There are numerous articles and comments on the internet that question the validity of the Mars One project, asking whether it is a hoax, or a scam to drum up an audience for a global reality TV show. Only the people running the project would really know the answer to that, but assume for the moment that they are serious, that they really do want to put people on Mars. The basic mission concept of the Mars One Project closely mirrors that described in an article published in the Journal of Cosmology in 2010 by Schulze-Makuch and Davies, of Arizona State University. ‘(To Boldly Go: A One-Way Human Mission to Mars’, also published in the book ‘The Human Mission to Mars. Colonizing the Red Planet’).
That article points out that eliminating the need for a return journey would massively reduce costs. It also talks about ensuring an on-going committment. Could the presence of colonists be used, in essence, as moral blackmail to force those on Earth into underwriting the colonization of Mars to prevent the death of the colonists? The Mars One project has no assured funding, what would happen if the public got tired of watching the Mars One reality show? It would be a tough decision for any government to sit tight and let a group of people die on Mars.
The initial funding target is judged by many observers to be much too low. Elon Musk, the head of SpaceX, seems to be amongst them. He has publicly questioned whether they would have enough funds to buy more than one rocket and one capsule.
None of the technologies required to deliver the mission are available ‘off the shelf’, yet apart from the study contracts with Paragon and Lockheed there is little evidence of any serious attempt to establish a project program to deliver the necessary hardware. The time frame outlined in the published road map appears to be optimistic. There has been no information forthcoming on the progress of the contract with Paragon, despite reported comments from Paragon chief executive Grant Anderson suggesting that the study was expected to be completed some time ago. There does not appear to be any contractual or even informal link up with SpaceX, nominated by Mars One as the likely supplier of the rocket system and Mars landing capsule. Neither the rocket nor the capsule are currently available.
The emphasis appears to be entirely on delivering the reality show. One possibly telling aspect is that the selection of the crew for the first flight will be decided by an audience vote. If Mars One is a serious attempt to land people on Mars, is this really appropriate?
A recent study published by MIT modelled the logistical requirements of the project, and the control of the habitat atmosphere, based on information published by Mars One. That study has been widely reported because the initial simulations showed that the colonists would die with 68 days of landing, a result that makes for good headlines. That specific conclusion is irrelevant in that the problem can be avoided by modifying details of the design and operation of the habitat. What is troubling is that there is no evidence that Mars One itself has yet done any study of this type. The art work depicting the habitat interior may look very nice, but it doesn’t seem that it is based on any substantive technical study, however preliminary.
The Global Exploration Road Map published in 2013 is a collaborative effort between 14 space agencies and describes a road map for future space exploration and for manned missions to Mars. It points to sustainable missions to Mars no earlier than 2030, and possibly significantly beyond that. Also in that report is an assessment of the human health risks for a mission to Mars. Out of the 10 aspects considered, 9 are red flagged, denoting a currently unacceptable level of risk.
It is telling to contrast the approach of Mars One to that of NASA. The approach taken by NASA is to gradually but progressively push at the limits of knowledge and technology, one step at a time, to take only measured risk whilst testing and proving equipment. Mars One unashamedly says that the project will accept a higher level of risk.
The critical weakness of the mission is that it is one way, but this is necessary for the funding scheme since it enables the Mars One project to put forward a timescale that is not too far into the future. The ability to achieve a return flight from Mars is generally considered to be a long way off.
To maintain the income from the reality TV show Mars One will have to demonstrate a degree of progress in the project. If the show is sufficiently successful it is conceivable that the demonstration flight in 2018 could go ahead, after all, it will essentially be a repeat of the successful Phoenix lander project and would have a relatively modest budget.
It is hard to accept the Mars One project as being a serious attempt at a manned landing on Mars. The emphasis on the TV show, the lack of technical definition, the challenging time scale, the lack of available hardware, the level of funding, the apparent lack of progress with the Paragon and Lockheed contracts, the level of risk that the project might accept, the questionable on-going funding model, all these factors should lead those who have supported the project with their money, and particularly those who have put themselves forward as candidates, to seriously question the basis of the project.
Proctor Crater [credit - NASA]
M106-1214
Comments