Mars-One: People living on Mars in 2023

  • Thread starter lvlastermind
  • Start date
  • Tags
    mars
In summary, a company called Mars-One, founded by former CEO Bas Lansdorp, plans to send four people to live on Mars permanently in 2023. The mission will be funded by media attention and a reality TV show. However, many experts believe this plan is not feasible due to the high cost and technological challenges involved. The company has also faced criticism for lack of discussion on important aspects such as waste management and medical emergencies. Many believe this is just a publicity stunt and not a serious mission.
  • #1
lvlastermind
101
0
http://mars-one.com/en/

A former CEO (Bas Lansdorp) has started a company (Mars-One) with the intention of sending four people to Mars in 2023 to live there indefinitely. Yep, you read that right, they will live there forever. My BS meter initially was going wild but this story is increasing in media attention and I'm looking for a technical analysis by the PF community on the plausibility of this. Mars-One has the endorsement of Nobel Prize winning Physicist Gerard 't Hooft and you can see a brief description of their plan here: . Bas' plan is to fund the mission by the media storm that it could generate -- somewhat of a reality TV show of people on Mars. Aside from how insane this sounds there seems to be a lot people supporting it. Bas is currently answering questions on Reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/uta10/iama_founder_of_mars_one_settling_humans_on_mars/) if you want to ask him anything.

Am I the only one who smells BS or am I just dead wrong?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
This is complete BS. Six billion US dollars for six landers? Human-capable landers? The Mars Science Laboratory costs 2.5 billion, and it's unmanned. Yes, NASA is wasteful. Not that wasteful.

They're using a rocket with half the oomph of the Saturn V to get vehicles to Mars and then land on Mars. It's not going to work. Speaking of landing, we can't do the precision landing that is required for that mission. Those six landers would be spread out along a 40 km long ellipse using the current landing capabilities (and supposedly no new technologies are needed for this mission).

Everything has to work the very first time for this mission to succeed. Without any precursor missions, and with humans onboard. It's ludicrous.

Astronauts and cosmonauts need to be rock solid psychologically. Even with all the pysch evals that they go through, there still have been incidents. The kinds of people who would volunteer for this mission are exactly the kinds of people who you do not want going into space. This is a suicide mission. A suicide mission will attract loons who will try open the hatch while on route to Mars.

And this is a suicide mission. We do not know how to grow food in space or on Mars. The crops will fail and they will all die. Or someone will break a leg and she will die, and yet another will develop some minor dietary ailment and he will die.

We don't know how to do the mining and refining that are essential to this mission to obtain water and oxygen. Just because a technology has been used on Earth, or put to use for a rather different purpose on the Space Station does not mean that the technology isn't new. This is new, untested technology. The same concept applies to the landers, and the rovers. These are new, untested technology.

There's no discussion of how the site will be powered at night, or during a dust storm. There's very little discussion of how they will grow food (other than that they will). There's no discussion of waste management. There's no discussion of how to handle medical emergencies.

This is just bunk.

Addendum
Not to mention that the timeline is utterly unachievable.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
D H said:
This is complete BS.

I concur. Most def.
 
  • #4
lvlastermind said:
Am I the only one who smells BS or am I just dead wrong?
I smell BS also. If there's any sort of media firestorm it might contribute to Bas Lansdorp making some money from this, but I would bet the farm that nobody will be living on Mars in 2023.
 
  • #5
It's even worse than I thought. From the conversation on reddit, Lansdorp said
"The technology will be tested in eight cargo missions before sending humans to Mars."​
Yep. He's going to do all that for [strike]six[/strike] make that seven billion US dollars. In just over a decade.He also said
"Mars One is not an aerospace company."​
That's a "no <deleted>, Sherlock" understatement.
 
  • #6
Putting humans on Mars for $6 billion in eleven years and sending them with the technology to survive until the end of their natural life is crackpot to a level that's rare to see.

