this, is it going to be an open commune? Are the women all going to be sterilised before being sent?

If you are the last one alive will they be providing suicide pills?

Will they also be sending supplies every year?

It is precisely because of this sort of question that I speculate that no national government will want to risk sanctioning the launch of the spaceship from their territory. What if the relatives of the departed (both literally and figuratively) start some sort of legal action, for one thing?

Other speculative questions:

How will criminal behaviour among the people who go be dealt with? Are we going to see a Lord of the Flies scenario?

What will happen if any of the people who go get seriously ill with a problem that could be treated on Earth but not on Mars?

Has the risk been considered that the colonisers may multiply, make the planet habitable, and then in a few generations' time attack Earth?

What if they attempt successfully to return, bringing diseases, poisonous material etc. back with them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.mars-one.com/mission/risks-and-challenges

Mars One takes on the challenge of establishing a settlement on Mars with the same frame of mind, knowing all great endeavors, especially space exploration, incorporate risk of lost time, resources, ... and sometimes lives. Venturing to Mars is no exception.

The challenge is to identify the risks in every step of the ten year Mission, from astronaut selection through training, from launch to living on Mars. Mars One has incorporated into its Mission plan a detailed risk analysis protocol, built by highly experienced individuals, some of them with experience at NASA and the ESA. Ever evolving, ever improving, Mars One is constantly working to reduce the risk of delay and failure at every level.

For example, the Mars lander will be tested eight times prior to the landing of the first crew, using identical vehicles. As is standard in the aerospace industry, every component will be selected for its simplicity, durability, and capacity to be repaired using the facilities that are available to the astronauts on Mars.

An important aspect of risk management is for quality information to be shared between suppliers and made readily available to all parties. In the case of the Mars One Mission, this includes sponsors, investors, aerospace suppliers, and of course, the astronauts themselves. Because the Mission is ultimately funded and supported by the global audience, Mars One also desires for the general public to have a sense of what the risks are and how Mars One is working to mitigate them.

Mars One identifies two major risk categories: the loss of human life and cost overruns.

Human Life

Human space exploration is dangerous at all levels. After more than fifty years of humans leaving the far Earth below, the risk of space flight is similar to that of climbing Mount Everest.

Mars is an unforgiving environment where a small mistake or accident can result in large failure, injury, and death. Every component must work perfectly. Every system (and its backup) must function without fail or human life is at risk.

With advances in technology, shared experience between space agencies, what was once a one-shot endeavor becomes routine and space travel does become more viable.

Cost overruns

Cost overruns are also not uncommon in large projects in any arena. The risk for cost overrun in the Mars One Mission is reduced by using existing technologies, and by the fact that about 66% of the cost is associated with launch and landing--both of which are well understood and proven variables.

The proposed Mars One budget includes a large safety margin to take into account significant mission failures as well as smaller but costly failures of components on Mars.

Mars One has developed a detailed risk analysis profile which guides both its internal technical development as well as the relationships it builds with its aerospace suppliers. This risk analysis profile will continue to evolve and improve over the years prior to the first humans walking on the planet Mars.

- See more at: http://www.mars-one.com/mission/risks-and-challenges#sthash.zb8xNq6u.dpuf

http://www.mars-one.com/faq/mission-to-mars/what-governmental-system-and-social-structure-will-be-implemented-on-mars

What governmental system and social structure will be implemented on Mars?

The astronauts will be facing the task of determining how to organize themselves politically in order to ensure fair and reasonable decision-making processes. During the preparation program, they will expand their knowledge on different forms of social organization on Earth, and how cultures vary in terms of determining issues of social structure (e.g. social hierarchy, distribution of power, approaches to decision-making, kinship structure, and management of resources).

Early on, because the settlement will be very small, it is likely that most decisions will be collective and require unanimity. As the community grows it will become necessary to develop more complex systems for managing conflict and maintaining effective ways to make decisions. Mars One will provide training and a database of knowledge about human social organization to assist in that process as the settlement grows.

Not sure this really goes in depth enough, but this is what it says on the Mars One site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is precisely because of this sort of question that I speculate that no national government will want to risk sanctioning the launch of the spaceship from their territory. What if the relatives of the departed (both literally and figuratively) start some sort of legal action, for one thing?

If they signed a contract under English Law to weaver all rights would their relatives be able to sue?

One way around it would be a sea launch in international waters, although I admit that in itself would pose interesting technical challenges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24 peoples mass suicide to be broadcast to the world?

How are they going to handle the relationship side of this, is it going to be an open commune? Are the women all going to be sterilised before being sent?

If you are the last one alive will they be providing suicide pills?

Will they also be sending supplies every year?

