In what way? i find it sad that Mars One > family for some "nerds". Family is the real mission and the real heros are those who achieve that status. Family also has a greater social benefit. The OP talks about Mars One as the mission that has great social benefit. That's really sad.
The mars mission is a death mission. Someone with a family has a duty to support and protect that family. She's a complete failure as a parent. She's telling her children that her death mission is more import an than them. I'd hope she would come to her senses come launch day.
I wonder how it will affect things if she doesn't go? You get married with (presumably) the assumption that this person is the core of your life, but then this Mars stuff happens and it becomes apparent where the spouse falls in the pecking order of your value system. Does it cast a dark cloud on the relationship afterward? "I want to be with you forever unless this really cool opportunity comes up, then I'm leaving you and the kids and we'll never see each other again."
This isn't a criticism -- it's nothing to me how these people choose to live their lives, and I'm all about pursuing your dreams. But it seems like there would be consequences to being so formally (and publicly) ranked second, or lower, by your wife.
Well it just takes being a strong, independent person. Personally I don't really subscribe to the marriage-above-all-else philosophy. You have to accept that you are not the center of the universe, and even if someone truly loves you their agenda might not line up with yours. By the same token the husband should feel free to seek whatever he needs to make do in light of that. It may be cliche, but "if you love someone, set them free." It certainly does take courage and resolve to do that.
To call it a cool opportunity that comes up is a bit of a stretch. If this happens, and it does get to mars, it will put her in the ranks of the most important figures in history. For the sake if humanity itself. This is not something you do to glorify yourself. It is the ultimate sacrifice. Your life in exchange for the advancement and future of mankind. Flying in a metal can to a place that has absolutely nothing to begin a generations long process.
I cannot fathom what that family is going through. I do wish them the best.
On the level that you're describing, however, is this really all that different from being a military spouse? Perhaps joining the National Guard, knowing that there's a risk that you will have to leave your family and go join a war zone?
Yes, soldiers deploy with the hope of returning, whereas Mars One would be a certain one-way trip. However, unlike a military deployment, Mars One is so dubious (to be charitable about it)... it's questionable to say that anyone involved has REALLY committed to anything yet.
However, you're right. Regardless of how low the chances are that one will actually go to Mars, putting themselves forward like this creates a 100% chance of informing spouses that they WOULD be willing to abandon them. Still, there seem to be many earth-bound scenarios in which couples face this sort of thing anyway.
But seriously I thought this Mars One thing was just crap - we have no idea how to build the rockets to get there let alone land, find water, make food and oxygen. I mean nice idea and all that but... It's crap. By the time we sort this out these folks will be retired and we will be looking for another 20 younger folks to go die.
Surely they can't think she is actually going to go, as opposed to go do training and have some fun things to say at cocktail parties.
Edit: ok so maybe we have an idea, but not enough to just ask Elon for the extras package, and no where near enough money to do the research and development. I mean - moonshot, 5% of GDP for 10 years.
Robert Zubrin reckoned the whole Mars Direct programme would cost $55 billion in 1995 dollars.
Let's say 'The Case for Mars' is viable but the costings were optimistic, and should be more like $500 billion in 2015 dollars, that's more like 0.3% of USA GDP for ten years. Way greater than Mars One's supposed budget but achievable if America decided to colonise Mars.
However the point of Mars Direct was to avoid some of the endlessly-extrapolating-upwards budget numbers by avoiding big technology developments (building a giant ship in orbit / launching from a moonbase / exotic engine technology); making use of elements present on Mars to produce rocket fuel on-planet from a smaller feedstock sent from Earth; and making use of automation, by preceding each manned trip with an unmanned fuel-production vehicle, with there always being one more lot of return fuel than human crews on Mars.
I quite agree with "beyond non state actors" - much of the above appears in Mars One's plans, probably because it's the only way they could even start to appear plausible on a below-shoestring budget. But for a state actor, or at least for the USA or some as-yet-unbuilt alliance of developed countries, Mars is possible with 80s technology, at a viable price. You don't need to multiply the numbers up forever, so long as you resist distracting proposals from those who in reality want funding for a moonbase, or nuclear rockets, or whatever other technologies that promise first you have to solve a difficult, expensive problem, then Mars is cheap and easy.
Well, I am not convinced. The Apollo program probably looked cheap and easy when JFK promised it. It did not try and create exotic solutions, but had to for example push the frontiers of chip fabrication just to get 72kb of memory on board.
I am pretty certain that some of the nice cheap ideas mentioned (automated fuel production?) seem simple in a lab on earth but making it work reliably after landing on Mars will take extra effort - even if the basic underlying technology is under grad level right now.
