MARS one on 2025

[acroman08]

Second mars has a weak magnetic field, unlike earth being protected by its huge magnetic field. mars has a very small and weak one.
 having a magnetic field protects us from solar flares and solar radiation sun produces. and when mars got hit by a solar radiation even with
the most advance protection agains radiation we have it will be useless resulting to instant death.

Doesn't Mars have some areas that are better protected than others? I think the idea was that they were going to use one of those to settle in since it provided adequate protection.

Even if there are it won't d any good if its in the surface.and if your tal,king about digging underground it will take time. Thus they'll need more funding which  they will not have. And it will take more than a decade to just to send one rover that will be able to dig underground. But still I'm looking forward if they will be able to set a colony on mars.

[1714732972]

1714732972

[1714732972]

1714732972

[1714732972]

1714732972

[1714732972]

1714732972

[1714732972]

1714732972

[1714732972]

1714732972

[Lauda]

Seems like it might be a better idea to colonise cold and warm parts of the earth + work on living on sea plus underground.  Then there is also working on building upwards.  Long time before with are able to live on mars imo.

You're partially right. However, humanity does not like saving the Earth or working to prolong the environment of certain places. Humanity likes to destroy for their own amusement. Mars is a very good candidate for a colony. However, the problem isn't really the technology right now (we can get there), the problem is money. Obviously the US (as a example) could easily fund it considering their unnecessary defense budget. For a company and a unknown CEO this is really problematic. A lot of money is needed, money that is hard to come by.

Isn't Mars One a scam?

https://medium.com/matter/mars-one-insider-quits-dangerously-flawed-project-2dfef95217d3
-snip-

Well technically just because the plan is flawed, that doesn't make it a scam. However, from the research being done in regards to it, it seems highly unlikely that it will launch/succeed.

[apollofire]

Thanks a lot for the Schedule. I really wish them Best of Luck!!. I think NASA will definitely meet all the deadlines bez they have very talented people. Thanks

[Lauda]

Thanks a lot for the Schedule. I really wish them Best of Luck!!. I think NASA will definitely meet all the deadlines bez they have very talented people. Thanks

Your post is spam and off topic. This is not a NASA mission. Please read other replies before posting something.

Mars One is a nonprofit organization based in the Netherlands that has proposed to land the first humans on Mars and establish a permanent human colony there by 2027. The private spaceflight project is led by Dutch entrepreneur Bas Lansdorp, who announced the Mars One project in May 2012.

It looks like their budget is only $7B which is peanuts compared to how much countries are wasting in random wars around the world.

[Spendulus]

Thanks a lot for the Schedule. I really wish them Best of Luck!!. I think NASA will definitely meet all the deadlines bez they have very talented people. Thanks

Your post is spam and off topic. This is not a NASA mission. Please read other replies before posting something.

Mars One is a nonprofit organization based in the Netherlands that has proposed to land the first humans on Mars and establish a permanent human colony there by 2027. The private spaceflight project is led by Dutch entrepreneur Bas Lansdorp, who announced the Mars One project in May 2012.

It looks like their budget is only $7B which is peanuts compared to how much countries are wasting in random wars around the world.

Your repeated assertion of trivializing the cost by comparison with war is a logical fallacy, as well as off topic.  It is incorrect to assert that "we have the technology" to put a self supporting colony on Mars.  We do not.

In the 1950s there were enthusiastic reports of how a space station could be put up and it would be self substaining, growing it's own food.  How far have we gotten toward that (apparently) simple goal?

[Lauda]

Your repeated assertion of trivializing the cost by comparison with war is a logical fallacy, as well as off topic.  It is incorrect to assert that "we have the technology" to put a self supporting colony on Mars.  We do not.

Yes, comparing anything is a logical fallacy.   People seem to use these words lightly around here these days (there is no contradiction). I was not talking about a fully self supported colony, I was talking about getting there (i.e. flying to Mars multiple times). Read:

However, the problem isn't really the technology right now (we can get there)

Nice try though.

In the 1950s there were enthusiastic reports of how a space station could be put up and it would be self substaining, growing it's own food.  How far have we gotten toward that (apparently) simple goal?

How much has been invested to achieve that goal? Less and less money (e.g. NASA budget cuts). It seems simple, however it is not.

[Spendulus]

Your repeated assertion of trivializing the cost by comparison with war is a logical fallacy, as well as off topic.  It is incorrect to assert that "we have the technology" to put a self supporting colony on Mars.  We do not.

Yes, comparing anything is a logical fallacy.   People seem to use these words lightly around here these days (there is no contradiction). I was not talking about a fully self supported colony, I was talking about getting there (i.e. flying to Mars multiple times). Read:

However, the problem isn't really the technology right now (we can get there)

Nice try though.

In the 1950s there were enthusiastic reports of how a space station could be put up and it would be self substaining, growing it's own food.  How far have we gotten toward that (apparently) simple goal?

How much has been invested to achieve that goal? Less and less money (e.g. NASA budget cuts). It seems simple, however it is not.

A lot has been invested in space biology experiments.

Saying "we can get there" is NOT the same as establishing a colony.

Check Zubrin, "Mars Direct."

[BADecker]

Your repeated assertion of trivializing the cost by comparison with war is a logical fallacy, as well as off topic.  It is incorrect to assert that "we have the technology" to put a self supporting colony on Mars.  We do not.

Yes, comparing anything is a logical fallacy.   People seem to use these words lightly around here these days (there is no contradiction). I was not talking about a fully self supported colony, I was talking about getting there (i.e. flying to Mars multiple times). Read:

However, the problem isn't really the technology right now (we can get there)

Nice try though.