Relationships.. you'd want to send more people. And make sure that everyone is psychologically screened. Plus, you are looking to establish a colony, so sterilization is out of the question.

I think the multi-decade aim would be to use the base as a staging-post for asteroid mining. Basic resupply of missions would be a lot easier from the Mars gravity well. There would almost certainly be technological spin-offs as well..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they signed a contract under English Law to weaver all rights would their relatives be able to sue?

No, but they would probably receive a nice rug. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure this really goes in depth enough, but this is what it says on the Mars One site.

Somewhere in my mum's attic there's a book with an introduction by Patrick Moore filled with predictions and illustrations of happy families holidaying on the Moon. I loved that book.

It's been 40 years plus (and counting) since the last person left Earth's orbit. There has been zero practical progress in shuttling people to somewhere as relatively close as the Moon let alone living on it and, yet, some people seem to be taking this Mars b0ll0cks at least halfway seriously.

Come the aching psychological need. Come the shysters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time I looked, the combined space budgets of the world were smaller than the UK military budget..

Are you counting military spending on spacey stuff? There's a distinct possibility they're spending cr@p loads. e.g. / e.g.#2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this could be done by robots without sending people.

The robots could build a load of infrastructure and then once it is ready the people come along.

This is a lot more sensible than sending a load of people in a tent.

Unless you can find a way of making their stay self suistainable there are going to be some real issues sooner or later.

Let's say they get their, and survive, but start to run out of supplies. Who is going to pay to send another rocket up ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhere in my mum's attic there's a book with an introduction by Patrick Moore filled with predictions and illustrations of happy families holidaying on the Moon. I loved that book.

It's been 40 years plus (and counting) since the last person left Earth's orbit. There has been zero practical progress in shuttling people to somewhere as relatively close as the Moon let alone living on it and, yet, some people seem to be taking this Mars b0ll0cks at least halfway seriously.

Come the aching psychological need. Come the shysters.

I doubt you need that much more to get to Mars compared to the moon, but I really can't see scaling up beyond the size of Saturn V to take that many people, along with everything they would need to survive, being remotely viable. One person, with just enough to get there and have a quick poke around before dying, perhaps. That would be technologically and economically viable (albeit risky), just pointless compared with sending out robots from a scientific point of view and obviously pointless for a colonisation effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt you need that much more to get to Mars compared to the moon, but I really can't see scaling up beyond the size of Saturn V to take that many people, along with everything they would need to survive, being remotely viable. One person, with just enough to get there and have a quick poke around before dying, perhaps. That would be technologically and economically viable (albeit risky), just pointless compared with sending out robots from a scientific point of view and obviously pointless for a colonisation effort.

It's a possibility that, at some point after Apollo, someone somewhere sat down and decided that we're miles away from the capability to put together spaceships that can shield a human crew from all the nastiness out there.

Even the relatively straightforward, unmanned Mars missions have suffered WW1-grade casualty rates.

Fair play to people considering and discussing the challenges presented by space travel. Pretending anyone is off to Mars in the near future smacks of scammery and delusion afaic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a possibility that, at some point after Apollo, someone somewhere sat down and decided that we're miles away from the capability to put together spaceships that can shield a human crew from all the nastiness out there.

Even the relatively straightforward, unmanned Mars missions have suffered WW1-grade casualty rates.

Fair play to people considering and discussing the challenges presented by space travel. Pretending anyone is off to Mars in the near future smacks of scammery and delusion afaic.

I agree, unfortunately. Some of what has caused Mars missions to be lost might not happen if there were people on board capable of doing something about the problem when it happens but that's hardly going to outweigh the extra complications of keeping people on board alive. I still believe that getting one or two people to Mars is technologically and economically possible, but risky and alas fairly pointless. Still, if the more ridiculous ideas pave the way for sounder ones in the future then that's fine by me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, unfortunately. Some of what has caused Mars missions to be lost might not happen if there were people on board capable of doing something about the problem when it happens but that's hardly going to outweigh the extra complications of keeping people on board alive. I still believe that getting one or two people to Mars is technologically and economically possible, but risky and alas fairly pointless. Still, if the more ridiculous ideas pave the way for sounder ones in the future then that's fine by me.

Mars is a bit easier to live on than the moon. The temperatures are not so incompatible with earth temperatures. The variation is less. Water is probably more available. The atmosphere reduces the radiation risk a bit and protects to a degree from meterorites.

There is also a larger range of minerals etc on the surface, so more chance that the base products can be manipulated into something useful.

That said there are some issues. I think power would be a big one. Mars is further away from the sun and has an atmosphere which reduces the possibilty for solar. The dust storms kick up dust which coats solar panels. The two MER rovers have had problems with this.

