Mars One - Unethical?

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by Captain Kathryn, Aug 6, 2013.

  1. Storyteller

    Storyteller Ensign Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    Look at it this way, Captain Kathryn. Bas Lansdorp spends tons of cash to get colonists to Mars. Once we're there, the man himself admitted that there's nothing stopping us from putting duct tape over the cameras. Where's the reality show now, hotshot? Same deal if the rockets keep blowing up. You're not going to have much of a reality show if you can't keep the colonists alive for longer than it takes to make the transit from Earth to Mars.

    Look, the applicants know from the start that it's a one-way trip. We know about the reality show that's supposed to raise money to send us. Some of us don't like the idea of having cameras shoved in our faces, but that's the way it is. Bas Lansdorp is going to have some serious egg on his face and nobody will ever take a business venture of his seriously again if his lofty promises don't come to fruition. He knows it, too. I got a chance to ask him a question at a recent meetup and his answer implied that he's aware of the realities of the situation.

    He gets cash, we get something that's a little more valuable than cash. And, anyway, many of the original American colonies were sponsored by private companies who expected to make a profit. And they had to have been seeing pounds go down the drain when we declared independence.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2013
  2. R. Star

    R. Star Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Location:
    Shangri-La
    Viva la Mars Revolution? ;)
     
  3. Storyteller

    Storyteller Ensign Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    ^^Eventually. It'll take time, but eventually. And, considering the circumstances, Mars itself could be our biggest ally. ;)
     
  4. farmkid

    farmkid Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    I don't have a problem with the profit aspect of this. After all, most technological progress in the history of mankind has been motivated by someone trying to make a buck. The government can't afford it because it has overextended itself on so many other things that are harder to cut (read cost more votes if they're cut) and there's nothing left for NASA. There's no profit in it for NASA, so why not fund it through reality TV?
     
  5. publiusr

    publiusr Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    I think we just have too many space advocates drinking Ayn Rand Cool-Aid.
    NASA should be in business of building rockets--the larger the better. That allows returns.

    The folks here are just more examples of people falling all over themselves to keep from building heavy lift. One way missions--they think--require less mass. But they need constant supplies, otherwise you get the nightmare described here:

    http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthr...ovel-I-ve-Found-in-Ages&p=2150263#post2150263
     
  6. scotpens

    scotpens Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
  7. Sephiroth

    Sephiroth Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Location:
    Sephiroth
    Private entities are what is needed to get mankind into space, that said, these guys make my skin crawl. Leaving the Earth should mean leaving our -isims behind.
     
  8. publiusr

    publiusr Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Agreed.
     
  9. Storyteller

    Storyteller Ensign Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    Will be interesting to hear your thoughts on what will be needed to create a self-sufficient colony that won't need constant supply ships. Grow food? Produce our own air and spare parts? There's been talk of 3D printers. Because, let's face it, the idea of living and dying on Mars without a guaranteed return trip just doesn't scare some of us.
     
  10. Deckerd

    Deckerd Fleet Arse Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Location:
    the Frozen Wastes
    I don't think growing food would be a problem. Yes the sun is further away but it's still bright enough to grow food in a sufficiently modified botanical environment. If you can still harness the power of the sun, you can grow food for free, once the environment has been created. Once the startup water for this system has been installed, it can be recycled indefinitely, for both humans and plants. The beauty of water is that if it's kept inside a sealed environment, it never changes and can be filtered repeatedly. The biggest problems for humans would be physiological (managing illness and ageing) and psychological (living in a container for the duration of life; keeping motivated; living with regret and loss).
     
  11. Pingfah

    Pingfah Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pingfah
    I don't think Mars One has any genuine expectation of getting to Mars, they will spend the money raised by the not-for-profit on a half arsed attempt to do very little.

    The main point of the whole project is the reality TV show where they train the astronauts, which will make bags of cash for the for-profit company, and nobody will ever be in any real danger as they already know the mission will not get off the ground.
     
  12. FreddyE

    FreddyE Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Wouldn´t growing food mean to create a whole biosphere? We can´t even manage that on earth. See the disaster that was Biosphere 2.
     
  13. sojourner

    sojourner Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    A Long Time Ago...

    No, your equating the failure of self sustaining biospheres with "growing food". You can grow food in Biosphere 2 quite well. The problem was that they couldn't ever get it to stabilize as a sealed environment. And while a stabilized bisophere would be ideal for colonization, there's nothing wrong with having to import some materials you run short on or dump materials you are in excess of. If you plan appropriately.

