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

[Guest]

I think what the article is trying to say here is that if there was no whistleblower then the Mars One program would have disappeared into obscurity, leaving people angry and confused as to what happened, leading into a mistrust of NASA etc etc. But thanks to this man we now know what REALLY happened.

 

[wiyosaya]

Sounds like sour grapes to me from a guy who didn't make the cut.

Even so, it's still something that just isn't possible anytime soon. Like cliffordcooley said it's suicidal.

Well yeah, I suppose going on a one way mission to Mars could be construed as being suicidal in a way. But it's not going to happen "soon." The goal is by 2024 - 9 years from now. And the technology is available now to do this - it's the money stopping any space agency from going forward with it.

I'm not defending the Mars One group. It's just listening to this guy, he sounds like someone who's pissed he didn't make the final cut and now he's going to bash the program.

Having the technology and actually doing it successfully and safely are two completely different things from my point of view.

 

[TMHstarscream]

"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).

If you are going to make a comment like that it might be a good idea to post a few examples, because if you weren't to provide any kind of proof you just become . . . another one of those guys, just making stuff up.

 

[Guest]

What you are forgetting is that people as a whole are stupid, we will believe nearly anything that the media says. Sure, most of the folks on this website will not lose faith, but, you are also more informed than the average person watching a news channel.

 

[Guest]

And who was going to be waiting for them on mars?, Tattoo?

 

[Guest]

Damn, I thought this was a neat idea. I figured the finalist would be doing rigorous test like in Armageddon. This definitely sounds like a sham though.

 

[captaincranky]

There is a difference between speculation and fact. Fact is, (1) you can launch a manned vehicle off of the Moon. Also a fact, (2) you cannot in the foreseeable future launch a manned vehicle off of Mars.

Please see table of escape velocities here at: Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity (Don't worry, the chart proves you correct).

. Lunar landings may have been seen as potentially suicidal, but that was entirely speculation. Martian landings are in fact (see (2) above) suicidal.

To land on Mars thus far, (unmanned probes, obviously), we've employed airbags:

So, I figure on a manned Mars mission, you wouldn't have to land the mother craft, just dress the colonists in Sumo suits, and boot them out of the hatch::

 

[Cyndy Hamilton]

Canceling a suicide mission, will not tarnish my perception of science (or NASA)!

NASA had nothing to do with it.

 

[davislane1]

If you are going to make a comment like that it might be a good idea to post a few examples, because if you weren't to provide any kind of proof you just become . . . another one of those guys, just making stuff up.

General knowledge doesn't require citation. But here's one, right off the top of my head:

http://www.chemistry-blog.com/2013/...no-letters-and-acs-nano-from-the-pease-group/

You'll note that in the linked article the paper in question was subsequently withdrawn.

There is also this, which talks about the issue at length:

http://www.economist.com/news/brief...elf-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble

And here's a quote directly from a scientist, just for kicks:

https://twitter.com/smittie61984/status/570650138638745600

Scientists are no different from any other professionals. Their pay check is justified by the results they can sell, commercially or academically. Putting blind faith in them because they are associated with scientific methodology is no different from putting blind faith in religion because of its association with philosophy.

 

[Guest]

If your read the article....

 

[cliffordcooley]

NASA had nothing to do with it.

You should have quoted the guy that first mentioned NASA.

 

[Guest]

Seriously, who DIDN'T realize this was a scam just after it was announced???? Anyone with common sense could see that finances and selection process was a huge joke. The fact that media even bought into this as even possibly serious is a testament at just how far we as a nation of intelligent people has fallen.

 

[Leemen]

Sounds like sour grapes to me from a guy who didn't make the cut.

Even so, it's still something that just isn't possible anytime soon. Like cliffordcooley said it's suicidal.

Well yeah, I suppose going on a one way mission to Mars could be construed as being suicidal in a way. But it's not going to happen "soon." The goal is by 2024 - 9 years from now. And the technology is available now to do this - it's the money stopping any space agency from going forward with it.

I'm not defending the Mars One group. It's just listening to this guy, he sounds like someone who's pissed he didn't make the final cut and now he's going to bash the program.

