Mars-One: People living on Mars in 2023

  • Thread starter Thread starter lvlastermind
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    mars
Click For Summary
Mars-One aims to send four people to live on Mars indefinitely by 2023, with funding expected from media interest akin to a reality TV show. Critics argue the mission is implausible due to the high costs, untested technology, and lack of essential life support systems for survival on Mars. Concerns include the psychological stability of volunteers, the feasibility of food production, and the challenges of landing and operating on the Martian surface. The timeline is deemed unrealistic, with many asserting that even with significant funding, the mission would likely fail. Overall, skepticism prevails regarding the viability of Mars-One's ambitious plans.
  • #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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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.
 
  • #36
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.

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
 
  • #37
D H said:
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.
 
  • #38
thorium1010 said:
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).
 
  • #39
D H said:
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.
 
  • #40
Jimmy Snyder said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
Jimmy Snyder said:
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.
 
  • #42
D H said:
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."
 
  • #43
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.
 
  • #44
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.
 
  • #45
Jimmy Snyder said:
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.
Some Slacker said:
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.
 
  • #46
Ryan_m_b said:
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.
 
  • #47
Ryan_m_b said:
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.
 
  • #48
Jimmy Snyder said:
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.
Jimmy Snyder said:
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.
 
  • #49
Ryan_m_b said:
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.
 
  • #50
Ryan_m_b said:
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.
 
  • #51
Jimmy Snyder said:
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.
We do not already do life support and in situ resource allocation to the sophistication and extent that would be needed. See my previous comment about resupply for the former and the one before that regarding industry not existing in isolation for the latter (for extra clarity consider this: how feasible would it be to leave the ISS for a period of years [2-5] and expect the astronauts to not only maintain the station and survive but also perform continuous experiments?). I'm not convinced that propulsion is a simple matter of scale unless you are suggesting on using chemical rockers (in which case that's one expensive trip!).

Also the people on the ISS, whilst isolated in a confined period, are only like that for a period of months and they have the practical advantage of only being a few hundred kilometres from the ground with all the psychological benefits that brings.
Some Slacker said:
I think its more a problem of cost and/or will than of knowledge
It's not. Off the top of my head we do not have the technology to;
  • Recruit a counterweight
  • Construct a cable strong and long enough
  • Power a climber up said cable
Also there's the utterly non-trivial task of convincing people (me included) that easier access to space justifies the risk of having a cable tens of thousands of kilometres long break and fall to Earth, wrapping around the equator (at high speed) as it does so.
 
Last edited:
  • #52
Jimmy Snyder said:
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.

How about protection against solar storms and other energetic particles in space and on Mars (which has a very weak magnetosphere)? How are you going to get oxygen and water? How will you grow food? What will be your energy source in the established colony? How many people do you actually need to send to Mars to ensure basic human needs to everyone? How will you deal with the detrimental effects on human health of weightlessness (and reduced gravity on Mars)?

We may have parts of all the answers already, but I think you are severely underestimating the amount of time it takes us humans to put it all together, design it all and build something huge we can be pretty sure will work. For something huge like this, it's pretty much a one-shot (since if it goes wrong it will be years, if not decades until people feel like trying something like that again) - so you'll have tonnes of stuff to check.

I would also like to point you to this. It's really not as easy to land on Mars with huge payloads as you may think.
 
