Mars One mission to launch lander in 4 years

[seeder]

Company planning mission to Mars with 200,000 willing volunteers unveils plan for satellite and lander it intends to launch in just four years

* Candidates include a Swedish prison guard and a stand-up comedian

* Hopefuls said they would pack items such as a ukulele and a fluffy mongoose

* 200,000 people around the world have signed up for one-way mission

* Between 24 and 40 candidates will be chosen for the Mars One programme

Mars One announced Tuesday that it has hired Lockheed Martin Space Systems and Surrey Satellite Technology to design a satellite and lander that it intends to launch in just four years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2521764/Mars-One-announces-contract-Lockheed-Martin-Surrey-Satellite-design-space-mission.html#ixzz2n9ocjj9G

[toast]

Polluting foreign planets with idiots is not in compliance with Darwin`s laws, so the evolutionary power will avoid it.

Edited December 11, 2013 by toast

[Sundew]

I can think of a few people in public office I would like to "volunteer" for the journey......

[Junior Chubb]

Is this still rolling on? Only Kamikaze pilots need apply.

[MJNYC]

Wow, so glad to see that you all are thinking the same thing. I just keep thinking you'd have to be out of your mind. why would anyone do this? LOL

[Timothy]

It just feels like too much, too soon.

Imagine the waiver the successful candidates would need to sign!

[Waspie_Dwarf]

I'm sure that when the Polynesians decided to set sail on their one way voyages there were naysayers that said they were stupid. Fortunately the naysayers were ignored, the Polynesians spread throughout the Pacific and prospered.

Personally I don't think the time is right for this, we simply don't know enough to guarantee the safety of the intrepid voyagers. I'm also not convinced that "reality" TV is the correct reason to do this, but the idea is right. If mankind is to become a multi-planet species (and we will need to if we wish to survive) then one day colonists from Earth will need to make the one way voyage to other planets.

This is not suicide, this is progress; the next logical evolutionary step for humanity.

[Calibeliever]

One of the things missing from this concept that helped fuel human global expansion through the centuries is resources. New lands meant new sources of food, raw materials and wealth. The possibility of those made the risk of leaving home worthwhile. Mars doesn't seem to currently offer any of these niceties, so it stands to reason that this effort is doomed from the start. Personally I don't see the point, unless of course it's another Golgafrincham trick, ergo the "B" ark ... hehe, then I'd be in favor [ref: Douglas Adams]

[Bavarian Raven]

I'm sure that when the Polynesians decided to set sail on their one way voyages there were naysayers that said they were stupid. Fortunately the naysayers were ignored, the Polynesians spread throughout the Pacific and prospered.

Personally I don't think the time is right for this, we simply don't know enough to guarantee the safety of the intrepid voyagers. I'm also not convinced that "reality" TV is the correct reason to do this, but the idea is right. If mankind is to become a multi-planet species (and we will need to if we wish to survive) then one day colonists from Earth will need to make the one way voyage to other planets.

This is not suicide, this is progress; the next logical evolutionary step for humanity.

This. ^

Even if they sadly do perish, we will have gained valuable insight inside space colonization from their attempt :/

[Dark_Grey]

I'm sure that when the Polynesians decided to set sail on their one way voyages there were naysayers that said they were stupid. Fortunately the naysayers were ignored, the Polynesians spread throughout the Pacific and prospered.

Personally I don't think the time is right for this, we simply don't know enough to guarantee the safety of the intrepid voyagers. I'm also not convinced that "reality" TV is the correct reason to do this, but the idea is right. If mankind is to become a multi-planet species (and we will need to if we wish to survive) then one day colonists from Earth will need to make the one way voyage to other planets.

This is not suicide, this is progress; the next logical evolutionary step for humanity.

Exactly. If we want a fantastic omelete, we're going to have to be ready to break a few eggs. Like the first monkeys shot in to space, sacrifice can be necessary evil.

But who knows - the mission may go incredibly smoothly and all of the "astronauts" may live long lives on the red planet's surface...