I'm not even convinced that if NASA was given the same level of funding (percentage of budget wise) that it received in the Apollo area that this could be done, let alone an inexperienced private group.
 
  • #7
I came here only to say this is complete BS. But, it has been said by other people here already.
 
  • #8
This is a self promoted pitch at a reality show?

Mars-Based Reality Show: How Stupid Could it Be?

How stupid is the idea of a reality television show from Mars? No stupider than one set in Drew Pinsky's clinic featuring a cast of D-list celebrities embellishing their own ridiculous stories of addiction. I've seen the latter, so why not the former? If Mars One gets off the ground, I just might.

Mars One is a Dutch start-up company apparently consisting of four people: Bas Lansdorp, Arno Wielders, Bryan Versteeg and Suzanne Flinkenflögel -- not quite household names, yet. But everything has to start somewhere and the folks at Mars One have decided to start with a nifty website and a plan to strand Earthlings on Mars where they'll be expected to film themselves living in what resemble large, upended muffin tins while trying to eke out an existence on the red planet despite its inhospitable climes.

OY

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-phillips/mars-one_b_1580334.html
 
  • #9
I'm waiting with bated breath for their 1st April 2013 IPO. :rolleyes:
 
  • #10
I already bought my ticket.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjiGH9QNiU0
 
  • #11
:rofl:
 
  • #12
How about a couple arguments of how it can be done? 10 years is a long time to work with. I'm going to say maybe not them but somebody will do it!
 
  • #13
Charmar said:
How about a couple arguments of how it can be done? 10 years is a long time to work with. I'm going to say maybe not them but somebody will do it!

Living on Mars in 10 years? Not going to happen. Visiting Mars within 10 years? Possible, but extremely unlikely given the current state of the space industry.
 
  • #14
Space-x was founded 10 years ago, now they are delivering groceries.

Is it that far of a leap to deliver groceries to a different hunk of rock?
 
  • #15
Charmar said:
Is it that far of a leap to deliver [STRIKE]groceries[/STRIKE] humans and a half century of groceries to a different hunk of rock that's 350 times farther away?

Yes.
 
  • #16
Charmar said:
Space-x was founded 10 years ago, now they are delivering groceries.

Is it that far of a leap to deliver groceries to a different hunk of rock?
Yes, it is.

SpaceX took ten years to do something that had already been done. They had a lot of help from NASA and Japan regarding the rendezvous technology needed for for its most recent mission. This human mission to Mars is something that hasn't been done, period. It's uncharted territory.

SpaceX "delivered groceries" to a vehicle that is passively floating through near-empty space. The approach speed between the Dragon and the ISS were small. Problems along the way (and they had a problem along the way) are fairly easy to deal with. Just back out, analyze and fix the issue, and try again. Mars is a very different story. The environment is incredibly hostile, particularly to a vehicle coming into the atmosphere with initial velocity that exceeds escape velocity. There is no backing out. You have one chance to do it right or the mission fails catastrophically.

SpaceX "delivered groceries" to a vehicle that has already been built and already has an extensive life support system. That construction was an incredible feat of engineering. The Mars station has not been built and there is no life support. A Mars mission of the sort being touted would have to build the station and all the life support.

SpaceX "delivered groceries" to a vehicle where the technologies to bring the vehicles together with incredible precision (inches!), and from that point the robotic arm does all of the work. Precision landing on Mars: Right now "precision" means "within tens of kilometers". Improving our landing accuracy is one of NASA's top goals. It issues research grants out the wazoo to address this problem. Nobody knows how to achieve the accuracies needed for this Mars One project.

SpaceX "delivered groceries" to a vehicle where the closest breath of fresh air is but a few hundred kilometers away. There is always an escape vehicle on the ISS in case the crew needs to get to that source of fresh air, ASAP. With Mars One, there is no escape. The crew would be there until they die (which probably won't take all that long if this plan goes forward).

SpaceX "delivered groceries" to the ISS because the only place we can reliably grow food is right down here on the Earth. We don't know how to do it in space, and we don't know how to do it on Mars.
 
