if we can prove we have the capability to create a successful colony on mars, doesn't that prove we should be successful at doing it anywhere?

We don't need to be on Mars to show that we can live there. We can show that from Earth because we know a good deal about Mars, however every planet (local or not) is a little different so proving that we can live on Mars doesn't prove that we can then live anywhere because they'll all require different problems to be solved. Being able to get out of our solar system is more important I think than colonizing Mars for the sake of learning about Mars because I think we know already that we could do it. Propulsion systems mean more to me than living on Mars I guess.

You realize Mars One is a scam right? They have no way of getting supplies let alone people to Mars.

You do realize that one of their first steps is to send supplies to Mars, right?
It’s not exactly as though we need to wait the whole 10 years to find out it is a scam; they are planning to send things off within 2 years and have a contract with Lockheed Martin. Or did they just pay Lockheed Martin to not tell everyone they don’t have such a contract?

About births, firstly the point is not to colonize Mars except with highly trained personnel. Babies are not.
And birthing would, as mentioned by Hodgman, put an important member out of commission for far too long.
And no, no studies have been done on low-gravity births and reproduction is explicitly not recommended for that reason.

I am waiting for them to announce selected applicants will need to bring funding of $250k each or something like that.

Then everyone would simply drop out.
Actually it’s the inverse. The trainees get a salary (and a pretty good one).


As for the moon and Mars, neither has a magnetic field to shield from radiation, but Mars has an atmosphere, better gravity, known sources of water (the moon likely has water deep under its northern cap, but this is not confirmed), and quite frankly more things to discover.
Just because the moon is closer does not mean it is easier to settle (or we would have easily done it by now).
It is actually easier to settle on Mars, with the only real hurdle being its distance.


L. Spiro

Where do you get this information from Spiro? My lodger is an applicant and doesn't claim to have such detailed knowledge of what they will or won't do. Or maybe she's more realistic that what they claim they want to do is not what will definitely happen :)

Didn't you already hand at least some money over to apply?

Personally I don't think it's a scam, I just think it's unrealistic and they will not be able to raise anything like the capital needed, even if money were the only obstacle in the first place!

Mars is so far away, wouldnt it be better to build some base on the moon, first?

Mars is so far away, wouldnt it be better to build some base on the moon, first?

The things is mars is more resourceful. You can extract water from it, it has atmosphere, it has better soil, and the temperatures are not so extreme compared to moon.

Female only colonies are the most cost effective way of establishing a viable genetic population off planet. A single male can only ever support his own gene pool, where as a female can support their own and provide host to other donor genes.

That's assuming that the sole purpose of the trip is to produce new humans to live there, and also that human work is not needed in larger capacity than is possible with a constantly pregnant population and later with a vast number of children growing up. I find it much more likely that we want some skilled work done right away, requiring previously trained personnel, and also that the real purpose of colonizing another planet is to move earth-dwelling humans to that planet rather than simply increase our overall numbers in a new space.

"Earth-exodus" colonies are a horribly foolish pipe dream baring some major breakthroughs in launch methods and transportation systems. The math just doesn't add up for moving vast numbers of humans from earth to another planet, they don't even add up moving vast numbers from Earth to our own moon. It costs too much and takes too much energy to even reach low earth orbit with current and foreseeable future tech. However, colonies on other planets where humans actually settle, not just visit, and produce their own science and culture are a very important part of humanity's future.

Also, are you suggesting that women can't do skilled work? Population doesn't have to explode initially after touch down with every single colonist getting pregnant at once, but after the initial base is established then the growth of the first generation can begin with a fraction of the population becoming pregnant. They can continue doing their jobs for the majority of the time, shifting to lighter and lighter duties. A handful stay pregnant at any given time, and eventually you can bring the first generation to 3-10 times that of the initial colonist base. By having the entire initial crew as female you allow a greater selection of initial female sourced genes (sperm apparently stores better and is more viable than eggs), and each mother is required to give birth to fewer children over their lifespan there.

