You may be able to move to Mars

[Morrus]

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?

It is more ambitious, of course. It doesn't remotely compare to Apollo, though - Apollo spent billions in research and development; this has the tech already. It has been sourced and priced. It could be done tomorrow.

Additionally, compared to NASA, costs can be remarkably low. Look how Elon Musk's capsules were sent to the ISS for a fraction of the price it would cost NASA. The private sector is (a) more efficient and (b) can take risks that would be completely uncceptable to a government agency. The savings on both fronts are immense.

I'd reiterate - it's been costed. I guess you can turn round and say "they're wrong; I know better", but you'll understand, I'm sure, when I consider their figures to be more reliable than yours.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The problem with supply drops is this:

If you drop big packages, its efficient in terms of payload and scatter within the drop zone, but risky in that it is all or nothing. If something goes wrong, it will take a long time to assemble and deliver a replacement. Bad news if you're talking about something vital.

If you drop a lot of little packets in a given time, it is less risky- if something goes wrong, they might lose some stuff but won't lose everything- but it is inefficient in terms of payload and scatter.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The private sector is (a) more efficient...

Minor quibble: the efficiency of the private sector is superior some- indeed many- things, but not all, though granted, this may be one of them.

 

[Umbran]

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.

You realize that sending several payloads to Mars before you put people on board is part of the Mars One plan, right? And that NASA is planning to use the Falcon Heavy for the same purpose before Mars One intends to launch any people, right? And that it is still three years before Mars One intends to send any payloads to Mars, right?

Is there risk? Of course! If this weren't risky, it wouldn't be interesting! There is no way in heck that the very first manned mission to Mars is going to be anything other than risky. If you want risk-free, yes, this isn't for you. You may take your personal efforts and interest into something nice and safe - like bread-baking. That's nice and safe. Until you need to get into a car and go out and buy more flour and yeast, 'cause the roads aint' exactly safe, you know...

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

Yes, but then again, it looks like Space X is on track for being able to lift things into orbit about 10% of what it costs NASA to do the same - the Falcon Heavy is expected to bring the cost down to under $1000 per pound, from NASA's $10K per pound.

NASA is a great organization, and they have some of the most brilliant minds on the planet. But they are hampered by governmental bureaucracy, governmental media-paranoia, and governmental risk-aversion, and that drives their costs up a great deal.

I have to ask: why do you find it credible?

I find it credible because, as previously noted, this is not 1969, and is not the Apollo mission. It is a new century, with decades of experience, understanding, and technological development under our belts. In Apollo's time time, we were just stepping into space. Now, we've had decades of developing needs to reach near Earth orbit and geostationary orbit that simply didn't exist back then - enough need to drive an industry. So, basically, Mars One is able to piggyback on that other industry, and take advantage of economies of scale that Apollo did not. And that makes a huge difference in the price tag.

 

[Grumpy RPG Reviews]

Here is another logistical question... how will they handle radiation shielding? The astronauts on the mission will be exposed to significant amounts of radiation, if not enough to die just from that expose then enough to substantially increase their chances of cancer. How will the technology protect them from that? This was not an issue for the Moon Missions because they astronauts were not going to be exposed to the radiation for long.
Apollo did provide a lot of technology but a short-term mission to the Moon compares to a mission to Mars (with an intended colony) as a canoe compares to the Mayflower.

 

[Morrus]

Here is another logistical question... how will they handle radiation shielding? The astronauts on the mission will be exposed to significant amounts of radiation, if not enough to die just from that expose then enough to substantially increase their chances of cancer. How will the technology protect them from that? This was not an issue for the Moon Missions because they astronauts were not going to be exposed to the radiation for long.
Apollo did provide a lot of technology but a short-term mission to the Moon compares to a mission to Mars (with an intended colony) as a canoe compares to the Mayflower.

It's easy to shield against radiation (common soil, or water, a foot thick, both do a fine job of it). It's just extremely heavy, so has a high fuel cost for the mission.

That's not a high tech issue. It's a fuel cost issue.

 

[Grumpy RPG Reviews]

I meant in transit, not on Mars.

 

[jonesy]

I meant in transit, not on Mars.

That doesn't change the answer.

 

[Morrus]

I meant in transit, not on Mars.

So did I. Radiation shielding is a simple but expensive issue. It's factored in to the $6bn.

 

[Umbran]

I meant in transit, not on Mars.

I am not privy to Mars One's solution. One usual expected answer is to build your water tanks around the living areas of the craft.