I will still say that the last closest thing humanity tried to Mars landing was Apollo, and 4.4% of federal budget per annum is a good proxy for the cost of a Mars landing. No matter how much tried and true technology you think you can bring in from elsewhere.
Of course I hope I am wrong and we have built most of the basics in Apollo and since. But ...
It doesn't really. He doesn't provide any counter evidence to Roche's claims. He just confirms one (the 75% donation of media fees) and claims it didn't affect his wife's chances. Though, logically, of course it would since she's one of the most media-present candidates.
Even if it is a scam, I don't see how that is relevant. Most of the article is about things that apply to this kind of grand endeavor regardless of whether it turns out to be realistic and legit, completely nuts and legit, or illegitimate.
"Even if it is a scam, I don't see how that is relevant." Well that certainly neatly summarises the sort of magical thinking about technology currently in vogue.
The fact is it does matter whether or not Mars One is realistic or legitimate. Because there's always a backlash. Right now we have some optimism about space - big, hairy expensive programs like the ISS are actually getting done. Space X is actually achieving what so many internet billionaire's pet space projects failed to do previously. "Grand Endeavours" aren't made up of PR stunts and ridiculous plans - they're made up of really smart, tough people working on really hard problems for a long time.
What happens when the Mars One backlash and disappointment hits the mainstream? Do you think the average person is going to have a lot of faith in subsequent NASA proposals for Mars? What do you think is the flipside of this?
"Mars One did certainly request donations along with 75 percent of any proceeds from participants’ media interviews, but this had no impact on Sonia’s selection that we could see."
this is denial. if it isn't, it's a giant red flag at the very least.
It doesn't matter if Mars One is a scam, the article makes a good point: Our sense of optimism, of pioneering spirit, of looking to the stars, has suffered greatly in recent decades.
If all it does is nudge people from looking forward to a now ubiquitous (in fiction) dystopic future, to again staring at the sky with wonder and possibility, it will be a resounding success. I wonder if that wasn't a large part of the point of the whole undertaking.
Also, regardless of whether the mission is ever launched or not, the article is interesting for being a science fiction story that isn't. I grew up with authors looking for the small human stories in spaceflight and star colonization, and now here's a true personal one, for real... Someone is actually thinking deeply on what it will be like for their own spouse to leave them for MARS. That this can happen now, even if this particular mission ultimately leads nowhere, is incredible.
Sure, they aren't actually sending anyone, but they are pretending they are, and gullible people believe them. Accepting applicants who are married and screwing with their spouses' minds is incredibly ugly, even if it's just messing with people's heads and not actually separating families.
That is a very long article over-dramatizing a fantasy scenario that will 100% not happen in their lifetime. These folks sure glommed onto something that allows them to talk about themselves a lot.
If Mars One wasn't just a short-term money grab, they wouldn't be too concerned with collecting 75% of interview fees. That is so bush league that to imagine your whole life is going to be shaped by this organization is pretty delusional.
"Galaxy" quest? I know that authors in print publications generally don't write the headlines, and it seems a perfectly worthy article despite the iffiness of the Mars One project. But I still wonder why writers generally make no effort to distinguish between the Solar System, our Galaxy, other galaxies and the whole universe.
Of course, 'Galaxy Quest' is a pretty popular science fiction film, but it's one that parodies mainly a space opera series that takes place long after the Solar System has been explored. For anyone interested enough to read the article, titling it 'Galaxy Quest' is an outright distraction. You can say I'm pointlessly nitpicking, but I genuinely believe that laziness and sticking to convention ('here's a sci-fi reference!') has fuelled the decline of print journalism in favour of more authentic fare.
What an annoying article. I don't really see the point of it besides it being half humblebrag half swan song. All the actual information has been covered to death.
I do like the paroxysms of noble largesse regarding his wife though. Strangely cuckoldish.
35 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 77.6 ms ] threadThis isn't a criticism -- it's nothing to me how these people choose to live their lives, and I'm all about pursuing your dreams. But it seems like there would be consequences to being so formally (and publicly) ranked second, or lower, by your wife.
I cannot fathom what that family is going through. I do wish them the best.
Yes, soldiers deploy with the hope of returning, whereas Mars One would be a certain one-way trip. However, unlike a military deployment, Mars One is so dubious (to be charitable about it)... it's questionable to say that anyone involved has REALLY committed to anything yet.
However, you're right. Regardless of how low the chances are that one will actually go to Mars, putting themselves forward like this creates a 100% chance of informing spouses that they WOULD be willing to abandon them. Still, there seem to be many earth-bound scenarios in which couples face this sort of thing anyway.
Surely they can't think she is actually going to go, as opposed to go do training and have some fun things to say at cocktail parties.
Edit: ok so maybe we have an idea, but not enough to just ask Elon for the extras package, and no where near enough money to do the research and development. I mean - moonshot, 5% of GDP for 10 years.
