Are you with or against (Mars one) project ..sending humans to mars on 2022 ?

There are a lot of good enough reasons for us to support this project as an example

-this project is going to prove if we humans can make it and live on mars or not.

-watch and explore more closely our solar system.

-if the project succeeded .. Then there is a hard but available solution for the overpopulation on earth.

Yet there are a lot of convincing reasons to be strongly against this project

-it is one way trip or suicidal mission for those who are going to be sent there without any assurance that they are coming back again

-hard, lonely, terrible life for them on Mars ... No one to look after them if they are sick they have to handle this themselves...

-if they did it to Mars and 2 people every year are sent to them and they managed to get them back on earth .. Isn't it going to start a war here on earth between nations that want to posses the new land .. Or isn't it going to result in a global economic crisis!!

14 Answers

Relevance
  • Joseph
    Lv 7
    7 years ago
    Favourite answer

    Mars One is all bark and no bite.

    Mars One idea to establish a colony on Mars by 2023 is unrealistic on many different levels. To me it sounds like a group of naive idealists thought of this in a ganja induced stupor. Had they bothered to consult with specialists who actually sent missions to Mars they would have found out that:

    1)

    The largest thing landed on Mars was the size and weight of VW Beatle. A habitat large enough for 4 people and supplies for 2 years will be the size of a house and will weigh 40 to 60 tons! A parachute to land something this heavy on Mars will have to be the size of a large stadium. Air bags and Sky Crane methods used on the past missions won’t scale up to something this large either. A new landing method must be devised and tried on Mars first. They will also need to land within walking distance of the previously landed colony modules. Today, the best we can target the Martian landing is an approximately 20 by 10 mile ellipse. Mars One needs to demonstrate that they can successfully land something this large and heavy with pinpoint precision before they send people.

    This demonstrator lander could also serve to preposition colonists' initial supplies on Mars. If they want to go to Mars in 2023, they should be building this demonstrator now to launch in 2019-2020 timeframe. The world aerospace media would be all over the story. I've been involved in the aerospace industry for almost 30 years, and I haven't seen anything to suggest that they are building anything.

    2)

    There is no launch vehicle large enough to launch something as large as the aforementioned lander into the Earth orbit, let alone send it toward Mars. Mars One may try to assemble the lander stack in Earth orbit using existing launch vehicles but they don't even have a contract with the launch service providers (e.g. Arianespace, SpaceX) to use the existing launch vehicles. Space launchers are not off-the-shelf items, they have to be ordered well in advance. None of the launch providers announced any deals to launch Mars One hardware.

    3)

    To survive on Mars, the colonists will have to extract resources in-situ. Ability to do this on Mars has not been demonstrated. Mars One must demonstrate that it can reliably produce enough water and oxygen, and grow enough food to sustain people on Mars before betting the lives of colonists on the technology.

    4)

    If Mars One wants to go to Mars in 2023, the designs for the colony should be well advanced, and fabrication of some long lead items should be underway. By now, tens of thousands of people should be working on the project.

    Hundreds of thousands of scientists, engineers, technicians, machine tool operators worked on the the Apollo program in the 1960s. A Mars colony will require similar level of personnel commitment. The world-wide aerospace industry is not that large that noone would have noticed siphoning off of tens of thousands of professionals to work on the Mars colony project.

    5)

    Their cost estimates are completely off the wall. The Mars One website claims that they can pull the whole thing off for measly US $6 Billion. They are off by at least several orders of magnitude. The Curiosity rover mission cost $2.5 Billion. The International Space Station cost $150 Billion. The Apollo Program, when converted to 2005 dollars, cost $170 Billion. A 2-3 year mission to Mars is estimated to cost over $300 Billion.

    Using these numbers a guide, a Mars colony, with a resupply mission every 2 years or so, should cost anywhere from $750 Billion to $1 Trillion for the first 10 years. For comparison, the 2012 Gross Domestic Product (value of all goods and services produced by the country) of Australia is $986.7 Billion. Where is this kind of money going to come from? Certainly not from selling a bunch of T-shirts and coffee mugs or from colonists' application fees.

    To me this whole idea sounds like a lot of hand waving at best, and, at worst, an attempt to collect as many application fees as possible and skip town.

  • 7 years ago

    I would like to see Mars One succeed, but I don't think they'll ever accomplish so much as getting a mission off of Earth, never mind succeeding on Mars. I hope I'm wrong about that.

    .

    <this project is going to prove if we humans can make it and live on mars or not.> There is a logical fallacy right off the bat. The success of the mission would prove it to be possible, but it's failure doesn't prove that it's not.

    .