What is one useful thing that being male is going to give you when trying to settle another planet? Currently the only advantage that either gender has is the female womb, which we cannot yet replicate or remove and store. Male sperm? It can ship very well, and if needed a resupply mission of it can be sent by way of an unmanned probed...

However, is a probe full of sperm samples really 'unmanned'?

Female only colonies are the most cost effective way of establishing a viable genetic population off planet. A single male can only ever support his own gene pool, where as a female can support their own and provide host to other donor genes.

That's assuming that the sole purpose of the trip is to produce new humans to live there, and also that human work is not needed in larger capacity than is possible with a constantly pregnant population and later with a vast number of children growing up. I find it much more likely that we want some skilled work done right away, requiring previously trained personnel, and also that the real purpose of colonizing another planet is to move earth-dwelling humans to that planet rather than simply increase our overall numbers in a new space.

"Earth-exodus" colonies are a horribly foolish pipe dream baring some major breakthroughs in launch methods and transportation systems. The math just doesn't add up for moving vast numbers of humans from earth to another planet, they don't even add up moving vast numbers from Earth to our own moon. It costs too much and takes too much energy to even reach low earth orbit with current and foreseeable future tech. However, colonies on other planets where humans actually settle, not just visit, and produce their own science and culture are a very important part of humanity's future.

Also, are you suggesting that women can't do skilled work? Population doesn't have to explode initially after touch down with every single colonist getting pregnant at once, but after the initial base is established then the growth of the first generation can begin with a fraction of the population becoming pregnant. They can continue doing their jobs for the majority of the time, shifting to lighter and lighter duties. A handful stay pregnant at any given time, and eventually you can bring the first generation to 3-10 times that of the initial colonist base. By having the entire initial crew as female you allow a greater selection of initial female sourced genes (sperm apparently stores better and is more viable than eggs), and each mother is required to give birth to fewer children over their lifespan there.

What is one useful thing that being male is going to give you when trying to settle another planet? Currently the only advantage that either gender has is the female womb, which we cannot yet replicate or remove and store. Male sperm? It can ship very well, and if needed a resupply mission of it can be sent by way of an unmanned probed...


However, is a probe full of sperm samples really 'unmanned'?

That's alot of children to raise, and care for, while living in an sealed environment. it wouldn't really be feasible imo for a single women to give birth except maybe once in a decade, too allow time to raise the child to a degree that he can take care of himself.

your also forgetting that in many cases men do tend to have a physical advantage over women. also, what is your expected size of this initial colony? as it stands mars one is only sending 4 people on the first mission, and iirc they claim to want to send an additional 4 either every 2 or 4 years after.

lastly, don't forget that a few hundred years ago, crossing the atlantic took well over a month to do, and now we can do it under a day. obviously space travel is a massive leap over that, but it's not unreasonable that technology/idea's might come about to improve the time it takes for journey's to and potentially one day, from mars.

The trainees get a salary (and a pretty good one).

Why do you need a 'pretty good' salary if you're going to colonize another planet and aren't coming back? Why not just provide for your needs directly, during the training phases?

Where do you get this information from Spiro? My lodger is an applicant and doesn't claim to have such detailed knowledge of what they will or won't do.

• 
  

  they are planning to send things off within 2 years

  http://www.mars-one.com/mission/roadmap (They cite 2015 as training starting and 2018 as the first launch but it’s really just 2 years and some change between them, not a full actual 3 years.)
• 
  

  and have a contract with Lockheed Martin

  http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/mars-one-first-private-mars-mission-in-2018
• 
  

  And no, no studies have been done on low-gravity births and reproduction is explicitly not recommended for that reason.

  http://www.mars-one.com/faq/health-and-ethics/can-the-astronauts-have-children-on-mars
• 
  

  The trainees get a salary

  http://www.mars-one.com/faq/finance-and-feasibility/how-does-mars-one-use-revenues-from-donations-sponsors-and-merchandise
  

