Mars One

RobS · 2015-03-09 17:41:10

The launch window for NASA probes to Mars are usually about a month. If you have enough fuel or advanced propulsion options, you can probably launch to Mars over 3 or even 4 months. You can also launch via Venus, using a gravity assist there. You probably could do the same via Mercury, though the thermal load would be really high. On the bright side, it's fairly easy to shield from solar storms, and the closer to the sun you are, the less cosmic radiation there is, because the sun's magnetic field deflects it.

SpaceNut · 2015-03-22 09:18:49

Here's an update from my old friend

Shaun Barret wrote:

According to THIS SITE, the whole Mars One schedule has been put back by 2 years..
This is a set-back for sure.
But it may be even more so if you take into consideration plans by SpaceX, which aim to land people on Mars at about the same time - 2027.
I suppose it's possible that SpaceX will beat Mars One to the punch and make Mars One's schedule of secondary importance.
I suppose it's equally possible Mars One and SpaceX will end up joining forces for the colonisation effort(?).

Well with 2 more years the funding and selection should be in a better state..

RobS · 2015-03-22 09:54:38

I doubt they'd join up. If Elon Musk can create a system to get people to Mars, why should he use their candidates? He'd choose his own. And if he wanted tv deals, people would come to him; he wouldn't have to chase them down. He's already worth enough money ($10 billion) to get people to Mars all by himself, and he doesn't need to spend it all because he can leverage it with partnerships and loans.

Mark Friedenbach · 2015-03-22 12:13:41

Rob, keep in mind the principle of comparative exchange. doing it alone is not always the best long term strategy even if you are strictly better than the competition

louis · 2015-03-22 13:44:57

RobS wrote:

I doubt they'd join up. If Elon Musk can create a system to get people to Mars, why should he use their candidates? He'd choose his own. And if he wanted tv deals, people would come to him; he wouldn't have to chase them down. He's already worth enough money ($10 billion) to get people to Mars all by himself, and he doesn't need to spend it all because he can leverage it with partnerships and loans.

I don't think anyone's close to Musk. I am sure he's had a team working on the project in relative secrecy and it is well advanced.

GW Johnson · 2015-03-22 13:45:52

As I understand it, the continuing funding of the Mars One colony is based on revenues from a reality-TV show featuring the colonists. Maybe and maybe not that will be enough to send one-way unmanned supply shipments. Sooner or later, the TV show loses ratings, and the revenue stops. At that point, if not already, the supplies stop. Then the colonists die. Still looks like a one-way delayed-suicide mission to me. Ultimately, that gives a taint to manned trips to Mars, and that's a bad thing.

GW

RobS · 2015-03-22 21:11:53

If Musk wants partners, he can find partners that have a better reputation and a better approach--and more money--than Mars One. Mars One has essentially no money, a highly questionable financial model, a controversial plan, and no good reputation. Musk has a plan, the money, a solid reputation, and the ability to acquire capable partners. He also does not seem to like partnering with others as equals. When he was invited into Solar City or Tesla--I can't remember which--by a friend, he basically engineered a coup among the Board members and took over the company from his friend.

The main partner Musk needs to go to Mars is NASA. If he can go to Mars without NASA, that will be a huge blow to NASA's reputation. They will basically have to buy his equipment to plant American flags and footprints on Mars first. I suspect Congress will cave in and do that, their SLS ("Senate Launch System") not withstanding.

SpaceNut · 2015-03-23 17:57:47

"Senate Launch System"

Visions of them on the moon.......

RobS · 2015-03-23 18:04:01

I didn't invent that moniker; it has been floating around for a while. It's basically a pork barrel project to hire a bunch of engineers in a few states to build a rocket that we aren't sure we need for a price we can't afford. NASA didn't want it or ask for it.

louis · 2015-03-23 19:34:49

RobS wrote:

If Musk wants partners, he can find partners that have a better reputation and a better approach--and more money--than Mars One. Mars One has essentially no money, a highly questionable financial model, a controversial plan, and no good reputation. Musk has a plan, the money, a solid reputation, and the ability to acquire capable partners. He also does not seem to like partnering with others as equals. When he was invited into Solar City or Tesla--I can't remember which--by a friend, he basically engineered a coup among the Board members and took over the company from his friend.
The main partner Musk needs to go to Mars is NASA. If he can go to Mars without NASA, that will be a huge blow to NASA's reputation. They will basically have to buy his equipment to plant American flags and footprints on Mars first. I suspect Congress will cave in and do that, their SLS ("Senate Launch System") not withstanding.

You're right. Mars One's financial model is dubious. It could work if you knew there definitely was going to be a mission, but without that knowledge, it can look like a rather weak game/reality show that's on offer.

They really need a billionaire philanthropist on board to kick start the project.

However, to be fair to M1, at least they have given Mars colonisation a higher profile.

RobS · 2015-03-23 19:38:52

Yes, I agree, they have raised the profile of Mars exploration. The last five years--the last decade--has seen a significant change, not only where Mars is concerned, but where low earth orbit and even the moon is concerned. The technology has matured in some very important ways, especially computing and software. A cell phone computer has more power than anything on board the Saturn V or Apollo vehicles. Cube sats appear to have application in planetary exploration. Inflatables are revolutionizing habitat design. ISS has proved a lot of details of long-duration life support systems. Satellite manufacture can get much, much cheaper, and Musk plans to get into that, too.