Do you even know what you are talking about?

 

[davislane1]

To land on Mars thus far, (unmanned probes, obviously), we've employed airbags:

Are those manufactured by Takata? Takata airbags are only good for ballistic studies. The crew would never make it off the ship.

I don't see what radical feminist beauty suits have to do with space exploration. But what the hell, who am I to criticize progress?

 

[captaincranky]

...[ ]...I don't see what radical feminist beauty suits have to do with space exploration. But what the hell, who am I to criticize progress?

I simply didn't want to be accused of being the radical sexist pig that I actually am.

Didn't my post just scream, "hey look everybody, Mars missions are for girls too"?

Well that, and I figured a pair of full breasted cuties would work wonders with fund raising and recruitment....!(y)

 

[BookGoddess]

For a scientist I would have expected more information to back up all the accusations made. Instead this reads like some kind soap opera with a "hopeful" upset it looks like he will not make the cut. For someone who doesn't want to see the science and space programs take a hit, it looks like he took a bat to them himself.

 

[captaincranky]

For a scientist I would have expected more information to back up all the accusations made. Instead this reads like some kind soap opera with a "hopeful" upset it looks like he will not make the cut. For someone who doesn't want to see the science and space programs take a hit, it looks like he took a bat to them himself.

This will probably be parlayed into a TV reality series. Something on the order of, "The Bachelorette Goes to Mars".

 

[Guest]

"Built by the lowest bidder" is how pprivate enterprise works even more so than the public sphere.

I. e. sweatshops.

The whole argument about privatizing space travel is built on the premise that the capitalists can do it for cheaper and still have resources left over to make a profit. If they raise 6 billion, that's not all going into the project or even into the scientists or programmers pockets. Some douchebag who hired a good marketing team to make a good logo and slogan will be putting that cash in their account.

 

[davislane1]

This will probably be parlayed into a TV reality series. Something on the order of, "The Bachelorette Goes to Mars".

More likely a TED contributor will film a pretentiously titled 5-part documentary series that fetishizes space travel through political victimization and the vilification of capitalism.

Mars: Mankind's Obsession with Greed and the Quest for Knowledge on the Red Planet

I can already see the PowerPoint.

 

[captaincranky]

Do you even know what you are talking about?

He might, but he's certainly not going to give it away easily. When Tom makes posts like that, they're usually a diversion. (At least I sure hope they are... ).

 

[captaincranky]

More likely a TED contributor will film a pretentiously titled 5-part documentary series that fetishizes space travel through political victimization and the vilification of capitalism.

Mars: Mankind's Obsession with Greed and the Quest for Knowledge on the Red Planet

I can already see the PowerPoint.

OK, I'm going to give that a like by virtue of the fact I barely understand it.

Although, I really don't think capitalism has been vilified anywhere near the level it should be.

The only trouble with this documentary I can envision, is having to endure hours upon hours of PBS fundraising to watch it.

 

[davislane1]

OK, I'm going to give that a like by virtue of the fact I barely understand it.

http://www.ted.com

The front page should prove edifying.

For the vilification of capitalism, simply navigate to financial, economic, or social subject matters and scroll down to the section entitled "Discuss."

 

[Dale Thelander]

Well, now...this negates the veracity of last week's episode of The Big Bang Theory.

 

[captaincranky]

Well, now...this negates the veracity of last week's episode of The Big Bang Theory.

It's OK though, "The Big Bang Theory" never had any veracity to begin with.

 

[golfball]

Sounds like sour grapes to me from a guy who didn't make the cut.

Even so, it's still something that just isn't possible anytime soon. Like cliffordcooley said it's suicidal.

Well yeah, I suppose going on a one way mission to Mars could be construed as being suicidal in a way. But it's not going to happen "soon." The goal is by 2024 - 9 years from now. And the technology is available now to do this - it's the money stopping any space agency from going forward with it.

I'm not defending the Mars One group. It's just listening to this guy, he sounds like someone who's pissed he didn't make the final cut and now he's going to bash the program.

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.