'Mars One' finalist breaks silence, claims organization is a total scam

[captaincranky]

It has nothing to do with money - we literally do not have the technology to support such a mission, and Mars One has no idea how to manage the logistics. Something as simple as growing crops on Mars would kill the crews there in less than three months due to atmospheric imbalances (the plants would produce too much oxygen,) and we currently lack the means to filter out the oxygen whilst keeping the nitrogen needed to maintain air pressure. This is only one among many different concerns that are likely to kill off any crew attempting to colonize Mars.

No pressure suits suitable for use on the surface of Mars have been developed, no actual inflatable habitats have been produced, no ISRU system (needed for any part of the mission to succeed,) has been even designed, no crew transfer vehicle has been developed, no testing has been done to ensure crews can maintain enough bone and muscle mass to function on Mars after the long journey there, Mars One has been found to be unable to calculate the right number of *calories* for it's crews, and any/all booked launches and supposed partnerships with various companies have been found to be questionable at best.

Life isn't science fiction, and we can't just "magic" these things into existence. They'll need years of development to be considered safe for usage, they'll need to undergo testing to ensure they're safe for launch on the multi-million dollar rockets they'll be riding up on, they'll need unmanned test runs which themselves will need literally years to verify their functionality, then you'll need to actually build the surface and orbital architecture needed for such a mission.

I'd be surprised if we manage it in the next 30 years - thinking it'll only take them 9 goes far and beyond wishful thinking.

You people realize that they sell cryogenic "funerals" for well to do individuals who, "may possibly be awoken later", (but we don't have the tech for that now), in a glorious future when we have developed a cure for the fatal illness they have now, blah, blah, blah. I think they even cut the heads off. What's up with that?

If people will buy into that crap, they'll buy into anything. And no, I seriously doubt that teleportation will ever be possible either.

What does it take, 15 minutes, to set up an LLC and start begging on "Kickstarter", for money? This is the same BS fraud, on a larger scale.

And now I'm off to smoke some spice and try my hand at "folding space"

 

[golfball]

You people realize that they sell cryogenic "funerals" for well to do individuals who, "may possibly be awoken later", (but we don't have the tech for that now), in a glorious future when we have developed a cure for the fatal illness they have now, blah, blah, blah. I think they even cut the heads off. What's up with that?

If people will buy into that crap, they'll buy into anything. And no, I seriously doubt that teleportation will ever be possible either.

What does it take, 15 minutes, to set up an LLC and start begging on "Kickstarter", for money? This is the same BS fraud, on a larger scale.

And now I'm off to smoke some spice and try my hand at "folding space"

Sounds good. I'm off to sell some solar roadways.

 

[Guest]

We are on a brink of a major technological shift, the advent of anti gravity as an applicable aviation technology and printing devices evolving at a phenomenal rate. Would it be easier to send a craft unmanned to Mars that has anti gravity as it's drive and then when landed it can use these 3d printing devices to set up facilities and equipment using the planets chemistry and resources for materials. Also there is talk of 3d devices that can create tissue replacement and chemical reproduction so even (if the mind can expand the thought around the possibility) be able to create life? This would truly be a dream of Terraforming!

 

[captaincranky]

Sounds good. I'm off to sell some solar roadways.

Well, as long as you make them in an environmentally responsible manner, like out of old tires and broken glass, I suppose it will be all right.

 

[matrix86]

Like cliffordcooley said it's suicidal.

Well, to be fair, every mission is suicidal. You're strapping yourself into a large metal container sitting on top of ~5million pounds of fuel that is being ignited to blast your container off the face of the Earth.

 

[captaincranky]

@matrix86 Please fix that post.

 

[Pak15000]

"Roche fears that people will lose faith in trustworthy agencies like NASA and perhaps even scientists in general."

BS organizations aren't going to damage trust in scientists. Scientists do a well enough job of that on their own (see any of the recent scandals involving falsified and/or non-replicable data).

Citations please.

 

[Uncle Al]

The difference between going to the moon and going to Mars is about the same as a difference between McDonald's and Ruth Chris Steakhouse.

I think you owe the moon an apology ... It didn't fire it's president, lower it's standards or every come close to stuffing itself full of "pink slime" ...... and nobody is ever going to compose a song "Big Mac River" or "Big Mac over Miami" ......

 

[davislane1]

@Pak15000 Where exactly did I ask for a citation in this thread?

 

[LNCPapa]

This is close isn't it

 

[Guest]

August Franklin, editor and mars weatherman at Mars news network on facebook and chief scientist at the Mars Observers on YouTube was reached for comment: " Anyone with the slightest knowledge of how dangerous mars really is, like my colleagues at suspicious0bservers.org, knew that this mars 1 idea was misguided at best and in fact a suicide mission. Martian inhabitation with a 98% carbon dioxide atmosphere with the surface pressure the same as on earth at 22miles elevation almost makes it zero fault tolerant. the idea that volunteers with no space service or training are all that's needed is comical. That it turned out to be a farce only makes it clear; science trumps stupidity every time. Real space travel is a very serious business."

 

[caggles]

"Roche fears that people will lose faith in trustworthy agencies like NASA and perhaps even scientists in general."

BS organizations aren't going to damage trust in scientists. Scientists do a well enough job of that on their own (see any of the recent scandals involving falsified and/or non-replicable data).

Given that ridiculous non-scientists like Vani Hari and the anti-vaxxers can do the kind of irreparable damage that they have, I would say that, yes, Mars One can and probably will do a significant amount of damage to the public perception of organizations like NASA.

