I'll state it again, putting aside any limitations I believe the project has with technology or astronaut selection problems, I AM CRITICIZING the
business model specifically. How many times do I have to say it!
How long has Big Brother (UK) or MTV's Real World been on?
Why would this be much different? It seems much more compelling than either of those shows which have been on longer.
Simply shouting "NEVER EVER!" over and over is not really supporting your position with hard data.
You seem to not have comprehended my American Idol and Avatar gross revenue examples. BTW, American Idol and Big Brother have brought in nearly the
same amount of gross revenue from ad sales over all the years they have been on the air, so feel free to interchange either example.
So going with these examples, a MAX of $6 million per episode, like American Idol or Big Brother is being VERY optimistic for the proposed Mars One TV
show. Also my Olympics example still stands too. Why, you ask? If the Olympics ran for an hour episode once a week on TV for 10 years, without
announcing winners until year 10, how many viewers do you think the show will have at the beginning of season 2? I can tell you the only proven way a
TV network will accept such a show, however, they will have to make this an actual semi-scripted reality show ala "Survivor" or "The Amazing
Race". But, can they make it to launch date, 10 years later, on that business model alone? No viewer is going to wait that long and fewer new
younger viewers are going to watch a 5+ year old show, when the older long time view gives up on watching. What happens when TV ratings are too low
in season 3 and the Mars One show gets cancelled? Is the mission over? Do the long term astronaut volunteers need to go out and look for day jobs
again, after having trained to be astronauts/colonists for the last 3+ years? No ones talking about that pickle it seems. Where can they apply for
the next Astronauts/colonist jobs that open up, that matches their training/experience? This is TV ratings 101 stuff.
How much money will the FIFA World Cup generate?
How much money would selling commercials during Apollo missions have made if measured in todays dollars? Do you know? I do, and its plenty more than
what Mars One would need.
The same TV Business model goes for your Apollo mission example, it was only 5 hours long in one stretch. There would have been huge viewer drop off
if it had been cut up into 40 one hour episodes, aired twice a week, like American Idol is. At its peak in 2006 American Idol drew in around 36
million viewers an episode The Apollo mission drew in 125 million total, which is a lot, but remember it also had no other shows competing with it on
TV in 1969. Could the Apollo missions have sustained 125 million viewers per episode, twice a week for 4 months? I don't have the answer, but my
gut says no.
So sure, they will be able to make some TV ad money on the aired selection of the semi-final 24 to final 4, BUT how many seasons can this be stretched
out for and what is the MAXIMUM amount of viewers and ad revenue that they are likely to get per episode? Not more than American Idol or Big Brother,
that's for SURE and CERTAINLY NOT more than the $2 billion gross James Cameron got with Avatar which had a $425 million starting budget (BTW, which
is now over 5 years old and made another $750 million from DVD's, licensing, reruns, toys, games, etc). If the networks thought differently, this
guy would already have a TV show contract in place, with start up money to boot from the network to aired the testing of the astronaut finalists for
selection and production costs the TV show. Seeing that he does not, definably shows evidence that when the shoe is eventually aired it will NOT make
Olympics/American Idol/Big Brother/FIFA kind of money.
This is not much different than running a Kickstarter campaign to fund a video game design as plenty of gaming companies do.
This is NOTHING like Kickstarter funding, long story-short, kickstarter funding is considered taxable income in the USA. Bas Lansdorp has done the
same tax scam that many non-profit "think tanks" in the USA do. These organizations do conduct "research" and "R&D", but their executive
leaders are paid MILLIONS, but at the same time money coming into the organization is NOT TAXED, just the executives salary. HOWEVER, there are MANY
things the non-profit CEO uses which would normally be paid by their taxed salary alone and can include expenses solely carried by the non-profit such
as cars for the CEO to drive, housing for the CEO to live in, private jet for the CEO to fly in, trips to do Business Devlopment/fun raising in the
Bahamas for two weeks, etc, etc, etc. For example the Heritage Foundation CEO is paid over $1 million a year in salary and bonuses, not including the
company car and other stuff that DOES NOT COME OUT OF HIS SALARY. All on a gross revenue/budget of $70+million for the whole company. So we are
suposed to believe that this guy bring in $1 million dollars of "value" to an organization that uses $80 million a years for operating expenses and
pays no taxes.
Where do I sigh up for that? Seems Bas Lansdorp has definitely found a way to sign himself up for those bennies.
So you're saying that you somehow know better than Lockheed Martin or that Lockheed did not do due diligence regarding Bas? By the way, from what I
can tell he was already fairly well to do before he came up with Mars One.
Dennis Tito has been said to be worth AT LEAST $200+ million, some sources say $1 billion. I can't find Bas Lansdorp's net worth listed anywhere on
the web, but to get this far with project hype its likely safe to assume he's in the $20+million club. Also Dennis Tito was invited to speak to a
House Sub committee on the project, he is proposing a P3 project. Do you know that that is? Sure it may not get a approved at the end of the day,
but the fact that they let him come and speak, shows that the project does have some validity, certainly more than you are giving it credit for.
Also Titos time frame for launch is MUCH EARLIER and is based on a working capsule trajectory to Mars that would require the astronauts to be on their
way in space by 12/24/17. Thats how the moon missions were planned too, so I don't see anything thus far that makes the less ambitious Inspiration
Mars project unfeasible technologically or psychologically for the selected astronauts.
Despite what many here say and believe, this is nothing like riding the wave of your wits and survival skills to make a new colony across the Atlantic
on a sailing ship. You can't live off the land on Mars like the colonists of America could and there are no earthling natives to beg or steal from.
The Mars colonists will NEED a network on earth supporting their survival on Mars, which costs MONEY. And as we know, when money is low or exhausted
within corporations, rank and file workers tend to start dying or getting injured to save a buck, maintain share prices and preserve executive
bonuses. At least with Dennis Titos round-trip plan, the project could potentially lose money, but still have a possibly of supporting the space
travelers safe return. Mark my words if these people get to Mars and survive, sooner or later an executive is going to pull the plug on them to save
money and no one on earth is going to know any better.
Now for Lockheed and others giving over "tech" to the project, I actually covered the basis of their true business motivations in an earlier post.
Lockheed has had some issues with R&D tax deductions. The Mars One project will HELP them solve some of that headache, while getting to "dust off"
old tech for future R&D tax deductions. Lockheed COULD CARE LESS if NOT one single rocket leaves earth under the Mars One banner, even tomorrow or
ten years from now, they are in the business of patents, derivative tech and equipment sales. I'd bet my house the TRUE intended client for the
Lockheed space craft is our government or a foreign one, partially paid for by non-profit dollars provided by Bas Lansdorp, tested by unpaid
auditioned/applicants and cost deferred though R&D tax deductions.