You may be able to move to Mars

[Umbran]

Nonsense - there are individuals who can afford the 6bn the project is estimated to cost, let alone corporations.

Let us just list a few of the billionaire wandering around (numbers from Forbes)...

Elon Musk: $2.7 billion - I list him separately, as he's already in the space game with Space X.

Bill Gates: $66 billion
Warren Buffet: $46 billion
Michael Bloomberg: $25 billion
Jeff Bezos (Amazon.com) $23.2 billion
Forrest Mars (candy magnate): $17 billion
(two other "Mars candy family'" on Forbes list) - $17 billion each
Steve Ballmer (Microsoft) $15.9 billion
Michael Dell (Dell computers): $14.6 billion
Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook): $9 billion
Eric Schmidt (Google): $7.5 Billion
Sir Richard Branson: $4.2 billion
Ross Perot: $3.5 billion
George Lucas: $3.3 billion
Stephen Spielberg: $3.2 billion
Oprah Winfrey: $2.7 billion
Issac Perlmutter: (Marvel) $2.3 billion

If folks like this were willing to get together to fund it, yes, it could happen. It is less than 10% of Bill Gates' net worth! And really, how hard would it be to sell to people *named* Mars?!?

And the broadcast of the biggest show on earth is not "coffee mugs". It's incredibly large amounts of money.

Imagine, if you will, that you got the last four folks on my list on board - Oprah, Marvel Entertainment, and the two most famous names in sci-fi movies ever? Pipe dream, perhaps, but if not... media gold!

 

[Mallus]

True, but the $6b figure assumes that the backers have a certain amount of access to technologies and liquidity. The *ahem* average billionaire might not have that kind of access without incurring massive startup costs. And willingness to spend that money is also a concern.* Partnerships alleviate but do not eliminate these issues.

The same goes for corporations. Sure, IBM or Apple or any number of companies could foot the bill here, but in doing so, they may well have to compromise their corporate secrecy to do so. And that doesn't even address the issue of exposing the company to shareholder lawsuits for investing large portions of the company's money in such a risky venture.

Nations, OTOH, have all kinds of advantages in such a project- economies of scale, taxation to raise revenue, sovereign immunity and powers like eminent domain or even nationalization (in the extreme).

Right.

I'm also operating under the assumption the $6b figure is absurdly low, given the scale of the endeavor. A crewed Mars mission, maybe even with a fancy little lander, for $6b -- that I can see. Though even for that markedly less ambitious project I'd be shocked --shocked-- if the cost overruns didn't end up dwarfing the original estimate.

I'll say it again, 6 billion for this is ridiculous.

The trip is the easy part (note: it's in no way actually easy). It's the keeping the people alive on Mars that's the sticky wicket. You either need the means to continually rain supplies on them, or you need to ship them over with everything the need to survive: tons and tons of materials, basic supplies, redundant complex equipment in staggering quantities (because there's neither fabrication infrastructure nor an easy escape capsule back to terra firma on the angry red planet).

What's the cost of landing a kilogram on the surface of Mars? (a kilo on non-living matter we're not also trying to keep alive in perpetuity, I might add).

As for non-governmental funding: simple question - where is the profit motive in this? A venture like this has no short-term upside (there are cheaper reality shows to produce...). Any economic gains are medium-to-long term at best. And as far as I know, most businesses aren't fond of gigantic long-term R&D projects with no clear revenue streams. There's a reason why so much 20th century technological innovation -- including, well, spaceflight-- came from publicly-funded government projects, fueled, unfortunately by the Cold War and the subsequent rampant US militarism (without the Ruskies to beat, I don't we'd have gone to the Moon in 1969).

I suppose a group of space-minded plutocrats could plunk down sizable chucks of their personal fortunes FOR SPACE! But if that's the case, I hope they choose to fund Dr. Ellie Arroway's Gyroscope Wormhole Machine instead !

I'm saddened to find myself being so harsh here. I want a Mars-base, too. And prototype starships! But thinking you can do engineering on this scale privately... it's too much to believe.

 

[Umbran]

True, but the $6b figure assumes that the backers have a certain amount of access to technologies and liquidity.

No, the $6 billion figure is based on the folks at Mars One already having letters of interest from suppliers like Space X, (for the Falcon Heavy lifter and the Dragon capsules - prices for these are known), and having at least one supplier for each major technological piece of the puzzle.

See the following:
http://mars-one.com/en/mission/technology
http://mars-one.com/en/partners/suppliers

This is no longer like the Apollo missions, were we were building everything from scratch. The sources for these things already exist. We now have companies who are quite willing to sell you known tech that fits the requirements!