  • #17
I would never go to space; those photos of right above Earth give me anxiety:

 
  • #18
martian_revolt1.jpg
 
  • #19
Has anyone watched the video? They're not talking about one trip but sending people once a year for several years until they have a small outpost :uhh: good luck with that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4tgkyUBkbY
 
  • #20
Borek said:
martian_revolt1.jpg

:rofl:

I had to cover my face with a pillow to avoid waking up the misses. I could have suffocated because of you!
 
  • #21
JonDE said:
I had to cover my face with a pillow to avoid waking up the misses.
Some people have all the luck.

As far as I know, there aren't any major technological breakthroughs that are required. We know everything we would have to do and 10 years is probably enough time to do it in. I don't think $6 billion would suffice though and I don't think this is a good use of that much money. My feeling is that once you have clawed your way out of a deep gravity well, you wouldn't want to climb back down another one. Make a living habitat in low Earth orbit first, then one around the L5 libration point. Set up a small community on the Moon to operate a mag-lev railgun that sends ore to L5 where the main settlement is. Extract aluminum and other metals from the ore and use the slag as bulk radiation protection.
 
  • #22
Jimmy Snyder said:
My feeling is that once you have clawed your way out of a deep gravity well, you wouldn't want to climb back down another one. Make a living habitat in low Earth orbit first, then one around the L5 libration point. Set up a small community on the Moon to operate a mag-lev railgun that sends ore to L5 where the main settlement is. Extract aluminum and other metals from the ore and use the slag as bulk radiation protection.
I don't see what any of that would achieve either than costing a colossal amount of resources so that a brace of people can live in space. I can think of better things to spend trillions of dollars on.
 
  • #23
Jimmy Snyder said:
Some people have all the luck.

As far as I know, there aren't any major technological breakthroughs that are required. We know everything we would have to do and 10 years is probably enough time to do it in. I don't think $6 billion would suffice though and I don't think this is a good use of that much money. My feeling is that once you have clawed your way out of a deep gravity well, you wouldn't want to climb back down another one. Make a living habitat in low Earth orbit first, then one around the L5 libration point. Set up a small community on the Moon to operate a mag-lev railgun that sends ore to L5 where the main settlement is. Extract aluminum and other metals from the ore and use the slag as bulk radiation protection.



Ryan_m_b said:
I don't see what any of that would achieve either than costing a colossal amount of resources so that a brace of people can live in space. I can think of better things to spend trillions of dollars on.

I'm sure most people can think of a "better" way to spend money, and lots of them would have benefits and consequences for sure, maybe even some that none could come up with over a beer. IMO, a large space project hopefully involving many nations acting in unison would be a great step for the planet and our future as an intelligent (I like to think so, anyways) species.
 
  • #24
Charmar said:
I'm sure most people can think of a "better" way to spend money, and lots of them would have benefits and consequences for sure, maybe even some that none could come up with over a beer. IMO, a large space project hopefully involving many nations acting in unison would be a great step for the planet and our future as an intelligent (I like to think so, anyways) species.


I don’t think anyone would say that sending people to Mars is impossible, just very difficult. My problem with Bas’ plan is that he doesn’t have a plan. He basically wants Mars-One to be a middle man to bring together suppliers and contractors to do the details for him. Bas just wants to put the Mars-One name on the finished product. Bas doesn’t have a business plan for this other than “it will be just like the Olympics.” What will Bas do when his suppliers raise cost on him? Bas has zero control over cost because his suppliers have no competition in the market and his demands are very specific and labor intensive. This sounds like a money pit to me. There is a sucker born every minute so he will probably find a few people to give away their money but no one with any financial background will give him a dime. Another problem is that he only has one plan to fund this mission. What if his reality TV show doesn’t get the ratings he expects? Even worse, what if the reality TV show doesn’t get the ratings he expects when he already has people on Mars? The will surely die. I like Bas’ energy and entrepreneurial spirit but he is clearly delusional if he thinks it will only cost 6 billion dollars. Sending a mission to Mars is like firing a bullet from Tokyo and hitting a moving target on the Empire State Building. He is way over his head and should have stuck with wind energy.
 