SpaceNut · 2015-10-13 21:02:00

Feasibility Analysis for a Manned Mars Free-Return Mission in 2018

martienne · 2015-10-14 06:30:29

The funding is supposed to be from crowdsourcing, ads and corporate sponsorship - right?
I'm thinking - they couldn't even fund a TV series on Mars that way (remember Pioneer One? )
I think it will flop. I hope I am WRONG!

Gosh - checking their financial model, they need $6 billion.
This is a chicken and egg situation. Nobody will invest in something they don't have confidence will happen (compare, sponsoring Olympics..) and it will never happen because nobody will sponsor it...

The only hope is that some eccentric billionaire throws in the first billions, then possibly companies would have the confidence to join up.

Last edited by martienne (2015-10-14 07:28:25)

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-10-14 13:20:15

martienne wrote:

The funding is supposed to be from crowdsourcing, ads and corporate sponsorship - right?
I'm thinking - they couldn't even fund a TV series on Mars that way (remember Pioneer One? )
I think it will flop. I hope I am WRONG!
Gosh - checking their financial model, they need $6 billion.
This is a chicken and egg situation. Nobody will invest in something they don't have confidence will happen (compare, sponsoring Olympics..) and it will never happen because nobody will sponsor it...
The only hope is that some eccentric billionaire throws in the first billions, then possibly companies would have the confidence to join up.

But if a US President jumps in an supports it, that could change it right around, US funds would draw more private funds as its seen as more of a sure thing. People are more likely to support something that looks like its going to happen anyway that something that only might happen. The US doesn't even have to contribute the majority share of the funds, if its seen as contributing, then all those other investors will jump right in on the bandwagon!

SpaceNut · 2015-10-24 16:12:33

The topic Corporate Government start by RobertDyck brought to mind that he had partial described this topic.

That said what is the status of Mars One with crew sellection, funding, initial probe status and what is the likelyhood at this time that a mars mission will happen by this group?

As of 31 January 2014, Mars One had received $795,185 in donations and merchandise sales.
On 10 December 2013, Mars One set up a crowdfunding campaign on Indiegogo to fund their 2018 demonstration mission. The campaign goal was to raise $400,000 USD by 25 January 2014. Since the ending date was drawing near they decided to extend the ending date to 9 February 2014. By the end of the campaign, they had received $313,744 in funds.
In December 2013, Mars One announced its concept of a robotic precursor mission in 2018, In February 2015, Lockheed Martin and Surrey Satellite Technology confirmed that contracts on the initial study phase begun in late 2013 had run out and additional contracts had not been received for further progress on the robotic missions. Plans have not been disclosed to raise the US$200 million or more needed to support the initial robotic mission.

Once reading these, I see that it is unlikely that since funding is the issue and that any mission is far from being a sure thing.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-10-24 17:18:44

Its like buying a pig in a poke, you don't want to spend money on something that may not happen. I think if NASA funds something like this and invites public investment, then NASA may not have to pay for all of it, it allows the government dollars to go further by attacking private funds.

SpaceNut · 2016-11-12 21:53:15

Another source for feasability : http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar … 6515004294

Constant resupply makes the cost not possible for small payloads But for a first mission its not a problem as we are not looking to sustain with a small down mass capability....

SpaceNut · 2019-02-11 18:32:27

The time has appeared to have come when Mars One Is Now Officially Dead. But It Always Was. The much-heralded trip to colonize the Red Planet was never serious enough to succeed. But then again when MIT ran numbers and we looked at the size of the crew we sort of all knew this as it scrape the ottom of all numbers to keep en safe and was to minimal in nature.
I think the quantity of people for a crew and stay time would make it a better option using the lofted modules for the main journy to and from mars rather than trying to get it all to the surface when we are limited currently for how many tons we can do as we have not done anything larger..

SpaceNut · 2019-10-24 18:48:00

Landing a bunch of payloads in the 2mT is a early concept for the much larger starship mission suchas to give a toe hold on the intended landing site of the future much larger ship as a means to pave the way. I seem to recall a 1 ton concept topic but have not found it yet. The red Dragon was also near the 2 mT payload for the sample return so its seems that we could do such a mission with all of the test landers.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2015-03-09 17:41:10

Re: Mars One

#77 2015-03-22 09:18:49

Re: Mars One

#78 2015-03-22 09:54:38

Re: Mars One

#79 2015-03-22 12:13:41

Re: Mars One

#80 2015-03-22 13:44:57

Re: Mars One

#81 2015-03-22 13:45:52

Re: Mars One

#82 2015-03-22 21:11:53

Re: Mars One

#83 2015-03-23 17:57:47

Re: Mars One

#84 2015-03-23 18:04:01

Re: Mars One

#85 2015-03-23 19:34:49

Re: Mars One

#86 2015-03-23 19:38:52

Re: Mars One

#87 2015-10-13 21:02:00

Re: Mars One

#88 2015-10-14 06:30:29

Re: Mars One

#89 2015-10-14 13:20:15

Re: Mars One

#90 2015-10-24 16:12:33

Re: Mars One

#91 2015-10-24 17:18:44

Re: Mars One

#92 2016-11-12 21:53:15

Re: Mars One

#93 2019-02-11 18:32:27

Re: Mars One

#94 2019-10-24 18:48:00

Re: Mars One

Board footer