    <watch and explore more closely our solar system.> Logical fallacy number two. Having people on Mars doesn't help us learn much more about the solar system than we already can from Earth. We would learn quite a bit more about Mars, granted, if the people could spare some precious time from their hardscrabble struggle simply to survive to do some science. The truth of the matter is that most of Mars exploration is still going to be done robotically, even if we have a colony of humans eking out an existence there.

    .

    <Then there is a hard but available solution for the overpopulation on earth.> Logical fallacy number three. There is no way we could export people off of the planet faster than our reproduction rate. Do the numbers. Do you really think we could spend millions of dollars per head to ship people to mars? That's simply absurd.

    .

    <if they did it to Mars and 2 people every year are sent to them and they managed to get them back on earth> Your first two cons are mostly on target, though I don't know what you are trying to say with this.

    .

    <Isn't it going to start a war here on earth between nations that want to posses the new land> Why would it? It's not as though it's easy to get to. When it costs a hundred million dollars to send people to Mars, there isn't exactly going to be a land rush.

    .

    <Or isn't it going to result in a global economic crisis!!> Again, why? We can either afford to go or we can't. I don't see why you think space exploration would cause the economy to collapse.

    .

    .

  • 6 years ago

    Joseph has given the best answer, but just a few things I would like to add.

    There does not seem to be any information as to how Mars One will keep 4 people alive for the 7 to 12 months that it will take for the journey.

    Let's just take a look at this. Each person will require at least 2000lbs of food and 2 tons of oxygen and 1,000L of recyclable water. So the weight of life supporting materials for 4 people will be somewhere in the region of 11 tons. This would require about 500 tons of fuel just to get into earth orbit.

    The obvious alternative is to recycle air, water and food. To do this you would need a greenhouse of about half an acre in size for 4 people.

    Then there is the problem of surviving zero gravity for the length of the mission. Artificial gravity could be created using a rotating space ship but this would add to the cost.

    The next problem is cosmic radiation. To shield against this on the Martian surface, you will need about 2 meters of soil or 5cm of lead for the space craft.

    Finally to do this for a reality TV program would be impossible. To get a singe image from Mars to Earth takes about 20 minutes to transmit. To transmit steaming video is out of the question.

    Of course the whole thing could be faked but how would the makers account for the travelers returning home in a few days?

  • bubby
    Lv 6
    7 years ago

    I am for landing humans on Mars. There are too many that doubt our technology and engineers. To land on Mars is no more difficult than it was to land on the moon and we had far less technical know how. It is this doubt that keep these nut cases running around and saying we did not land on the moon. There will be people willing to risk their lives on this mission while others sit on their asses saying - "'No they ain't gonna make it." The only problems I see with this project is distance and money - but believe me I would go in a heartbeat.

    Source(s): Common sense.
  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Paul
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    I don't believe Mars One will succeed but I wish them well.

    The problems that you cite are true of any pioneers. It boils down to this simple choice. Either we learn to live independently of Earth's ecosystem or we face extinction as a species. We already have a global economic crisis and are starting to climb out of it and there is always a war going on somewhere on Earth human beings don't need a reason to go to war but after the decision to go to war has been made plenty of excuses can be thought of to justify it.

  • 7 years ago

    Send em' ...

    The people who sign up know what they are getting into; (about 200,000 people have signed up already!)

    As for the terrible life you'd have another person with you, and they could look after you. It would be hard for sure.

    As for wars on Earth, it happens anyway even without excuses and it probably wouldn't result in economic crisis because of the amount of spin-offs going to be generated would balance the petty wars.

    So In a nutshell I think we should send them.

  • 7 years ago

    We are nowhere near being ready within the next 20 years or so to send humans to Mars. At this point in time, the complications that stand in the way of such a mission being successful are too great to be overcome in the foreseeable future.

  • ?
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    If the human race is going to survive, it needs to spread out to other planets. Mars is the obvious choice for a test colony as it is so very close to Earth and nearly capable of sustaining human life.

  • 7 years ago

    All for it.

    The most crucial part will be selecting people who are actually 'cool' people. People aren't easy to get along with at the best of times, so that would definitely be an issue... You could imagine the insufferable ego's of some of the 'chosen' ones... Yeuch.

    I'm all for advancement of our species though, we need more than unbearable 'talent shows' and the ridiculously out-dated concept of 'earning what you're worth' on this otherwise, beautiful planet.

  • It is never going going to happen first the astronauts have to be cramped up in the space suttle for 8 months and second there won't be enough fuel to return them to earth whicc means they will have to build a big shelter.

    Source(s): My Brain :-0
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.