  • #25
Charmar said:
IMO, a large space project hopefully involving many nations acting in unison would be a great step for the planet and our future as an intelligent (I like to think so, anyways) species.
Uhm, this *project* is a silly pitch for a reality tv series.

I have a few recommendations for the first round of contestants - Kim Kardashian, Britney Spears, Justin Beiber. Heck, I'd watch that mess.
 
  • #26
Charmar said:
I'm sure most people can think of a "better" way to spend money, and lots of them would have benefits and consequences for sure, maybe even some that none could come up with over a beer. IMO, a large space project hopefully involving many nations acting in unison would be a great step for the planet and our future as an intelligent (I like to think so, anyways) species.
I don't see it that way, I'm not trying to be a bean counter at all but I honestly can't see any realistic positives for society that couldn't be achieved faster and with a greater return if the resources went elsewhere.

Don't get me wrong, space science is incredibly important and I'm as keen as the next person to be an amateur astronaut but I don't see mass manned presence in space as something that would give us a good ROI. By all means spend money on technology whose spin offs could be used for colonising space because those technologies would have great earthbound applications (the study of ecology construction and maintainence comes to mind) and if at some point future technology and economics make space colonisation practical and affordable then go for it. But now we shouldn't get bogged down in mass space migration ideology.

Btw this has been written in stages across multiple train journeys so if it repeats or seems disjointed that's why.
 
  • #27
Jimmy Snyder said:
As far as I know, there aren't any major technological breakthroughs that are required. We know everything we would have to do and 10 years is probably enough time to do it in.
I named several technological breakthroughs needed in post #2. Growing food on Mars, obtaining water and oxygen, precision landing, long-term and continuous electrical power, health, waste management, just to name a few. The psych problems need technical solutions, too. One solution is to send a hundred people or more rather than just four. That is something we can't do yet. Not by a long shot.

My feeling is that once you have clawed your way out of a deep gravity well, you wouldn't want to climb back down another one.
Especially another one with just enough of an atmosphere to make entry hazardous but not enough of an atmosphere where you could use it for parachutes. Landing on Mars requires powered descent.


Ryan_m_b said:
I don't see what any of that would achieve either than costing a colossal amount of resources so that a brace of people can live in space. I can think of better things to spend trillions of dollars on.
I'm admittedly biased. I think frugally spending money on human space exploration is a very good thing to do. And nobody is talking about trillions, at least not over the short term. Over a span of fifty years or so? Yes, but a trillion dollars spend over a fifty year span isn't a huge amount of money.

You have no say if the funding comes from private sources, which is what this particular project is proposing. Badly, yes, but the decision on whether to invest is up to the private backers.

If it's public monies, that same argument ("we have so many problems ...") can be applied to almost all public investments in R&D. With short-term R&D, private industry is generally more cost effective. With long term R&D, "We have so many immediate problems that need to be addressed right now, that don't require any research, and that are begging for money. Why are we spending money on research? Don't we have enough technology already?"

The answer is that it's not an all or nothing proposition. We certainly do have lots of immediate pressing problems. Poverty. Disease. Debt. Enemies. Lousy education. Eroding infrastructure. These do receive the vast majority of public spendings. They don't need every last dime, and spending every last dime on current problems without looking to the future is a guarantee that we will have even bigger problems in the future.


Charmar said:
IMO, a large space project hopefully involving many nations acting in unison would be a great step for the planet and our future as an intelligent (I like to think so, anyways) species.
Nations acting in unison? That's a pipe dream for the most part. Nations act in their own best interest. When nations do work together in semi-unison, the profligate waste that occurs makes the inefficiencies that occur at a national level look tiny. Now we would be talking trillions.
 