Wow, so glad to see that you all are thinking the same thing. I just keep thinking you'd have to be out of your mind. why would anyone do this? LOL

Haven't you ever wanted to do something extraordinary? There are fewer and fewer "firsts" that one can claim in this day and age. This opportunity to forever be recorded in history as the FIRST human being to set foot on Mars is nothing short of incredible. I don't want to live the same life a thousand others have, just flickering into existence and going out just as quick. As silly as some aspects of Mars One may be, it's a little short-sighted of you to dismiss the whole program without seeing this for what it really is:

The first ever mission to put human beings on another planet.

[seeder]

The first ever mission to put human beings on another planet.

Who face certain death in a media circus like the movie The Running Man... living your two or 3, or less - last years in a capsule that would drive many potty in months...

But someone has to go...

And yes from my words you can tell Im hesitant about it all...But Id rather the technology/food production/water supply etc would all be sorted first...

[Gumball]

I'm sure that when the Polynesians decided to set sail on their one way voyages there were naysayers that said they were stupid. Fortunately the naysayers were ignored, the Polynesians spread throughout the Pacific and prospered.

Personally I don't think the time is right for this, we simply don't know enough to guarantee the safety of the intrepid voyagers. I'm also not convinced that "reality" TV is the correct reason to do this, but the idea is right. If mankind is to become a multi-planet species (and we will need to if we wish to survive) then one day colonists from Earth will need to make the one way voyage to other planets.

This is not suicide, this is progress; the next logical evolutionary step for humanity.

Hold on, the Polynesians could still breath oxygen, eat food, and hunt for supplies and if anything went wrong maybe still had a chance of surviving to tell the tale. This is hardly setting out on a boat across the ocean to find new lands. This is heading into space with no guarantee of results, no chance of return and very very possibly a crew of idiots piloting your rocket fueled coffin, not seasoned sailors/fishermen/navigators. Sorry to disagree, man but there is a very big chance this is suicide.

[DONTEATUS]

I will go If someone pays my way !

[coolguy]

I hope this is true and not just science fiction . And I hope they put a base on the moon in our life time I wanna see it

[skookum]

I can't see this happening.

When you think about it Nasa and the Russian space agency have been working for decades to try to solve how that would get astronauts just to survive the journey there.

These jokers think they with find a solution to this, build a rocket capable of the journey and carry many tonnes of equipment in about a decade.

I would imagine they will need many launches to carry that sort of volume and weight, each launch the travel time is 6 months. So it will be at least 6 months per launch before you will know it is successful.

[seeder]

About the radiation (From Mars One website)

Radiation on the way to Mars

A study published in the journal Science in May 2013 calculates 662 +/ 108 millisieverts (mSv) of radiation exposure for a 360 day return trip, as measured by the Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD). The study shows that ninety five percent of the radiation received by the RAD instrument came from Galactic Cosmic Rays or GCRs, which are hard to shield against without use of prohibitive shielding mass (1).

The 210-day journey Mars One settlers will take, amounts to radiation exposure of 386 +/- 63 mSv, considering these recent measurements as standard. This exposure is below the upper limits of accepted standards for an astronaut career: European Space Agency, Russian Space Agency and Canadian Space Agency limit is 1000 mSv; NASA limits are between 600-1200mSv, depending on sex and age (1)

Mars transit habitat radiation shelter

On the way to Mars, the crew will be protected from solar particles by the structure of the spacecraft. The crew will receive general protection of 10-15 gr/cm2 shielding from the structure of the Mars transit vehicle. In case of a solar flare or Solar Particle Event (SPE), this shielding will not suffice and the crew will retreat to a dedicated radiation shelter in Mars Transit habitat, taking their cue from the onboard radiation monitoring and alert system. The dedicated radiation shelter located in the hollow water tank, will provide additional shielding to the level of 40 gr/cm2. The astronauts should expect one SPE every two months on average and a total of three or four during their entire trip, with each one usually lasting not more than a couple of days.

Radiation on Mars

Mars's surface receives more radiation than the Earth's but still blocks a considerable amount. Radiation exposure on the surface is 30 µSv per hour during solar minimum; during solar maximum, dosage equivalent of this exposure is reduced by the factor two (2).