  Eventually, the Mars One Foundation will be responsible for the Mars settlement, the simulation outposts on Earth, and it will be the employer of the project management team of the mission, and the Mars astronauts.

  employer: a person or business that employs one or more people for wages or salary. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/employer
• 
  

  It is actually easier to settle on Mars, with the only real hurdle being its distance.

  http://www.mars-one.com/faq/mission-to-mars/why-mars-and-not-another-planet
  

Or maybe she's more realistic that what they claim they want to do is not what will definitely happen

I am perfectly realistic. If they send me to a base to train in a real training facility it gives them some credit, and if they actually start sending things to Mars shortly after that it fully credits them.
Just because I don’t mention my doubts doesn’t mean I don’t have them. I am simply a positive person who focuses on the good without losing sight of the bad.

Didn't you already hand at least some money over to apply?

Nothing more than with what I was willing to part. It was only around $20. Big deal.
I donated a $50 PlayStation 3 controller to my workplace because theirs were getting unresponsive.
Then I donated 3 games at $50 each just so we could have something to play in case the main guy who brings games for lunch gaming is sick etc.
I am about to donate a PlayStation 3 because for whatever reason idiots keep using the meeting room during lunch with the only PlayStation 3 (IE the only meeting room used for lunch-time gaming) instead of the one right next to it which no one uses for gaming. Use some fucking sense people. Have your fucking meetings in the Xbox 360 room that no one wants to use for gaming.[/endfirstworldproblems]

I donated $300 to a Starsiege: Tribes server I don’t even play (and more to the ones I do play).
Really, $20? That’s pennies.

Mars is so far away, wouldnt it be better to build some base on the moon, first?

I just said:

As for the moon and Mars, neither has a magnetic field to shield from radiation, but Mars has an atmosphere, better gravity, known sources of water (the moon likely has water deep under its northern cap, but this is not confirmed), and quite frankly more things to discover.
Just because the moon is closer does not mean it is easier to settle (or we would have easily done it by now).
It is actually easier to settle on Mars, with the only real hurdle being its distance.

http://www.mars-one.com/faq/mission-to-mars/why-mars-and-not-another-planet

Currently the only advantage that either gender has is the female womb

Which is a totally useless advantage.

And again, I repeat that pregnancy puts a vital member of the crew out of commission for far too long. And once again it doesn’t make sense to have children until the colony is well established and has an existing decent-sized population and is fully stable. You don’t just send a bunch of women and start having babies. You send a bunch of trained personnel of either gender who, over the course of perhaps 40 years, will create an establishment suitable for children. By which time there will already be males there, so doing it “naturally” would make the most sense.

Why do you need a 'pretty good' salary if you're going to colonize another planet and aren't coming back? Why not just provide for your needs directly, during the training phases?

As proposed, it doubles as a reality TV show.

What if I get voted off before the launch?

Those who go to Mars may have no need for a salary in the end, but most people will eventually be voted off the project and will obviously need funds to resume their previous lives.

I will be clarifying with the Mars One team during the upcoming interview when the salary begins and exactly how much it is (though I am likely not to ask this part for fear of sounding as if I am only in it for the money).

L. Spiro

Mars is so far away, wouldnt it be better to build some base on the moon, first?

I just said:

As for the moon and Mars, neither has a magnetic field to shield from radiation, but Mars has an atmosphere, better gravity, known sources of water (the moon likely has water deep under its northern cap, but this is not confirmed), and quite frankly more things to discover.
Just because the moon is closer does not mean it is easier to settle (or we would have easily done it by now).
It is actually easier to settle on Mars, with the only real hurdle being its distance.

well maybe, i dont know - but it seen to my the first doubt,

the second is that man who will fly there soon will die or at least

get insane - personaly the flying to mars it the last thing i would do

(I much prefered to be imprisoned or psychiatric hospitalized than that :U