  • #28
D H said:
I named several technological breakthroughs needed in post #2. Growing food on Mars, obtaining water and oxygen, precision landing, long-term and continuous electrical power, health, waste management, just to name a few. The psych problems need technical solutions, too. One solution is to send a hundred people or more rather than just four. That is something we can't do yet. Not by a long shot.
We can't do yet is not the same as we don't know how to do. As for oxygen, Mars is lousy with it, that's why it's red.
 
  • #29
D H said:
I'm admittedly biased. I think frugally spending money on human space exploration is a very good thing to do. And nobody is talking about trillions, at least not over the short term. Over a span of fifty years or so? Yes, but a trillion dollars spend over a fifty year span isn't a huge amount of money.

You have no say if the funding comes from private sources, which is what this particular project is proposing. Badly, yes, but the decision on whether to invest is up to the private backers.

If it's public monies, that same argument ("we have so many problems ...") can be applied to almost all public investments in R&D. With short-term R&D, private industry is generally more cost effective. With long term R&D, "We have so many immediate problems that need to be addressed right now, that don't require any research, and that are begging for money. Why are we spending money on research? Don't we have enough technology already?"

The answer is that it's not an all or nothing proposition. We certainly do have lots of immediate pressing problems. Poverty. Disease. Debt. Enemies. Lousy education. Eroding infrastructure. These do receive the vast majority of public spendings. They don't need every last dime, and spending every last dime on current problems without looking to the future is a guarantee that we will have even bigger problems in the future.
I agree with all of this, I don't mean to say that there should be no funding nor that we should resort to short termism. I agree with spending a reasonable amount on space science, what I object to (and what I see a lot of) is the pervasive ideology that most of our problems could be solved with space colonisation or that space colonisation should be seen as an end in itself.
 
  • #30
D H said:
Nations acting in unison? That's a pipe dream for the most part. Nations act in their own best interest. When nations do work together in semi-unison, the profligate waste that occurs makes the inefficiencies that occur at a national level look tiny. Now we would be talking trillions.

Question: Is ESA that inefficient?
 
  • #31
On an unrelated note, I would like to say that I'm a bit disappointed with Dr. 't Hooft. He's said some other things I believe he can't justify, and I'm fine with that, but this is just borderline ridiculous.
 
  • #32
KiwiKid said:
On an unrelated note, I would like to say that I'm a bit disappointed with Dr. 't Hooft. He's said some other things I believe he can't justify, and I'm fine with that, but this is just borderline ridiculous.

I'm also wondering about Dr. 't Hooft. Why would he risk his reputation with this? From what I've read he's well respected and this leads me to believe that there may be more to Mars-One than I know. Could there be some plausibility to this or was 't Hooft simply bribed into support?
 
  • #33
lvlastermind said:
I'm also wondering about Dr. 't Hooft. Why would he risk his reputation with this? From what I've read he's well respected and this leads me to believe that there may be more to Mars-One than I know. Could there be some plausibility to this or was 't Hooft simply bribed into support?
I'm not saying this specifically about Dr Hooft (I'd never heard of him before I watched that youtube video) but never underestimate the propensity of intelligent people to think, say and do stupid things.
 
  • #34
Ryan_m_b said:
I'm not saying this specifically about Dr Hooft (I'd never heard of him before I watched that youtube video) but never underestimate the propensity of intelligent people to think, say and do stupid things.

Fair enough
 
  • #35
lvlastermind said:
My problem with Bas’ plan is that he doesn’t have a plan. He basically wants Mars-One to be a middle man to bring together suppliers and contractors to do the details for him.
But he has such pretty drawings and videos! What more do you want?

He is clueless (or is being intentionally misinformative) when he says that there is no new technology with this "plan". Almost every single bit is new technology.