If the settlers spend on average three hours every three days outside the habitat, their individual exposure adds up to 11 mSv per year.

The Mars One habitat will be covered by several meters of soil, which provides reliable shielding even against galactic cosmic rays. Five meters of soil provides the same protection as the Earth's atmosphere-- equivalent to 1,000 g/cm2 of shielding.

With the help of a forecasting system taking shelter in the habitat can prevent radiation exposure from SPEs.

http://www.mars-one.com/en/faq-en/19-faq-health/185-will-the-astronauts-suffer-from-radiation

Note the bolded, several meters is a lot of digging!

[promKing]

You know this could be a really good thing to humanity since it would probably inspire many people to go into science, just like going to the Moon did. Mars is harsh. Its settlers will need not only technology, but the scientific outlook, creativity, and free-thinking inventiveness that stand behind it. Mars will not allow itself to be settled by people from a static society. Settling the Red Planet will drive the development of ever faster modes of space transportation; terraforming Mars will drive the development of new and more powerful sources of energy. Both of these capabilities in turn will open up new frontiers ever deeper into the outer solar system, and the harder challenges posed by these new environments will drive the two key technologies of power and propulsion ever more forcefully. The key is not to let the process stop.

[skookum]

Another concern is the effects of being weightless for 6 months and then being pushed into an environment where there would be a lot of construction, setting things up just to survive. I appreciate that Mars has less gravity and people have survived in weightless environments for far longer.

They will suffer muscle deterioration and may not be capable physically of setting up a base when they arrived. I read sometime back it was a major concern when Nasa started to think about manned Mars missions. People who have been on the space stations for any length of time sometimes need help just to stand up on their return.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

People who have been on the space stations for any length of time sometimes need help just to stand up on their return.

Things have moved on since then.

With the exercise regime that astronauts/cosmonauts go through they can generally walk almost as soon as they land. Muscle wasting is minimal (bone loss is more of a concern).

The Russians have been looking into the ability of cosmonauts to do complex tasks after long duration missions. In March Russian cosmonauts Oleg Novitsky and Yevgeny Tarelkin simulated landing a spacecraft on Mars, using a centrifuge, immediately after returning from a sixth month mission on the ISS (see HERE).

[Junior Chubb]

This is not suicide, this is progress; the next logical evolutionary step for humanity.

I hope you signed up then

[Waspie_Dwarf]

I hope you signed up then

I may be an optimist about the future of spaceflight but I am a realist when it comes to my own abilities. there is no way an overweight, unfit, very short sighted, diabetic, 48 year old is going to be selected.

You have been very selective in which part of my post you quoted. I left wonder at the reason you ignored me saying this:

Personally I don't think the time is right for this, we simply don't know enough to guarantee the safety of the intrepid voyagers. I'm also not convinced that "reality" TV is the correct reason to do this

[Junior Chubb]

I may be an optimist about the future of spaceflight but I am a realist when it comes to my own abilities. there is no way an overweight, unfit, very short sighted, diabetic, 48 year old is going to be selected.

You have been very selective in which part of my post you quoted. I left wonder at the reason you ignored me saying this:

Of course it was selective, it was a quip (with a winking smiley at the end) rather than a constructive break down of your post.

I didn't really want to get into the rest of your post, you seemed to 'want to' disagree with other peoples opinions of the Mars One project while ultimately agreeing with them. So I will do the same...

I agree on the importance of exploration, especially to the stars. Doing this on the back of a reality TV show is not a good idea. It all seems the wrong way around to me. Once we have colonised other parts of the cosmos safely, then we can play 'reality TV' in space.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

I didn't really want to get into the rest of your post, you seemed to 'want to' disagree with other peoples opinions of the Mars One project while ultimately agreeing with them.

It's not that I want to disagree with them.

There have been quite a few thread on this topic and I have tried to keep out of them because my position can come across as ambiguous. It isn't but I didn't want to spend a long time explaining it. However as I've foolishly allowed myself to be sucked in I'll try to explain.

There are many good reasons why I do not believe that the model chosen for Mars One is a good one, however many of the reasons people are giving are not based on the reality of what Mars One is about, rather a false impression they have.