 

[Umbran]

As for non-governmental funding: simple question - where is the profit motive in this?

Here's a couple pieces of reading for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge

http://givingpledge.org/

Quite simply, there seem to be quite a few very wealthy people out there willing to give away their money for greater causes.

What we seem to lack is one charismatic and intelligent individual to pull them together for this purpose.

 

[Morrus]

Right.

I'm also operating under the assumption the $6b figure is absurdly low, given the scale of the endeavor. A crewed Mars mission, maybe even with a fancy little lander, for $6b -- that I can see. Though even for that markedly less ambitious project I'd be shocked --shocked-- if the cost overruns didn't end up dwarfing the original estimate.

I'll say it again, 6 billion for this is ridiculous. .

No offence, Mallus, but what on earth qualifies you to price up this mission? On what basis are you announcing that you know better than those who actually *did* price it up how much it will cost?

 

[Jdvn1]

Sure. But the problem isn't that the Martian surface is so inhospitable to human life. It's that it's really, really far away. And the cost of moving materials to Mars is enormous. And we don't have a whole lot of vehicles with which to do that (or, at this point, any). And cost of creating said vehicles is enormous. And we have no practical experience trying to maintain any sort of human habitation beyond Earth orbit (and even the ones we have are in no sense permanent).

I probably phrased it poorly, but this is what I meant.

And really, how hard would it be to sell to people *named* Mars?!?

I love it! Cut this man a check!

I just want to say - because I never really actually posted my initial reaction - this is so awesome.

Though I think this Mars One program may not be going about this in the absolute best way (not to say that they're going about this in a poor way), I love that they are apparently going for it. I wish them the best, I hope that they give you serious consideration to be a part of the program, that it moves forward, and that you all see a lot of success out of the program. I will be rooting for you guys.

I may be critical of some of the details of the program (really just curious, though), but that is mostly because I want for it to be successful. I'm also having fun thinking about all the details (so... where does space poop go? How do you explain to future children, "I'm sorry, you can't play outside today, Timmy. Or ever, because the atmosphere will incinerate you." Also, these kids will learn "incinerate" before any of their earth-based peers).

 

[Mallus]

This is no longer like the Apollo missions, were we were building everything from scratch. The sources for these things already exist. We now have companies who are quite willing to sell you known tech that fits the requirements!

I'd feel better about this once SpaceX successfully sends a few payloads to Mars using their Dragon Heavy Lifters --ie once they're adequately tested.

No offence, Mallus, but what on earth qualifies you to price up this mission? On what basis are you announcing that you know better than those who actually *did* price it up how much it will cost?

None taken!

You know the answer to that already: I'm someone at work with some free time and Internet access .

No, I'm not an aerospace engineer or a NASA/ESA project manager. But you don't need to be in order to a little skeptical (or a lot) here.

The cost of the Mars Exploration Rover mission was around $1b. Just for landing two robotic probes. Not humans and the supplies they'd need to survive on a brave new world. FYI... the Curiosity mission cost $2.5b

This project is much more ambitious -- can we at least agree on that? Probably more on the scale of the Apollo program, which cost upwards of $135b, adjusted for inflation (granted this counts the whole program, but they didn't go as far, plus, again, you'll need to land a lot more kilos on Mars to support people).

It's a case of too many impossible things before breakfast. It would be not only the most ambitious crewed space mission attempted by humankind, but one funded in a new, unproven, and unarguably less secure fashion. I have to ask: why do you find it credible?

 

[Jdvn1]

No offence, Mallus, but what on earth qualifies you to price up this mission? On what basis are you announcing that you know better than those who actually *did* price it up how much it will cost?

I can't speak for Mallus, but in my industry, standard projects cost in excess of $20 billion... the idea that you can establish a Mars colony for less than a third of that price (or, three Mars colonies for the same price) seems incredulous. No specific knowledge, just an amazement of scale.

 

[Janx]

continually rain supplies on them

consider that fragment alone.

How easy is it to drop a package on the colony with enough precision that they can take a Mars Rover out to pick it up?

If a package misses the target by too much, they won't be able to reach it. if a package fails to arrive safely, similar effect.

What happens if the colony misses a shipment? How many missed shipments can they survive?

 

[Morrus]

consider that fragment alone.

How easy is it to drop a package on the colony with enough precision that they can take a Mars Rover out to pick it up?

If a package misses the target by too much, they won't be able to reach it. if a package fails to arrive safely, similar effect.

What happens if the colony misses a shipment? How many missed shipments can they survive?

Curiosity had a pretty small drop cone (a few kilometers). They're getting pretty accurate.