Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes, and I can qualify for the mission.

11 (16.4%)

Yes, but not on the first few flights. Tell me when they have air and stuff.

8 (11.9%)

Yes, but I'm too young/psychopathic/stupid

14 (20.9%)

No, AND I'm too young/psychopathic/stupid

11 (16.4%)

No, because I need to stay on earth, though I do qualify

8 (11.9%)

No, I don't want to go at all

15 (22.4%)

Total Members Voted: 66

[Loud Whispers]

As it stands, the reality TV show has goods odd of ending up as the record of mankind's first murder on another world.

"To murder where no man has murdered before has been humanity's dream since he first looked unto the skies."

[10ebbor10]

I probably won't qualify, but even then I  would't join for ethical reasons. Just don't like the way they handle stuff.

Indeed. Seems too commercialism centered than actually about science. It would be nice to have humanity's first attempt to set a colony on Mars not end in death and failure. Ah well, maybe enough money thrown at it might be enough.

Even then, I'm pretty sure they will do more bad than good. A single mistake could contaminate an entire area, and something says to me that a commercial compagny will not care much about that.

Speaking of which, I wonder if they will even get launch permission. According to International Space Law, the activities of any nongovernemental organisation need to be governemened by their State/Party (Netherlands, I believe). By that same treaty, the Netherlands would also be directly responsible for everything they do.

Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty deals with international responsibility, stating that "the activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty" and that States Parties shall bear international responsibility for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental entities.

As a result of discussions arising from Project West Ford in 1963, a consultation clause was included in Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty: "A State Party to the Treaty which has reason to believe that an activity or experiment planned by another State Party in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, would cause potentially harmful interference with activities in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, may request consultation concerning the activity or experiment

Edit: Excusi. Mars One is led by a dutch entrepreneur. Dutch. Coming from one of the flatest, lowest countries on Earth and they're going to try to build a space program. This is just going to end up like that mountain, isn't it.

So, false alarm guys.

Spoiler: More interesting things (click to show/hide)

Astronauts are chosen by the public. Not the scientists, the public. I wonder if they also add an option to vote people out of the rocket.
They are using inflatable habitats. Good news guys, you won't even have to miss the wonderfull benefits of constant irradiation you got used to during the flight. You can also enjoy them on the planet.

[Sir Finkus]

I probably won't qualify, but even then I  would't join for ethical reasons. Just don't like the way they handle stuff.

Indeed. Seems too commercialism centered than actually about science. It would be nice to have humanity's first attempt to set a colony on Mars not end in death and failure. Ah well, maybe enough money thrown at it might be enough.

Commercialization is fine imo.  My main problem is that their funding plan doesn't work if you think about it for more than 18 seconds.  The way I see it, they have two options:

1)Pick the best candidates possible for the mission.  People with stable personalities that work well together.  What follows is the most boring television imaginable as Astronaut Grant does his 50th weekly check on the pressure of the oxygen tanks.  I consider myself pretty nerdy about stuff like this, but I'm not tuning in. 
2)Pick candidates designed to create drama.  2 weeks in, a fight erupts, someone pouts, and the oxygen tank pressure doesn't get checked.  Everyone slowly suffocates to death.

This assumes they get enough money to get the astronauts off the ground, which they won't.

[10ebbor10]

I probably won't qualify, but even then I  would't join for ethical reasons. Just don't like the way they handle stuff.

Indeed. Seems too commercialism centered than actually about science. It would be nice to have humanity's first attempt to set a colony on Mars not end in death and failure. Ah well, maybe enough money thrown at it might be enough.

Commercialization is fine imo.  My main problem is that their funding plan doesn't work if you think about it for more than 18 seconds.  The way I see it, they have two options:

No it isn't. Not always. There are places where you really shouldn't cut corners in order to try and make a profit.

As for their bussiness plan, they need more or less 1-6 billion to get people into space, and then they are set. Because without ressupplies, people up their are going to die. Hence, even if the compagny goes bankrupt, governements will be morally forced to intervene. Also, total cost of the project is about 1 trillion.

Now excuse me while I go and think up some way to save the Earth from megalomanic mice.

[Sir Finkus]

I probably won't qualify, but even then I  would't join for ethical reasons. Just don't like the way they handle stuff.

Indeed. Seems too commercialism centered than actually about science. It would be nice to have humanity's first attempt to set a colony on Mars not end in death and failure. Ah well, maybe enough money thrown at it might be enough.