In other words I agree with people that Mars One is a bad idea, I disagree on WHY it is a bad idea.

Let me give you a few examples.

When people see that this is a reality TV concept many just think "Big Brother" and assume that Mars One is going to throw together a bunch of socially inadequate misfits for our amusement. However that is not what they are planning to do. They have a very strong, highly qualified advisory board (see HERE) including at least two medical doctors, one with extensive psychology experience. These are people that would not risk their considerable professional reputations on something is banal as "Big Brother in Space".

Mars One are a serious organisation.

So I disagree with this oft repeated argument against Mars One whilst agreeing that the reality TV concept is a bad idea. The reason I dislike the concept is this; Apollo showed back in the sixties that the public's interest wanes very quickly. By Apollo 13 (just the 3rd landing mission) no US network was taking the live broadcasts from the crew.

Mars One will need to keep public interest going for nine years before the first crew are even launched. Crew selection is due to take place in 2015 with the first crew launch in 2024. I simply do not believe that they will be able to maintain public interest for that length of time. No public interest = no advertising revenue = no mission.

Worse still, if the mission takes place then the idea is to send more crew members every 2 years to expand the colony. What happens if the public lose interest 3 years after the first crew arrive? What happens if Mars One does not have enough revenue to maintain the colony? Who is going to bail them out?

___________________________

The next complaint that some people have is that this is a suicide mission. I think people misunderstand what Mars One mean when they say that the colonists will die on Mars. Through out human history people have left their homes and travelled far, in search of a new future, never to return. These people died in some foreign land, but they were not on a suicide mission.

Whilst I disagree with the "suicide mission" argument I also acknowledge that colonising Mars will be dangerous. There is a very high likelihood of accidents. Colonists may well die.

Space exploration is dangerous, the loss of two space shuttles reminds us of that. Just because it is dangerous doesn't mean we shouldn't try. However I suspect that people will feel a lot more uneasy about a "reality TV" astronaut dying than one on a government mission of exploration. The idea (even though it is not he intention) that people are dying for our amusement will seem repellent to many people.

___________________________

The next complaint that people have is that it is all a con. Mars One are just ripping people off for the money. Again I disagree. Mars One has been set up as a not for profit organisation. It is not operating in some dodgy tax haven island but in the Netherlands. they are subject to Dutch and European Union financial law. Of course this doesn't mean they aren't an elaborate con trick, but once again I advise people to look at the board of advisers. These are not conmen but highly regarded experts. There is no evidence of financial irregularity.

Having disagreed with the accusation of a con, I agree that this is not the way to finance the colonisation of Mars. Most of my reasoning for this I have already laid out in my first point; if public interest wanes then the project collapses financially.

___________________________

So those are my reasons for not believing Mars One is the right way to go. I agree with the conclusions of many of those who have posted against the idea, but not the reasoning behind those conclusions.

So why then do I seem, at times, to be defending the Mars One concept?

Because the concept of sending one way missions to Mars to colonise the planet is a sound one. it is the most logical way to colonised the planet. Sending people one way hugely reduces the complexity of the spacecraft we can send. The vehicles will only need to get to Mars, they will not have to return to the Earth. the landing craft will not need to take off again. The complexity and therefore cost is hugely decreased. If we follow the one-way mission concept then we will have a permanent presence on Mars far more quickly and at a far lower cost than if we send short term missions.

There are problems though, I do not think we are ready to do this just yet. We are still learning about the medical issues involved with long term exposure to zero-g. We know nothing about long term exposure to low-g environments.

My personal belief is that we should build a Moon base before we decide to colonise Mars. We can study the medical effects of 1/6 g and so work out what, if any, issues will be caused by 1/3g.

I also believe that when the time is right for colonisation of Mars it should be a government programme (preferably an international one). Governments are not going to be affected by viewing figures and advertising revenue. They are more swayed by public opinion than business (even not for profit business). Governments simply will not be allowed to pull the plug and abandon colonists on Mars.

___________________________

I hope, Junior Chubb, that you now understand my position and why it can seem contradictory.

