New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: We've recently made changes to our user database and have removed inactive and spam users. If you can not login, please re-register.

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

RobS
Member
From: South Bend, IN
Registered: 2002-01-15
Posts: 1,701
Website

Re: Mars One

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.

Offline

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

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,325

Re: Mars One

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(?). smile

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

Offline

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

RobS
Member
From: South Bend, IN
Registered: 2002-01-15
Posts: 1,701
Website

Re: Mars One

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.

Offline

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

Mark Friedenbach
Member
From: Mountain View, CA
Registered: 2003-01-31
Posts: 307

Re: Mars One

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

Offline

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

louis
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 4,591

Re: Mars One

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.


Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Online

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

GW Johnson
Member
From: McGregor, Texas USA
Registered: 2011-12-04
Posts: 3,508
Website

Re: Mars One

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


GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Offline

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

RobS
Member
From: South Bend, IN
Registered: 2002-01-15
Posts: 1,701
Website

Re: Mars One

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.

Offline

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

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,325

Re: Mars One

"Senate Launch System" lol roll wink

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

Offline

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

RobS
Member
From: South Bend, IN
Registered: 2002-01-15
Posts: 1,701
Website

Re: Mars One

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.

Offline

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

louis
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 4,591

Re: Mars One

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.


Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Online

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

RobS
Member
From: South Bend, IN
Registered: 2002-01-15
Posts: 1,701
Website

Re: Mars One

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.

Offline

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

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,325

Offline

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

martienne
Member
From: EU
Registered: 2014-03-29
Posts: 146

Re: Mars One

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)

Offline

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

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Mars One

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!

Offline

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

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,325

Re: Mars One

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.

Offline

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

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Mars One

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.

Offline

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

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,325

Re: Mars One

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....

Offline

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

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 15,325

Re: Mars One

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..

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB