It did say he signed up primarily out of curiosity. Having an open mind is the mark of a good scientist. Applying is not the same thing as actually going through with it.
'Mars One' finalist breaks silence, claims organization is a total scam
- Thread starter Shawn Knight
- Start date
It did say he signed up primarily out of curiosity. Having an open mind is the mark of a good scientist. Applying is not the same thing as actually going through with it.
QUOTE="golfball, post: 1462056, member: 364918"]
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.[/QUOTE]
I worked as an intern for NASA on the first manned mission to Mars that was canceled due to budget constraints, not lack of feasibility/technology. Some of the points you mentioned are correct. No one has built the necessary equipment to ensure the lives of astronauts on the surface of Mars and not even NASA took into consideration in their plan a way for the astronauts to overcome the negative effects of low/no gravity on bone density and muscle mass. However, the health issue due to lack of gravity was the primary obstacle to the success of the mission.
There was a plan in place to build habitats AND retrieve the astronauts from the surface of Mars 12-14 months after the initial landing when the Earth and Mars would be close enough again to make the trip back as short as possible. It would have been a 6-month journey both ways.
We do have the technology to send astronauts to Mars and to launch them off the surface of Mars to return home. Because we haven't built items necessary to ensure a successful mission to Mars, doesn't mean we lack the technology to do so. There was a plan to do just that.
The effects of zero gravity can be lessened by spinning the ship or having a portion of the ship be a gravity chamber that spins which the astronauts could use each day to ensure their health. Several years after I left the project, the vehicle specs were modified to include some sort of spinning module whose details I can't recall.
The effects of low gravity on the surface of Mars were never considered to my knowledge. I came up with a simple solution to the problem but who's going to listen to a summer intern? The gravity on Earth's surface is a little less than 3 times the gravity on Mars' surface. The easiest way to overcome this problem is for the astronauts to wear full-body weight suits that approximate their weight on Earth.
The weight would not have to be included in the payload. The suits could have pockets distributed over the entire body which the astronauts would fill with soil from the surface of Mars. Adjustments would need to be made to any suit that would be worn outside of a habitat on Mars to accommodate the bulk of the gravity suits but that is easy enough to do.
These suits have not been made, no vehicle has been built, no habitat for living on the surface of Mars has been designed or built. But we most certainly have the technology to create such items and send astronauts to Mars and bring them back.
The only thing holding back such a mission is the willingness by one or multiple nations to plan and fund such a mission. NASA would never have been given the green light to plan such a mission if we lacked the technology to bring it to fruition.
For anyone interested, if the Mars mission had not been canceled, we could have had astronauts on the surface of Mars as early as 2018. The next year they were considering was either 2024 or 2026. I can't recall. The years coincided with the shortest possible voyage from Earth to Mars and another window within two years time that would also ensure a short voyage back.
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.[/QUOTE]
I worked as an intern for NASA on the first manned mission to Mars that was canceled due to budget constraints, not lack of feasibility/technology. Some of the points you mentioned are correct. No one has built the necessary equipment to ensure the lives of astronauts on the surface of Mars and not even NASA took into consideration in their plan a way for the astronauts to overcome the negative effects of low/no gravity on bone density and muscle mass. However, the health issue due to lack of gravity was the primary obstacle to the success of the mission.
There was a plan in place to build habitats AND retrieve the astronauts from the surface of Mars 12-14 months after the initial landing when the Earth and Mars would be close enough again to make the trip back as short as possible. It would have been a 6-month journey both ways.
We do have the technology to send astronauts to Mars and to launch them off the surface of Mars to return home. Because we haven't built items necessary to ensure a successful mission to Mars, doesn't mean we lack the technology to do so. There was a plan to do just that.
The effects of zero gravity can be lessened by spinning the ship or having a portion of the ship be a gravity chamber that spins which the astronauts could use each day to ensure their health. Several years after I left the project, the vehicle specs were modified to include some sort of spinning module whose details I can't recall.
The effects of low gravity on the surface of Mars were never considered to my knowledge. I came up with a simple solution to the problem but who's going to listen to a summer intern? The gravity on Earth's surface is a little less than 3 times the gravity on Mars' surface. The easiest way to overcome this problem is for the astronauts to wear full-body weight suits that approximate their weight on Earth.
The weight would not have to be included in the payload. The suits could have pockets distributed over the entire body which the astronauts would fill with soil from the surface of Mars. Adjustments would need to be made to any suit that would be worn outside of a habitat on Mars to accommodate the bulk of the gravity suits but that is easy enough to do.
These suits have not been made, no vehicle has been built, no habitat for living on the surface of Mars has been designed or built. But we most certainly have the technology to create such items and send astronauts to Mars and bring them back.
The only thing holding back such a mission is the willingness by one or multiple nations to plan and fund such a mission. NASA would never have been given the green light to plan such a mission if we lacked the technology to bring it to fruition.
For anyone interested, if the Mars mission had not been canceled, we could have had astronauts on the surface of Mars as early as 2018. The next year they were considering was either 2024 or 2026. I can't recall. The years coincided with the shortest possible voyage from Earth to Mars and another window within two years time that would also ensure a short voyage back.
captaincranky
Posts: 19,683 +8,823
No, nothing went wrong with the quoting process, it's you.
I /we, went through this with another newcomer last week. I'm not entirely sure he wasn't trolling, though.
In any event, blaming the software won't assist you in learning to work with it properly.
If you're going to do split quoting with a point by point response, you must copy and paste the original quotation header in front of the separated section, followed by, "[/quote]", at the end. Then type your response to that individual point.
I will grant you this software can be quite twitchy, and may require some pampering from time to time. It does indeed, take some practice and getting used to.
Last edited:
D
davislane1
I don't see how this is feasible. Without specially manufactured weight plates, filling pockets with enough soil to approach an equivalent of 1g would make the suits incredibly cumbersome. 50-70lbs of dirt on Earth is bulky as is, but doable. But due to the gravity difference, doing so with Martian soil would take up to three times as much volume due to the lower g.
Having a plan is not the same as actually having the technology and the ability to deliver it. Having a plan is just that: having a plan. If a project cannot be completed according to a fixed budget (which is what you've indicated), by definition it is not feasible. Furthermore, having the technology to manufacture the technology necessary for a mission is not the same as having the technology necessary to send men to Mars, since that technology doesn't exist (by your own admission).
The cut and dry reality seems to be that NASA doesn't have what it takes at the moment. Nor does anyone else.
MilwaukeeMike
Posts: 3,216 +1,469
You're missing the open bracket [ at the beginning of his post.
Would a heavy suit actually work? I could see it would keep your muscles from atrophy and keep your bones strong, but it wouldn't help your heart would it? Doesn't gravity keep your heart strong too because it has to pump blood up to your head?
While I'm bummed funding was cut, I can't say I disagree with the decision. Using taxpayer dollars is very inefficient because there's a high standard set for results. aka... wasting taxpayer dollars via failure is a big problem so NASA can't take very big risks.
A private organization though has no qualms about risk. Elon Musk is perfectly able to crash his million dollar rockets into a barge and we all laugh about it. The govt does that and we all say 'wtf, that could have been a grade school!'
D
davislane1
The issue with the heart is weakening, as the blood in a low-g environment is lighter. There are also other issues with how fluids are distributed throughout the body as well as digestive system functioning. This could be mitigated in flight, but not on the planet's surface, which is the problem.
The Catholic church certainly has.
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
Past tense as in centuries ago is irrelevant. We are passed that now, why bring it up again?
We are now globally connected and so diverse, @davislane1 is correct that no organization will damage trust in scientists. Because you would have to do it on a global scale and convince every one no matter the diversity scale. That can only be done if there is merit behind the mistrust.
We are now globally connected and so diverse, @davislane1 is correct that no organization will damage trust in scientists. Because you would have to do it on a global scale and convince every one no matter the diversity scale. That can only be done if there is merit behind the mistrust.
MilwaukeeMike
Posts: 3,216 +1,469
On the contrary, science is easily discredited. Look at Andrew Wakefield. Previously, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, he faked a study that connected the MMR vaccine to autism. He later admitted his study was about as truthful as your average Bigfoot sighting, and he was banned from ever practicing medicine again. Yet today we have measles (of the M's in the MMR vaccine) outbreaks at Disney world because parents 'don't want to take any chances'
If science weren't so easily mistrusted we wouldn't have so many people who don't believe in evolution, or who do believe GMO food is unhealthy.