Commercialization is fine imo.  My main problem is that their funding plan doesn't work if you think about it for more than 18 seconds.  The way I see it, they have two options:

No it isn't. Not always. There are places where you really shouldn't cut corners in order to try and make a profit.

Who said anything about cutting corners?  Do you really think any space agency is going to let these guys use their facilities or provide launch clearance if they aren't up to snuff?

[10ebbor10]

No back-up lifesupport*, no radiation control, no way back, no way to survive without supplies. I don't think anyone will give these guys launch permission.

I was just talking about commercialisation in general. After all, you wouldn't think anyone would give drilling clearances to economically and environementally important areas to a compagny which gets millions in OSHA non compliances fines every year.  Current institutions are by far not capable of limiting the modern corporations ability to cut corners.

*not seperatly mentioned, though the provided lifesupport should have some backup option

[Sir Finkus]

No back-up lifesupport*, no radiation control, no way back, no way to survive without supplies. I don't think anyone will give these guys launch permission.

I was just talking about commercialisation in general. After all, you wouldn't think anyone would give drilling clearances to economically and environementally important areas to a compagny which gets millions in OSHA non compliances fines every year.  Current institutions are by far not capable of limiting the modern corporations ability to cut corners.

*not seperatly mentioned, though the provided lifesupport should have some backup option

Corners will be cut regardless.  For something like space travel, there is a constant pressure by the public on the government space agencies to show a "return" on their "investment" of tax dollars.  They're both under similar pressures to cut costs and deliver milestones.

It seems like you're making a broader argument agains private business in general, or that commercialism is inherently evil.  We'll have to disagree there.

[10ebbor10]

Oh, have a mentioned that they're launching at aproximately the same moment as the solar activity maxes*. That way, they ensure a maximum availability of flares and radiation to fry their astronauts with.

*10-11 year solar cycle. Max is supposed to happen in 2013, but if this cycle was a really weak one it happened in 2012.

[Doomblade187]

Oh, have a mentioned that they're launching at aproximately the same moment as the solar activity maxes*. That way, they ensure a maximum availability of flares and radiation to fry their astronauts with.

*10-11 year solar cycle. Max is supposed to happen in 2013, but if this cycle was a really weak one it happened in 2012.

Yeah, and inflatable shelters in the mars sandstorms? They've had planetwide sandstorms before, I believe.

On the topic of the solar I think I heard 13 years increasing activity, 13 years decreasing activity somewhere? I could be wrong.

[andrea]

space flight is all about how many corners you can cut while keeping everyone alive.
keeping everyone alive is a sealed environment is not *that* hard ( although not too simple either). it is actually having to launch the sealed environment that breaks things

that said, this company doesn't seem to have a well thought plan. but I don't see that as an issue. their reality show will most likely die before they get to think about launching anyone or anything in space.

[Loud Whispers]

Corners will be cut regardless.

Because why should we bother trying to set out to the aims of our goal? Let's just put it on TV and call it a day.

[Aqizzar]

In a long ago era, I proved that I don't know the first damn thing about Mars, and I am most certainly not a "CAN DO!" kind of person.  I'm a "will do" kind of person, in that, I will do something if you tell me to.  Also, I hate other people and need lots of goofing off time.

[alway]

edit: double post

[alway]

On the topic of inflatable space modules:
Don't be daft. If you did your research first, you would find that inflatable spacecraft modules are stronger than metal and similar rigid body modules.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Aerospace#History

Bigelow Aerospace anticipates that its inflatable modules will be more durable than rigid modules.[13] This is partially due to the company's use of several layers of vectran, a material twice as strong as kevlar, and also because, in theory, flexible walls should be able to sustain micrometeoroid impacts better than rigid walls. In ground-based testing, micrometeoroids capable of puncturing standard ISS module materials penetrated only about half-way through the Bigelow skin. Operations director Mike Gold commented that Bigelow modules also wouldn't suffer from the same local shattering problems likely with metallic modules. This could provide as much as 24 hours to remedy punctures in comparison to the more serious results of standard ISS skin micrometeoroid damage.[8]

Further more, I've also read that those same modules have as much or more radiation protection as the ISS and similar materials.

Inflatable != latex balloons. ಠ_ಠ

[GreatWyrmGold]

I'd consider, but A. I'm not sure how much my talents would be useful in setting up a colony, and B. I don't think my above-average-yet-mediocre work ethic would compensate for my procrastination. Oh, and I tend to freeze up in "life-or-death" situations in video games (unless I retreat backwards into a deep pit while firing a pitiful weapon at hordes of more combat-capable things than I am). I have NO clue how I'd act if I actually was in a life-or-death situation...