If you still think my position is a weird one then think on this: there is a book called Mission to Mars. It lays out how future exploration of Mars should be carried out.

That book calls for the eventual colonisation of Mars by one way missions. It rejects the idea of that colonisation being carried out by private companies and says that it must be carried out but government(s). In other words it has the same belief that I do. The author of that book... Buzz Aldrin.

[Junior Chubb]

Blimey Waspie, I take it you feel quite strongly about this one. I was on my way to bed but hey ho lets go...

It's not that I want to disagree with them.

There have been quite a few thread on this topic and I have tried to keep out of them because my position can come across as ambiguous. It isn't but I didn't want to spend a long time explaining it. However as I've foolishly allowed myself to be sucked in I'll try to explain.

I know that feeling...

There are many good reasons why I do not believe that the model chosen for Mars One is a good one, however many of the reasons people are giving are not based on the reality of what Mars One is about, rather a false impression they have.

In other words I agree with people that Mars One is a bad idea, I disagree on WHY it is a bad idea.

Let me give you a few examples.

When people see that this is a reality TV concept many just think "Big Brother" and assume that Mars One is going to throw together a bunch of socially inadequate misfits for our amusement. However that is not what they are planning to do. They have a very strong, highly qualified advisory board (see HERE) including at least two medical doctors, one with extensive psychology experience. These are people that would not risk their considerable professional reputations on something is banal as "Big Brother in Space".

Mars One are a serious organisation.

So I disagree with this oft repeated argument against Mars One whilst agreeing that the reality TV concept is a bad idea. The reason I dislike the concept is this; Apollo showed back in the sixties that the public's interest wanes very quickly. By Apollo 13 (just the 3rd landing mission) no US network was taking the live broadcasts from the crew.

Mars One will need to keep public interest going for nine years before the first crew are even launched. Crew selection is due to take place in 2015 with the first crew launch in 2024. I simply do not believe that they will be able to maintain public interest for that length of time. No public interest = no advertising revenue = no mission.

Worse still, if the mission takes place then the idea is to send more crew members every 2 years to expand the colony. What happens if the public lose interest 3 years after the first crew arrive? What happens if Mars One does not have enough revenue to maintain the colony? Who is going to bail them out?

I follow you on this... Overlooked by some but I would guess this opinion is shared by many naysayers though.

The next complaint that some people have is that this is a suicide mission. I think people misunderstand what Mars One mean when they say that the colonists will die on Mars. Through out human history people have left their homes and travelled far, in search of a new future, never to return. These people died in some foreign land, but they were not on a suicide mission.

Whilst I disagree with the "suicide mission" argument I also acknowledge that colonising Mars will be dangerous. There is a very high likelihood of accidents. Colonists may well die.

Space exploration is dangerous, the loss of two space shuttles reminds us of that. Just because it is dangerous doesn't mean we shouldn't try. However I suspect that people will feel a lot more uneasy about a "reality TV" astronaut dying than one on a government mission of exploration. The idea (even though it is not he intention) that people are dying for our amusement will seem repellent to many people.

I appreciate your point here too, but your first point overrules it IMO. Lack of interest could lead to abandonment and eventually, death. Knowing this beforehand firmly puts it in the 'suicidal' category for me and that is before the dangers of the journey and subsequent colonisation are considered.

The next complaint that people have is that it is all a con. Mars One are just ripping people off for the money. Again I disagree. Mars One has been set up as a not for profit organisation. It is not operating in some dodgy tax haven island but in the Netherlands. they are subject to Dutch and European Union financial law. Of course this doesn't mean they aren't an elaborate con trick, but once again I advise people to look at the board of advisers. These are not conmen but highly regarded experts. There is no evidence of financial irregularity.

I have seen this complaint levelled at the project in the past, I have considered it myself at times. I am aware how 'serious' the project is (even more so thanks to your post and link ). Having said this there have been many positive posts about the project in this thread and no mention of scamming as yet.

Having disagreed with the accusation of a con, I agree that this is not the way to finance the colonisation of Mars. Most of my reasoning for this I have already laid out in my first point; if public interest wanes then the project collapses financially.