If you want something consistent about science, it's that most people believe the science they agree with, and question the credibility of the science they disagree with.
D
davislane1
The Catholic church has never been a BS organization. Their political influence on Western civilization has been so profound that they have convinced entire generations of ignoramuses that the Crusades were somehow consistent with Christian theology (today that torch has been passed on to garden variety atheists). Not only that, they have in earlier times quite effectively maintained monopoly over biblical text (though they did eventually lose that monopoly) and have historically suppressed other speech deemed heretical (threatening to the RCC's influence). That isn't the resume of a BS organization. That's the resume of one of the most powerful political intuitions in history.
If we're going to base the impact of Mars One on the capacity of the RCC to act on Western civilization, we might as well look at it in cosmic terms. The RCC is Saturn. Mars One is a pebble. They both have mass and therefore gravity, but I doubt the latter will be influencing anyones trajectories anytime soon.
captaincranky
Posts: 19,683 +8,823
Did you know the Inquisition didn't officially end until the 1830's?
BTW, if you were trying to make me think less of the Roman Catholic Church than I already do, it was a fail.
BTW, if you were trying to make me think less of the Roman Catholic Church than I already do, it was a fail.
D
davislane1
I did not want to go into the RCC's long history (the RCC is occasionally
BTW, if you were trying to make me think less of the Roman Catholic Church than I already do, it was a fail.
I know better than to attempt to make you think less of any enduring establishment. I'm not in the business of giving people directions to their current location.
captaincranky
Posts: 19,683 +8,823
In sociology 101 we learned that the individual with the most elaborate headgear was likely in charge. With that in mind, I present to you his holiness the pope.
With that in mind, creating the church of England, is why I revere rather than revile, King Henry VIII. Although, I feel compelled to tell you I wouldn't be caught dead in one of those either.
G
Guest
What is your definition of suicidal? Going somewhere and never returning, all while living out your entire life isn't suicide.
Not saying the mission would be successful, bit it would only be suicidal if they died enroute. If I move to Australia and never return to my country of birth, I didn't commit suicide, even if I'm stranded there...
Not saying the mission would be successful, bit it would only be suicidal if they died enroute. If I move to Australia and never return to my country of birth, I didn't commit suicide, even if I'm stranded there...
captaincranky
Posts: 19,683 +8,823
And a great big thank you, for freely spreading the consummate wisdom of the patently obvious, freely, to all of our benefit....(y)
D
davislane1
There is so much awesome folded into this comment it should be studied by physicists.
Thread winner.
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
Did you not read my last sentence, that definitely give reason for mistrust. But not in science, mistrust in the scientist behind the study.
G
Guest
I have degree in physics and I am young and fit all in all perfect candidate for astronaut..But coming from non ESA EU member state so aplying to ESA is no go for me..So I went different route..To achive dream I aplied to bunch of prize games for suborbital hop..Came in second even I was best candidate for space flight only to coruption..I have no reason to belive this is different..
Uncle Al
Posts: 10,163 +9,646
In the early days NASA was blowing them up as fast as they could build them! ... of course if they are worried at NASA's budget, you need to look at their budget under the black program ... it's a heck of a lot higher than the published budget!
6 billion dollar suicide mission, seems kind of pointless right?
US government could easily afford this kind of missions just by cutting warfare budget a little bit. But I still can't get the point of how a private company could raise funds for such a venture. It's highly expensive, extremely risky, hardly profitable, and too far fetched. An investor's nightmare. Advertising might fill the gap, but I can't imagine many companies supporting such an ill fated prospect (including "suicidal" one way tourists selected like in BigBrother with almost no training).
G
Guest
Apparently we're the only who were able to read that part
G
Guest
Hey I am really disappointed... I sent in my ex-husband's application and would actually pay for them to take him but nary a word.
D
davislane1
It's clear that you don't understand how big money investment works. In a nutshell, you take a $1b hit over the next 5-10 years and 15-25 years down the road have a near monopoly on a multibillion-dollar technology. The whole "buy it once it's hot" strategy is an amateur's game that only winds up paying the smart money. It is also cheaper for private companies to do it than government. Government agencies like NASA have to wade through far more red tape and politics than private companies do.
Similar threads
- Locked
Latest posts
-
Gigabyte confirms "Ryzen 9000" branding for AMD's upcoming Zen 5 CPUs- antiproduct replied