Even worse, what if the reality TV show doesn’t get the ratings he expects when he already has people on Mars? The will surely die.
They will surely die, anyhow. This is a suicide mission. What happens if the crew realizes there's not one thing in it for them and they turn the cameras off?
Jimmy Snyder said:
We can't do yet is not the same as we don't know how to do.
I would argue otherwise. There's a huge gap from "we can do it on paper" to "we can do it with this massively overweight, finicky prototype that only works in this controlled lab environment" to "we can do it on Mars". These huge gaps between paper, first prototype, and operational use are precisely why the DoD and NASA developed their Technology Readiness Level concept.

As for oxygen, Mars is lousy with it, that's why it's red.
Freeing that oxygen from the iron is no mean feat. Down here on Earth we typically use carbon monoxide, with the end products being iron and CO2. Then what?

The Mars One project proposes to extract oxygen from all the abundant water in the Martian soil. One problem: They aren't landing anywhere near one of the poles. What water are they talking about?
KiwiKid said:
Question: Is ESA that inefficient?
ESA's cost overruns and inefficiencies are right on par with those of NASA, maybe worse. NASA has the federal government tweaking it around and has a bunch of states that clamor for monies being spent in their states. Those states don't get much say in what NASA does, however. ESA similarly has the EU tweaking it around and has a bunch of donor countries that clamor for monies being spent in their countries. One big difference: Those sponsoring nations directly fund ESA and they directly tweak ESA's plans and contracts.
 
<h2>1. What is Mars-One and their mission?</h2><p>Mars-One is a non-profit organization that aims to establish a permanent human settlement on Mars by 2023. Their mission is to enable the next giant leap for mankind by creating a sustainable living environment on the Red Planet.</p><h2>2. How will people live on Mars in 2023?</h2><p>Mars-One plans to send four individuals to Mars in 2023, followed by additional groups every two years. The settlers will live in specially designed living units and will rely on solar power, water from Martian ice, and hydroponically grown food for survival.</p><h2>3. How will Mars-One select the people who will live on Mars?</h2><p>Mars-One has a rigorous selection process that includes physical and psychological tests, as well as simulations of living in isolation. The final candidates will be chosen based on their ability to work well in a team, adapt to new environments, and handle the challenges of living on Mars.</p><h2>4. What are the biggest challenges of living on Mars?</h2><p>There are many challenges that come with living on Mars, including exposure to cosmic radiation, extreme temperatures, and the lack of a breathable atmosphere. Additionally, the settlers will have to deal with the psychological effects of living in isolation and the long journey to and from Earth.</p><h2>5. Will people be able to return to Earth from Mars?</h2><p>Mars-One plans to establish a permanent settlement on Mars, so the initial settlers will not return to Earth. However, future missions may include the possibility of returning to Earth. The technology for a return trip is still being developed, and it will depend on the success of the initial mission.</p>

1. What is Mars-One and their mission?

Mars-One is a non-profit organization that aims to establish a permanent human settlement on Mars by 2023. Their mission is to enable the next giant leap for mankind by creating a sustainable living environment on the Red Planet.

2. How will people live on Mars in 2023?

Mars-One plans to send four individuals to Mars in 2023, followed by additional groups every two years. The settlers will live in specially designed living units and will rely on solar power, water from Martian ice, and hydroponically grown food for survival.

3. How will Mars-One select the people who will live on Mars?

Mars-One has a rigorous selection process that includes physical and psychological tests, as well as simulations of living in isolation. The final candidates will be chosen based on their ability to work well in a team, adapt to new environments, and handle the challenges of living on Mars.

4. What are the biggest challenges of living on Mars?

There are many challenges that come with living on Mars, including exposure to cosmic radiation, extreme temperatures, and the lack of a breathable atmosphere. Additionally, the settlers will have to deal with the psychological effects of living in isolation and the long journey to and from Earth.

5. Will people be able to return to Earth from Mars?

Mars-One plans to establish a permanent settlement on Mars, so the initial settlers will not return to Earth. However, future missions may include the possibility of returning to Earth. The technology for a return trip is still being developed, and it will depend on the success of the initial mission.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
2K
Back
Top