Mars-One: People living on Mars in 2023

[lvlastermind]

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?

 

[D H]

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.

 

[Topher925]

This is complete BS.

I concur. Most def.

 

[ThomasT]

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.

 

[D H]

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.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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.

 

[rootX]

I came here only to say this is complete BS. But, it has been said by other people here already.

 

[Evo]

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

 

[Curious3141]

I'm waiting with bated breath for their 1st April 2013 IPO.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I already bought my ticket.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjiGH9QNiU0

 

[Evo]

 

[Charmar]

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!

 

[Drakkith]

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.

 

[Charmar]

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?

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

 

[D H]

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.

 

[Pythagorean]

I would never go to space; those photos of right above Earth give me anxiety:

 

[Borek]

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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 good luck with that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4tgkyUBkbY

 

[JonDE]

I had to cover my face with a pillow to avoid waking up the misses. I could have suffocated because of you!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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.

 

[Charmar]

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.

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.

 

[lvlastermind]

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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.

 

[D H]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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.

 

[KiwiKid]

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?

 

[KiwiKid]

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.

 

[lvlastermind]

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?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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.

 

[lvlastermind]

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

 

[D H]

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?

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?

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.

 

[thorium1010]

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.

Wow , he is a nobel prize winner. Something is not right here. Either he is bought into it a little bit too much or there is some other motivation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_%27t_Hooft

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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?

So you already knew the answer to the oxygen problem better than I did. As for pipelines tp bromg water from the poles to the landing area, I suppose they can't do it. But they know how to do it. I think all of the technologies they need for this venture already exist on small scales. I just can't believe they will be able implement them all for a mere $6 billion.

 

[D H]

Wow , he is a nobel prize winner. Something is not right here. Either he is bought into it a little bit too much or there is some other motivation.

Yes, he's a Nobel prize winner. In theoretical physics. That is his domain of expertise. Sending people to Mars isn't his domain of expertise. He's no more qualified than are Joe Blow, or Michio Kaku (another theoretical physicist who's other job is bloviating about stuff he has no business talking about).

 

[thorium1010]

Yes, he's a Nobel prize winner. In theoretical physics. That is his domain of expertise. Sending people to Mars isn't his domain of expertise. He's no more qualified than are Joe Blow, or Michio Kaku (another theoretical physicist who's other job is bloviating about stuff he has no business talking about).

I agree. But i wish he had used better judgement on this issue unless he stands to gain from it (example if he is one of the board of directors). Well , iam only speculating here. I don't know what his actual intentions are.

Back to Mars one mission, I think it has been propped up due to the recent success of space x rocket mission. Realistically they would need resources only a wealthy country could afford at this stage. Where will they get the support for a mission whichnasa thinks its a expenditure they cannot afford now.

 

[D H]

As for pipelines to bring water from the poles to the landing area, I suppose they can't do it. But they know how to do it.

There was no discussion of a pipeline from the poles to the landing area. However, this is exactly the kind of thing that we haven't the foggiest idea how to do. You can't just say that because we know how to build long pipelines on Earth, we know how to do it on Mars.

I think all of the technologies they need for this venture already exist on small scales.

No, they don't, and even if they did, things don't scale by orders of magnitude in the world of engineering. Technologies that work just fine at a small scale, or work just fine in a controlled laboratory setting typically fail miserably when scaled up by orders of magnitude or when taken out into the world at large. More often than not, scaling up by orders of magnitude or radically changing the environment in which a technology operates is a back to the drawing board scenario.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

So you already knew the answer to the oxygen problem better than I did. As for pipelines tp bromg water from the poles to the landing area, I suppose they can't do it. But they know how to do it. I think all of the technologies they need for this venture already exist on small scales. I just can't believe they will be able implement them all for a mere $6 billion.

This isn't a dig at you Jimmy but I see this a lot; I'm always baffled when people casually throw out statements like "pipelines can be built to transport water from the poles" or "ores can be extracted from craters to build structures" or "the fuel can just be harvested from the soil" etc etc.

The cost for doing these things is usually pretty high on Earth, aside from just the dollar figure and man hours though is the need for support industry. Say you wanted to build a pipeline on Earth several hundred kilometres long. You can get the concrete from companies that buy/mine the required materials from the Earth, ditto the metals, plastics, electronics and machine components. All these things require factories somewhere and a supply line that starts with someone sticking a shovel in the ground/pickaxe in the Earth and ends with a component slotting in place. But all these industries require support as well; you need trucks to transport the materials (and therefore roads to drive the trucks on, fuel to power them and garages to maintain them), electricity to power the factories (which in turn requires factories to produce power stations of some kind a long with pylons to transport the energy) etc etc.