So those are my reasons for not believing Mars One is the right way to go. I agree with the conclusions of many of those who have posted against the idea, but not the reasoning behind those conclusions.

I and most would agree that this is not the way to finance the colonisation of Mars, maybe slightly different paths to the same goal but many share the same fears and reasoning you have.

You need to give some of the UM users more credit.

So why then do I seem, at times, to be defending the Mars One concept?

Because the concept of sending one way missions to Mars to colonise the planet is a sound one. it is the most logical way to colonised the planet. Sending people one way hugely reduces the complexity of the spacecraft we can send. The vehicles will only need to get to Mars, they will not have to return to the Earth. the landing craft will not need to take off again. The complexity and therefore cost is hugely decreased. If we follow the one-way mission concept then we will have a permanent presence on Mars far more quickly and at a far lower cost than if we send short term missions.

There are problems though, I do not think we are ready to do this just yet. We are still learning about the medical issues involved with long term exposure to zero-g. We know nothing about long term exposure to low-g environments.

My personal belief is that we should build a Moon base before we decide to colonise Mars. We can study the medical effects of 1/6 g and so work out what, if any, issues will be caused by 1/3g.

I also believe that when the time is right for colonisation of Mars it should be a government programme (preferably an international one). Governments are not going to be affected by viewing figures and advertising revenue. They are more swayed by public opinion than business (even not for profit business). Governments simply will not be allowed to pull the plug and abandon colonists on Mars.

I think many agree with you here (the bold text). You are right on the 'one way mission' aspect though, a stumbling block for many but considered the 'best route' those more well versed on the subject.

There will always be an argument about 'one way' colonisation, its just a side effect of the over protective world we live in. This is one of my problems with the project. Personally if people want to go, I say let them. But I cannot see this project being given 'permission' (sorry, might not be the best choice of words here) to send people to Mars, I can see legislation and procedure bringing the whole thing grinding to a halt. Imagine the mother of her only son finding out he has signed up, starting a legal battle to stop the project, I believe she would would have a strong stance to slow down if not halt the project completely.

You are spot on about timing, I do not believe we are near ready for this, or will be in ten years, again though this is a common worry shared by people commenting on this project.

I hope, Junior Chubb, that you now understand my position and why it can seem contradictory.

If you still think my position is a weird one then think on this: there is a book called Mission to Mars. It lays out how future exploration of Mars should be carried out.

That book calls for the eventual colonisation of Mars by one way missions. It rejects the idea of that colonisation being carried out by private companies and says that it must be carried out but government(s). In other words it has the same belief that I do. The author of that book... Buzz Aldrin.

I still find your first post slightly contradictory. I think your strongest point of disagreement is the 'one way mission' and a good point it is, IMO the other concerns you highlight are common among other UM posters.

I did get the impression that you were being cantankerous while ultimately agreeing with general opinion but the lengths you have gone to in this response have washed that impression away. You have made your position clearer whilst revealing your frustrations. Despite me thinking more users than you think share your reasoning its nice to relax and note that our positions are quite close and again we end our posts with similar statements...

• Exploration is very important.
  
• Space exploration through reality TV investment is an ill-fated idea.
  
• This is the domain of government(s) rather than private business'.
  

Edited December 19, 2013 by Junior Chubb

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Blimey Waspie, I take it you feel quite strongly about this one.

I feel VERY strongly about all aspects of space exploration. I firmly believe that it is the best and only hope for the prolonged existence of humanity as a species.

You need to give some of the UM users more credit.

My comments were aimed ONLY at those making incorrect assumptions. I am fully aware that there are many logical and factual options that have been expressed on this. By the same token, if you go back and read through all the previous thread (it will take you time, there are a lot of them) then you will see that there are a lot of illogical and fallacious opinions expressed too.

I still find your first post slightly contradictory.

I'm not surprised. My post ended up far longer than I intended and it was the very early hours of the morning when I wrote it.

To summarise what I was trying to say.

I think the "one way" colonisation of Mars is the right approach but I don't think we are ready and I don't think Mars One are the right people to do it.