In the 1950s there were enthusiastic reports of how a space station could be put up and it would be self substaining, growing it's own food.  How far have we gotten toward that (apparently) simple goal?

How much has been invested to achieve that goal? Less and less money (e.g. NASA budget cuts). It seems simple, however it is not.

A lot has been invested in space biology experiments.

Saying "we can get there" is NOT the same as establishing a colony.

Check Zubrin, "Mars Direct."

Mars is out of the picture. Why? Because most of what has been invested in space, has been invested in war technology, which will destroy us all long before we get to Mars.

[PaoloSerBit]

that seems to be so expensive that it's realization doesn't seem probable. There'll always be something more important for the goverment. Although it does sound great

[BADecker]

2025

China will have barely won the world war that devastates the earth. Martian colonists are on their own.

[RealBitcoin]

Isn't Mars One a scam?

https://medium.com/matter/mars-one-insider-quits-dangerously-flawed-project-2dfef95217d3

This comedian made a funny video for the application and she was approved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j59NyrhiDiA

Wow it looks to me as a ponzi scheme with the "point" system and the "75% of profits donate back to us".

Looks like scammers find very innovative ways to scam people.

http://www.thephoenixnews.com/2015/03/news-briefs-two-calgary-men-found-guilty-of-running-largest-ponzi-scheme-in-canadian-history-mars-one-group-announces-last-100-candidates-for-mission-to-mars/

[oblivi]

Sounds cool, but what matters to me is the state of Bitcoin in 2025. I hope that by then we are all retired due holding Bitcoin for 10+ years and can see the show nicely on our sofas without having to go to work. If im still working by 2025 and Bitcoin hasn't retired me i'll probably jump off a bridge or something.

ps: Joking (I hope)

[seoincorporation]

Sound great, the only problem is the oxygen...

As we know the Mars atmosphere have 95.97% carbon dioxide, that mean the human will need a way to get 02 from C02, or will need some great filters and bumps to filter the small percentage of O2 from the atmosphere (0.146% oxygen). We need to get 20.95% (O2) at last to live.

[Spendulus]

Sound great, the only problem is the oxygen...

As we know the Mars atmosphere have 95.97% carbon dioxide, that mean the human will need a way to get 02 from C02, or will need some great filters and bumps to filter the small percentage of O2 from the atmosphere (0.146% oxygen). We need to get 20.95% (O2) at last to live.

There isn't a problem with getting O2, there is a lot of it in the dirt, and in the water deposits. 

There are hundreds of problems and issues, but getting O2 is one that can easily be solved. 

When and if these guys state they intend to land a nuclear reactor on Mars for power for their teams, then I'd take them seriously.  Because otherwise they'll have difficulty showing where the power will come from to keep everyone at a livable temperature, and to do the needed chemical extractions such as for 02.

[Vod]

We need to get 20.95% (O2) at last to live.

We don't need anywhere near that amount of O2 in the atmosphere to breath.  In fact, there is a substantial amount of oxygen in the air we breathe out.

[Spendulus]

We need to get 20.95% (O2) at last to live.

We don't need anywhere near that amount of O2 in the atmosphere to breath.  In fact, there is a substantial amount of oxygen in the air we breathe out.

True.  But you need pressurization say to 1/2 Earth atmosphere.  That has to be a mix of gases - some O2, some CO2, Water vapor, and an inert gas filler, such as nitrogen or helium.  Basically that has to be created, and maintained.

[bryant.coleman]

When and if these guys state they intend to land a nuclear reactor on Mars for power for their teams, then I'd take them seriously.  Because otherwise they'll have difficulty showing where the power will come from to keep everyone at a livable temperature, and to do the needed chemical extractions such as for 02.

I think that the current plan is to generate the electricity from solar energy, using panels. Operating a nuclear power plant in Mars will be next to impossible, as doing so will require huge quantities of coolants and other substances, which are not readily available on the planet.

[Vod]

I think that the current plan is to generate the electricity from solar energy, using panels. Operating a nuclear power plant in Mars will be next to impossible, as doing so will require huge quantities of coolants and other substances, which are not readily available on the planet.

I would think the vacuum of space (or a low density atmosphere) would be the ultimate coolant.

[RealBitcoin]

Guys wtf are you talking about they have already been caught and sentenced:

http://www.thephoenixnews.com/2015/03/news-briefs-two-calgary-men-found-guilty-of-running-largest-ponzi-scheme-in-canadian-history-mars-one-group-announces-last-100-candidates-for-mission-to-mars/

It was a ponzi scam.

[Spendulus]

I think that the current plan is to generate the electricity from solar energy, using panels. Operating a nuclear power plant in Mars will be next to impossible, as doing so will require huge quantities of coolants and other substances, which are not readily available on the planet.

I would think the vacuum of space (or a low density atmosphere) would be the ultimate coolant.

Heat transfer occurs by way of conduction, convection, or radiation.  In the absence of much gas, convection isn't possible, and it is the most efficient way to move heat.  As an example, spacecraft have trouble getting rid of heat.  The Apollo lunar rovers IIRC used paraffin blocks to absorb heat in a phase change method.   Difficult problem, getting rid of heat.

Small reactors certainly could be taken to Mars.  Solar panels would be a weak source of power, suitable for small rovers but not humans.  A rover can time it's activities to match the sun, humans need life support, and power for it, around the clock.

Landis's paper is the authoritative reference.  NASA/TM-2004-213367, "Mars Solar Power."