I have a strong impression that many people fallaciously overlook the fact that any action on Earth is not done in isolation. We have never sent a few tonnes of machinery to a remote location and had it mine, refine and utilise in-situ resources to construct more machinery which can go on to construct large infrastructure. Considering that, why do people assume we can do it on Mars?

Unless of course the assumption is that most of the components and specialised equipment are going to be shipped there, in which case it really will take trillions of dollars for many, many years.

 

[KiwiKid]

Yes, he's a Nobel prize winner. In theoretical physics. That is his domain of expertise. Sending people to Mars isn't his domain of expertise. He's no more qualified than are Joe Blow, or Michio Kaku (another theoretical physicist who's other job is bloviating about stuff he has no business talking about).

Agreed. The point is, people *expect* Nobel prize winners (and other smart people, such as professors) to know when to shut up, so when they don't, they think "they must know what they're talking about."

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

What technology do you need that you don't already have in small scale?

I say $6 billion won't cut it. So indulge me. I'll give you $6 trillion. More if you think you need it. Remember, we have already sent a robot there and we have already sent humans to the moon. If we send parts up to low Earth orbit and assemble them there, we can send one very huge ship to Mars.

 

[Some Slacker]

Maybe a space elevator first?

That should lower the cost significantly (of further missions, not the space elevator itself). Not to mention give you a bit of a boost to get you on yer way...

Still doesn't solve any of the ACTUAL problems with a Mars mission, but would make space going cheaper, which can't be a bad thing.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

What technology do you need that you don't already have in small scale?

Your use of the term "small scale" implies technologies that just require us to build them bigger/strap several together. The reality is that many necessary technologies are at a low TRL and even those at a high level or that are used now won't scale. The biggest example I can think of is life support. At the moment the ISS is resupplied by regular transports from Earth. Unless the same is going to be done for a Mars base (meaning a large payload delivered to Mars every month or so for the duration of the mission) it's going to have to harvest its own and as projects like biosphere 2 showed we're nowhere near being able to construct productive closed ecosystems.

Maybe a space elevator first?

Bear in mind we don't know how to build one of them that's not really an answer to the question is it? It just moves the problem along from one never before accomplished mega-megaproject to two.

I'm not saying it's a bad way to tackle the issue overall, if a working space elevator could be built it would help, but given how that is a big unknown at the moment it's a bit moot.

 

[NeoDevin]

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.

Now now, lack of oxygen and/or starvation quite naturally ends their lives.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Your use of the term "small scale" implies technologies that just require us to build them bigger/strap several together.

No it doesn't. It might also mean that you have an army of engineers who use their heads for more than a hat rack. Besides, some things do scale up.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

No it doesn't. It might also mean that you have an army of engineers who use their heads for more than a hat rack.

Not seeing the relevance of this statement.

Besides, some things do scale up.

Such as? I'm sure there are things that will scale, but may critical technologies are A) not at an appropriate TRL and B) do not scale.

Bottom line a manned Mars mission (whether it features returning the astronauts or building an outpost) will require significant development in multiple areas of science from the obvious areas of propulsion and life support to the less obvious like psycho/sociological study of small groups in confined/isolated environments and in-situ resource utilisation.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Bottom line a manned Mars mission (whether it features returning the astronauts or building an outpost) will require significant development in multiple areas of science from the obvious areas of propulsion and life support to the less obvious like psycho/sociological study of small groups in confined/isolated environments and in-situ resource utilisation.

We already do all of the highlighted things. In fact, the propulsion part will scale very nicely. If you bring a spaceship up to low Earth orbit and assemble it there, you can take tremendous advantage of the fact that you will start your voyage without regard for the atmosphere. This frees up the design of the spaceship considerably. I've known that since I was 9 years old. It was in a book called 'The First Book of Space Travel", by Jeanne Bendick. Did anyone else here read the 'First Book" series as kids? The psycho stuff may well doom the project once it gets to Mars, but it wouldn't prevent them from getting there. The people on the ISS are a relatively small group isolated for relatively long periods.

 

[Some Slacker]

Bear in mind we don't know how to build one of them that's not really an answer to the question is it? It just moves the problem along from one never before accomplished mega-megaproject to two.

I'm not saying it's a bad way to tackle the issue overall, if a working space elevator could be built it would help, but given how that is a big unknown at the moment it's a bit moot.

I think its more a problem of cost and/or will than of knowledge, with economies around the world failing (when aren't they?) and little support for 'wasting' the taxpayers money in such a way leads to having to do with less... I mean look at poor NASA, having to turn to the public to 'bring groceries' to the ISS. I mean seriously look at what NASA has done with its TINY budget (from what I could find somewhere around 8000 people in the US make more personally than NASA's entire budget). Now, you can let the 'job creators' have at it (though with little ROI there is no motivation), or you can have the overspending, unethical, tyrannical gov't do it.