  • #53
Jimmy Snyder said:
We already do all of the highlighted things.
We don't do any of the highlighted things, and Ryan left out nice things such as precision landing. We don't know how to do it. More on this later in this post.
Some Slacker said:
I mean look at poor NASA, having to turn to the public to 'bring groceries' to the ISS.
Turn to the public? There would be no SpaceX without NASA. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX#Funding
Funding
As of May 2012, SpaceX has operated on total funding of approximately one billion dollars in its first ten years of operation. Of this, private equity has provided about $200M, with Musk investing approximately $100M and other investors having put in about $100M. The remainder has come from progress payments on long-term launch contracts and development contracts. NASA has put in about $400-500M of this amount, with most of that as progress payments on launch contracts.​
About half of the total funding to SpaceX came from NASA, and a good chunk of the rest came from the DoD. Musk would have had a very hard time finding investors had it not been for those government contracts. The development of that Dragon to the ISS was funded almost entirely by NASA. This is something that NASA has very much wanted to happen for a long time, and has been working with industry to make that happen. (Well, some parts of NASA. Other parts of NASA are stuck in the stone age.)
KiwiKid said:
I would also like to point you to this. It's really not as easy to land on Mars with huge payloads as you may think.
Nice find. This is exactly what I've been saying about landing on Mars, multiple times, in this thread. From that article,
There’s no comfort in the statistics for missions to Mars. To date over 60% of the missions have failed. The scientists and engineers of these undertakings use phrases like “Six Minutes of Terror,” and “The Great Galactic Ghoul” to illustrate their experiences, evidence of the anxiety that’s evoked by sending a robotic spacecraft to Mars — even among those who have devoted their careers to the task. But mention sending a human mission to land on the Red Planet, with payloads several factors larger than an unmanned spacecraft and the trepidation among that same group grows even larger. Why?

Nobody knows how to do it.​
The article goes on to talk about how the atmosphere of Mars is more than thick enough to cause trouble, lots of trouble, for a vehicle hitting the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds but not near thick enough to provide any advantages in the way we take advantage of the Earth's atmosphere.
 
  • #54
Ryan_m_b said:
We do not already do life support and in situ resource allocation to the sophistication and extent that would be needed.
You sound like me.
 
  • #55
Jimmy Snyder said:
You sound like me.
I disagree. From my point of view we're barely in the prototype stage for most of what we need and some is lab based proof of concept/drawing board stuff. You seem to be suggesting that there are technologies in use that we can just adapt/scale up for use. I'll admit that's probably true for some things but definitely not all.
 
Last edited:
  • #56
I copied this from the link that KiwiKid provided.

universitytoday said:
But while the Apollo lunar lander weighed approximately 10 metric tons, a human mission to Mars will require three to six times that mass, given the restraints of staying on the planet for a year. Landing a payload that heavy on Mars is currently impossible, using our existing capabilities.
I can figure out how to solve this problem. It didn't take me 11 years either.
 
  • #57
For propulsion, maybe some further development of ion engines would be a bigger step in the right direction?

Overlooking some other difficulties that would need to be solved first; wouldn't setting up a transport route between Earth orbit and Mars orbit be more ideal if propulsion/fuel was not as big an issue/cost, rather than attempting to make a fully independent colony on Mars?
 
  • #58
GregJ said:
For propulsion, maybe some further development of ion engines would be a bigger step in the right direction?

Overlooking some other difficulties that would need to be solved first; wouldn't setting up a transport route between Earth orbit and Mars orbit be more ideal if propulsion/fuel was not as big an issue/cost, rather than attempting to make a fully independent colony on Mars?

What do they do if something happens and Earth can't send the supply ships? Perhaps a major accident in launch or upon return to Earth or the supply ship crashes on Mars. Anything less than a fully self sufficient colony (or as close to it as we can get) would be extremely dangerous.
 
  • #59
GregJ said:
For propulsion, maybe some further development of ion engines would be a bigger step in the right direction?

Overlooking some other difficulties that would need to be solved first; wouldn't setting up a transport route between Earth orbit and Mars orbit be more ideal if propulsion/fuel was not as big an issue/cost, rather than attempting to make a fully independent colony on Mars?
Something like this crossed my mind because of the objection that the ISS is being continuously resupplied. There is no techological reason why the Mars mission can't also be continuously resupplied. As I said in my first post, I see no reason to climb down Mars' gravitational well once you have climbed up out of the Earth's. I also think that the L5 libration point is a better choice for a place to live than in orbit around Mars.
 
  • #60
Drakkith said:
What do they do if something happens and Earth can't send the supply ships? Perhaps a major accident in launch or upon return to Earth or the supply ship crashes on Mars. Anything less than a fully self sufficient colony (or as close to it as we can get) would be extremely dangerous.

Well, I was referring more to spacecraft that do not enter neither Earths or Mars' atmosphere. Some method of getting the supplies onboard and delivering them from orbit would be more along the lines I was thinking of.

As I said, I still think there would be quite a few obstacles to overcome. But still this is fun to think/dream about :)