Let's say 'The Case for Mars' is viable but the costings were optimistic, and should be more like $500 billion in 2015 dollars, that's more like 0.3% of USA GDP for ten years. Way greater than Mars One's supposed budget but achievable if America decided to colonise Mars.
http://mobile.extremetech.com/latest/221705-the-apollo-11-mo...
>> In 2009, NASA looked back at the cost of the Apollo program in its entirety, and arrived at a figure of $170 billion in 2005 dollars.
1966 NASA funding peaked at 4.4% of Federal Budget (not GDP). So my memory is way off.
The parent post of 500bn looks more reasonable against the Apollo cost of 170bn, but current Federal budget is 3.9 Trillion, 4.4% of which is 170bn.
So looking at NASA as % of federal budget we see 170bn per annum for best part of a decade, or close on 2 trillion dollars.
Whichever way we look at it, Mars will be pricey. And well beyond non state actors.
However the point of Mars Direct was to avoid some of the endlessly-extrapolating-upwards budget numbers by avoiding big technology developments (building a giant ship in orbit / launching from a moonbase / exotic engine technology); making use of elements present on Mars to produce rocket fuel on-planet from a smaller feedstock sent from Earth; and making use of automation, by preceding each manned trip with an unmanned fuel-production vehicle, with there always being one more lot of return fuel than human crews on Mars.
I quite agree with "beyond non state actors" - much of the above appears in Mars One's plans, probably because it's the only way they could even start to appear plausible on a below-shoestring budget. But for a state actor, or at least for the USA or some as-yet-unbuilt alliance of developed countries, Mars is possible with 80s technology, at a viable price. You don't need to multiply the numbers up forever, so long as you resist distracting proposals from those who in reality want funding for a moonbase, or nuclear rockets, or whatever other technologies that promise first you have to solve a difficult, expensive problem, then Mars is cheap and easy.
I am pretty certain that some of the nice cheap ideas mentioned (automated fuel production?) seem simple in a lab on earth but making it work reliably after landing on Mars will take extra effort - even if the basic underlying technology is under grad level right now.
I will still say that the last closest thing humanity tried to Mars landing was Apollo, and 4.4% of federal budget per annum is a good proxy for the cost of a Mars landing. No matter how much tried and true technology you think you can bring in from elsewhere.
Of course I hope I am wrong and we have built most of the basics in Apollo and since. But ...
The fact is it does matter whether or not Mars One is realistic or legitimate. Because there's always a backlash. Right now we have some optimism about space - big, hairy expensive programs like the ISS are actually getting done. Space X is actually achieving what so many internet billionaire's pet space projects failed to do previously. "Grand Endeavours" aren't made up of PR stunts and ridiculous plans - they're made up of really smart, tough people working on really hard problems for a long time.
What happens when the Mars One backlash and disappointment hits the mainstream? Do you think the average person is going to have a lot of faith in subsequent NASA proposals for Mars? What do you think is the flipside of this?
* "Mars One Finalist Explains Exactly How It‘s Ripping Off Supporters": https://medium.com/matter/mars-one-insider-quits-dangerously...
> No money, no process, no explanation: An insider speaks out on the hopelessly flawed scheme.
* iflscience coverage: http://www.iflscience.com/space/whats-going-mars-one (HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9250474 (81 points, 132 days ago, 23 comments))
this is denial. if it isn't, it's a giant red flag at the very least.
If all it does is nudge people from looking forward to a now ubiquitous (in fiction) dystopic future, to again staring at the sky with wonder and possibility, it will be a resounding success. I wonder if that wasn't a large part of the point of the whole undertaking.
Also, regardless of whether the mission is ever launched or not, the article is interesting for being a science fiction story that isn't. I grew up with authors looking for the small human stories in spaceflight and star colonization, and now here's a true personal one, for real... Someone is actually thinking deeply on what it will be like for their own spouse to leave them for MARS. That this can happen now, even if this particular mission ultimately leads nowhere, is incredible.
If Mars One wasn't just a short-term money grab, they wouldn't be too concerned with collecting 75% of interview fees. That is so bush league that to imagine your whole life is going to be shaped by this organization is pretty delusional.
Of course, 'Galaxy Quest' is a pretty popular science fiction film, but it's one that parodies mainly a space opera series that takes place long after the Solar System has been explored. For anyone interested enough to read the article, titling it 'Galaxy Quest' is an outright distraction. You can say I'm pointlessly nitpicking, but I genuinely believe that laziness and sticking to convention ('here's a sci-fi reference!') has fuelled the decline of print journalism in favour of more authentic fare.
I do like the paroxysms of noble largesse regarding his wife though. Strangely cuckoldish.