Storms sound good for wind, but the Mars atmosphere I think is 1/1000th the pressure of the earths, so not so good for wind generated power.

So where to get the power from ? Maybe in some way from the freezing/melting of the polar caps in winter. Or nuclear via reactors sent from earth. It probably wouldn't be popular to put that much plutonium in orbit.

Once you have an abundant source of power you can do lots of stuff. But the problem is there is no obvious source to my mind of where that power source is on Mars, whereas on the moon you could get it from solar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How will criminal behaviour among the people who go be dealt with? Are we going to see a Lord of the Flies scenario?

Nah, probably not.

More likely we'll take a look at the law-man beating up the wrong guy...

XYY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt you need that much more to get to Mars compared to the moon, but I really can't see scaling up beyond the size of Saturn V to take that many people, along with everything they would need to survive, being remotely viable. One person, with just enough to get there and have a quick poke around before dying, perhaps. That would be technologically and economically viable (albeit risky), just pointless compared with sending out robots from a scientific point of view and obviously pointless for a colonisation effort.

A mission where you in the end die described as "risky"???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a possibility that, at some point after Apollo, someone somewhere sat down and decided that we're miles away from the capability to put together spaceships that can shield a human crew from all the nastiness out there.

That's if we actually got to the moon.....

Man first flys in Dec 1903 man lands on Moon July 1969, at that rate we should have got working Space stations in the 2001 variety, a moon base and man landing on Mars by now.

Although the technical difficulties to overcome are perhaps greater than blasting off a huge analogue bomb with a man strapped to it to the moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's if we actually got to the moon.....

Man first flys in Dec 1903 man lands on Moon July 1969, at that rate we should have got working Space stations in the 2001 variety, a moon base and man landing on Mars by now.

The comparison I like to make is that forty years after the Wright Flyer Germans were scuttling round in twin-engined, swept wing jets. That was back when the pace of technological change was allegedly slower than today. Forty years after Apollo, the US is less capable of launching manned missions.

We're halfway to Apollo 11 slipping beyond living memory.

That's not me claiming Apollo was bogus but it is odd, and not in keeping with the normal human experience in other fields. Even the most pointless, futile exploratory destinations (which I don't believe the Moon is) are subject to repeat visits and once people figure out how to do something, refinement of that process ordinarily leaps ahead.

And it's plain perverse that people are talking about (and marketing) the impending colonisation of Mars when we've made 0% progress establishing a semi-permanent presence on a lump of rock that's days rather than months away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mars is a bit easier to live on than the moon. The temperatures are not so incompatible with earth temperatures. The variation is less. Water is probably more available. The atmosphere reduces the radiation risk a bit and protects to a degree from meterorites.

There is also a larger range of minerals etc on the surface, so more chance that the base products can be manipulated into something useful.

That said there are some issues. I think power would be a big one. Mars is further away from the sun and has an atmosphere which reduces the possibilty for solar. The dust storms kick up dust which coats solar panels. The two MER rovers have had problems with this.

Storms sound good for wind, but the Mars atmosphere I think is 1/1000th the pressure of the earths, so not so good for wind generated power.

So where to get the power from ? Maybe in some way from the freezing/melting of the polar caps in winter. Or nuclear via reactors sent from earth. It probably wouldn't be popular to put that much plutonium in orbit.

Once you have an abundant source of power you can do lots of stuff. But the problem is there is no obvious source to my mind of where that power source is on Mars, whereas on the moon you could get it from solar.

There were always issues with RTGs when spacecraft were involved with sling-shot acceleration about the Earth.

Solar irradiance at Mars is typically just under half of that seen on Earth, about 5-600Wm-2 so solar wouldn't be a complete bust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's if we actually got to the moon.....

Man first flys in Dec 1903 man lands on Moon July 1969, at that rate we should have got working Space stations in the 2001 variety, a moon base and man landing on Mars by now.

Although the technical difficulties to overcome are perhaps greater than blasting off a huge analogue bomb with a man strapped to it to the moon.

Bear in mind that people have been trying, unsuccessfully, to fly for hundreds of years (and we're talking just getting off the ground!).

We probably need to develop a new power supply that can generate sufficiently greater specific impulses in order to lift heavier payloads into space/orbit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bear in mind that people have been trying, unsuccessfully, to fly for hundreds of years (and we're talking just getting off the ground!).

We probably need to develop a new power supply that can generate sufficiently greater specific impulses in order to lift heavier payloads into space/orbit.

You mean glide? To stand any chance of getting off the ground you need power and that for the most part was beyond the technology of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   218 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.