 

[davislane1]

Given that ridiculous non-scientists like Vani Hari and the anti-vaxxers can do the kind of irreparable damage that they have, I would say that, yes, Mars One can and probably will do a significant amount of damage to the public perception of organizations like NASA.

A food critic and vax skeptics are not comparable to space agencies. The former are concened with biological responses to chemical interactions and statistics; the latter is concerned with engineering and logistics. Whatever damage Mars One inflicts on NASA's or any other space agency's reputation is rectified as soon as someone builds a reliable technology.

NASA's PR trouble will continue to be their inability to develop anything even remotely impressive. Mars One has nothing to do with that.

 

[captaincranky]

...[ ]...NASA's PR trouble will continue to be their inability to develop anything even remotely impressive. Mars One has nothing to do with that.

Well, they're massively under funded, which causes that.

Besides, the US aerospace industry is busy building passenger jets to compete with Airbus, while hemorrhaging money, and squandering talent, into maintaining the F-35 life support infrastructure.

Meanwhile, Obama is printing money as fast as he can, to bail out the banking system, (although I'm hoping that has abated somewhat), while distributing the remainder to the upcoming generations of entitlement mouths he's pledged to pander to.

Such was my reaction to the dwindling aerospace dollar. After seeing a B1-B "Lancer" at the McGuire AFB air show, I blurted out, "I don't care how many kindergarten children have to do without a graham cracker and milk snack, "we need more of those"...(y)

(And that was the forum friendly, cleaned up dramatically, profanity removed, response to how I feel about children, money pissed away on preschool, and graham crackers in general).

 

[davislane1]

Well, they're massively under funded, which causes that.

Besides, the US aerospace industry is busy building passenger jets to compete with Airbus, while hemorrhaging money, and squandering talent, into maintaining the F-35 life support infrastructure.

Meanwhile, Obama is printing money as fast as he can, to bail out the banking system, (although I'm hoping that has abated somewhat), while distributing the remainder to the upcoming generations of entitlement mouths he's pledged to pander to.

I don't buy the funding argument. Virgin Galactic has demonstrated more progress in the realm of space travel over the past 10 years with a fraction of the money NASA has received. NASA's problem is management and the business structure they have to work with. That can't be fixed by additional funding.

A case could be made that increasing their funding may enable them to attract top talent that is currently recruited by private companies, but such a maneuver would only prompt better offers by those private entities, nullifying the strategy.

As for the F-35... I don't see the usefulness either. In the age of air superiority by drone, multi-purpose fighter jets are technologically, logistically, and economically inferior. But it does keep the pockets well greased.

But all of this only demonstrates my original point: Mars One is insignificant. Trust in scientists isn't damaged by hoodwinkers out to capitalize on cosmic fantasies. Scientists and the people who legitimately employ them do more to discourage trust than anyone else.

 

[captaincranky]

I don't buy the funding argument. Virgin Galactic has demonstrated more progress in the realm of space travel over the past 10 years with a fraction of the money NASA has received. NASA's problem is management and the business structure they have to work with. That can't be fixed by additional funding.

Oh, I don't know, NASA has blown up as many rockets recently as Virgin, probably more.

 

[davislane1]

Oh, I don't know, NASA has blown up as many rockets recently as Virgin, probably more.

But not with half the style or marketing gamesmanship.

 

[captaincranky]

But not with half the style or marketing gamesmanship.

I take it you're offering this up as a euphemism for, "bullsh!t".

 

[davislane1]

I take it you're offering this up as a euphemism for, "bullsh!t".

Not as a euphemism; as the genuine article.

 

[Guest]

No, the primary, imo, argument for privatizing is that the investors choose to risk their capital in the attempt while NASA (government) forces all taxpayers to be investors whether they want to our not.

The initial run of something like this the costs would probably be pretty similar between public and private because it hasn't been done before.

But there is no doubt that private sector is better at trimming fat, finding economies of scale, etc than the bureaucracy of the federal government if for no other reason than the lack of politicians kowtowing to social interests.

 

[cmbjive]

This is close isn't it

LNCPapa, davislane1, and Uncle Al I yield! I cry uncle (sorry for the pun). I'll upgrade the moon to Denny's. ;-)

 

[Guest]

I can understand where his concern is coming from. Stupidity spreads like wildfire, especially with social media.

 

[ChillRob]

"Roche fears that people will lose faith in trustworthy agencies like NASA and perhaps even scientists in general."

BS organizations aren't going to damage trust in scientists. Scientists do a well enough job of that on their own (see any of the recent scandals involving falsified and/or non-replicable data).

"Roche fears that people will lose faith in trustworthy agencies like NASA and perhaps even scientists in general."

BS organizations aren't going to damage trust in scientists. Scientists do a well enough job of that on their own (see any of the recent scandals involving falsified and/or non-replicable data).

"See", you said? That's the point in your post where you cite these examples or at least give us a vague idea what you're talking about.
You talk about scandals and falsified information by your select list of scientists. can we get some names, please?

 

[davislane1]

"See", you said? That's the point in your post where you cite these examples or at least give us a vague idea what you're talking about.
You talk about scandals and falsified information by your select list of scientists. can we get some names, please?

I already addressed this in a previous comment.

The sentence you're calling attention to concerns general knowledge and therefore doesn't require additional citation. At no point did I call attention to any specific case (which would require citation). Even so, these points are addressed with both a specific case and a general discussion on the topic in the aforementioned response.