Mars-One: People living on Mars in 2023

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter lvlastermind
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    mars
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the feasibility of the Mars-One project, which aims to send humans to Mars in 2023 to live indefinitely. Participants are analyzing the technical, logistical, and psychological challenges associated with such a mission, as well as the motivations behind the project and its funding model.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the financial viability of the Mars-One mission, questioning the $6 billion budget for six human-capable landers, especially in comparison to previous missions like the Mars Science Laboratory.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the technological readiness for such a mission, including the ability to achieve precision landings and the untested nature of the required technologies.
  • Participants highlight the psychological challenges astronauts may face, suggesting that the types of individuals who would volunteer for such a mission may not be suitable for the extreme conditions of space travel.
  • There is significant doubt about the feasibility of growing food on Mars and the overall sustainability of life support systems necessary for long-term habitation.
  • Some participants argue that the timeline proposed by Mars-One is unrealistic, suggesting that even with substantial funding, the mission is unlikely to succeed within the stated timeframe.
  • Others propose that while Mars-One may not achieve its goals, advancements in space technology could eventually lead to human missions to Mars by other entities in the future.
  • Comparisons are made to SpaceX's achievements, with some arguing that the challenges of delivering supplies to the International Space Station are vastly different from those of establishing a human presence on Mars.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express skepticism about the feasibility of the Mars-One mission, with no consensus on whether it could be achieved as proposed. Multiple competing views exist regarding the potential for future human missions to Mars, with some believing it is possible under different circumstances.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in the current understanding of the technologies required for life support, food production, and emergency medical care on Mars. There are also unresolved questions about the psychological evaluation processes for potential astronauts and the implications of the proposed funding model.

  • #61
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.
You overdesign. In this case that means you send so many supply ships that the loss of one is no disaster. Besides, the supply ships themselves don't need to carry life support. They can carry a very large payload. And the first ones can be sent ahead of the humans.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
D H said:
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.)
Maybe this is a topic for another thread, but I'm not completely clear on how that makes SpaceX different from, say, Lockheed or North American/Rockwell/Boeing. Is it simply that NASA has less control over the design/construction and mostly just pays for it as opposed to directing (contracting) the design/construction and staffing the launch and control facilities?
 
  • #63
lvlastermind said:
to live there indefinitely.

Sure, I don't know why this thread is full of such naysayers! It's VERY POSSIBLE to get them there indefinitely by 2023...you never added the caveat that we need to get them there ALIVE did you... :-)
 
  • #64
Thread locked pending moderation.