    Ah here we go with the "NASA using it's entire budget to launch a REALLY COOL HLV every 7 years is the way to colonize space" argument. And what the hell does Ayn Rand have to do with anything? You really think Ayn Rand is a big influence on space advocacy??? You really are heading into conspiracy crazy town there.


    NASA should be in the business of Aeronautics and Space. Business should be in the business of building rockets.
     
  14. JirinPanthosa

    JirinPanthosa Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    I have no problem with this. Everybody involved is consenting. The government shouldn't have a monopoly on space travel. So long as this project doesn't harm anybody without their informed consent, any government action to prevent it would be overstepping their bounds and infringing on personal liberties.

    Between the government and big corporations, I trust them equally NOT to be ethical. But at least big corporations admit it.

    I also think the government should be exploring space for the betterment of mankind, I just don't think anybody involved in government is genuinely interested in doing so.
     
  15. Stoo

    Stoo Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2013
    Location:
    phobos lab
    I'm skeptical of attempting mars manned missions in general. But this Mars One thing seems particularly difficult to take seriously. I will be genuinely surprised if anything gets off the ground.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2013
  16. Samurai8472

    Samurai8472 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007

    They're also sending up a Xenomorph to test your endurance and expand biotech weapons progress

    ;)
     
  17. publiusr

    publiusr Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    They are building rockets. Arsenal method uses contractors, they just kept them on the short leash--and its not going to be every seven years. The space libertarians suffer from the "we too did build that fallacy" in that you have to add the cost of building the Internet that Musk got rich off of and add that to the cost of the rocket. LV development is never cheap. Golden Spikes missions will also run into the billions--and they add complexity to boot.

    I remember Griffin once talking about just how much NASA money went to Musk--and questioning just what is meant by "private" spaceflight.

    He is no dummy, and was, after all invited here, despite his disagreement over ULA
    http://www.parabolicarc.com/2010/05...ompanies-abilities-delta-celebrates-50-years/

    As an examle of how Ayn Rand types dissemble, I submit Andy Paztor
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Pasztor

    Or take Robert Zimmerman's article:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324769704579008820953158510.html
    He is a climate change denialist of the worst kind--and a frequent guest on the Coast to Coast AM, which has young earth creationists on without anyone challenging them.

    They didn't leave much time for calls (I work late and its either this or sports talk) this time, but once I pointed out that the private firms he lauded were sub-orbital toys--and that COTS was also pork--and that Curiosity could also be called Pasadena pork, or that the Apollo8* Saturn rocket he was making book-money on was the SLS of its day--and also called pork by the same anti-gov't frauds trying to shut the country down today.

    He didn't like that.

    He is a lot like a certain poster from NASASPACEFLIGHT who told lies against Space based radar and who libeled ATK and Space News in many of his posts there, if you will recall.
     
  18. sojourner

    sojourner Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Location:
    A Long Time Ago...
    This being the only part worth responding to, how in the world do you try to lump in the creation of the internet as part of the sunk cost of SpaceX's rockets? If Musk had made his billions through oil would you be trying to add in the costs of developing the oil industry? What about farming? WTF are you on???? And wtf do you mean by "we too did build that fallacy"?? I'm not sure what that even means given the grammar of the quote. And until SLS has a second launch proving otherwise, you're right. It won't be seven years. It'll probably be longer. Ooohh, or maybe they'll get that launch rate up to a staggeringly breakneck speed of once every 3 years. Certainly not high enough to hang a robust space program on.:rolleyes:
     
  19. gturner

    gturner Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Location:
    Kentucky
    All the good ideas in US manned spaceflight were formed from proteins that came from beef, which is why the Western Cattlemen's Association is really responsible for all the progress made thus far, and only that pioneer ranching spirit can keep spaceflight progressing without losing complete continuity with what came before. Beef.
     
  20. publiusr

    publiusr Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Because that is where he got his money from

    But you don't even want it to get that first flight.

    That's like me challenging you to a fifty yard dash, but let me tie you up first.

    SLS can fly as often as shuttle--and once flying, should be able to fly with less problems because there is no orbiter. The problem is that NASA needs a larger budget

    Webb is worth several SLS cores by itself--and Curiosity is also in the billions. Golden Spike is the billions. There is just no cheap way to do this.
    http://www.americaspace.com/?p=34964