What will be the outcome for the 4 people who take the one way trip to mars?

page: 9
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   

crazyewok

JadeStar


We're still pioneers. It's just that the frontiers are above and below us (the oceans) now.


Im just worried you will try and take your guns



Jokeing by the way.


Actually now that you mention it, we don't know what's out there.... forearmed is forewarned


Joking of course. I'm not a huge gun proponent. I don't even own one and felt safer in the countries I've been in without them.




posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
They will die just like the people who stay here on earth. We all do eventually.

I guess the difference is that they will be doing something they wanted to do and will see & experience things no other human being ever has before.

Regrets on their decision to go would suck if they ever had them because unlike us who can always choose another direction in life if we make a mistake.....they won't have that freedom.

Depending on their viewpoint they will either be in a paradise nobody else can experience.....

.....or an inescapable prison.

I couldn't do it because I always want options in life.......a way back if I happen down the wrong trail.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   

JadeStar

Actually now that you mention it, we don't know what's out there.... forearmed is forewarned


Joking of course. I'm not a huge gun proponent. I don't even own one and felt safer in the countries I've been in without them.


No thats a point, the Soyuz does have a gun on board after its early crash landing in siberia.

Dunno if there are any man eating rocks on mars but you never know



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 10:38 PM
link   

crazyewok

JadeStar

Actually now that you mention it, we don't know what's out there.... forearmed is forewarned


Joking of course. I'm not a huge gun proponent. I don't even own one and felt safer in the countries I've been in without them.


No thats a point, the Soyuz does have a gun on board after its early crash landing in siberia.

Dunno if there are any man eating rocks on mars but you never know


Hey, I've seen all the movies. At some point, either you get giant spiders or you run into a bunch of Polynesian looking slaves that are being used to mine Martian diamonds. Their overseers are evil guys in space suits with lasers that are flying around in a lot of weird looking UFOs, blasting pits all over the landscape. If you don't have a monkey, a sidearm and a wire saw, you are in for a world of hurt.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 11:03 PM
link   
You get to Mars, look up at the stars and feel let-down because after all those months of travel, you really didn't go very far. The stars and constellations will look pretty much the same, albeit brighter.

I'd much rather give my life attempting something far more grander, like Jodie Foster did in that movie (can't remember the name) where she transcended normal space/time. Perhaps death will be like that. We can only hope.
cwm



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Death... and no taxes.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 06:40 PM
link   
I just read more about the project there is NO WAY this trip going to happen under this format or business plan. I know quite a few people here have dismissed my concerns with the projects fund raising methodology, but have any of you READ how Bas Lansdorp plans to pay for the projects estimated $6 Billion cost? Sure he will be able to pay HIS salary and living expenses DURING the whole process of creating this sham, but that doesn't mean anyone is actually leaving for Mars at the end of the day. They will NEVER have enough money to do that even if the project design and plans are sound.

First off like I said, he plans to pay for it with a Reality TV business model. OK, did anyone here notice that the projected time to properly train these astronauts is 8-10 YEARS? Yes, I agree that is what could be necessary time wise, BUT again, how do you get 8-10 years of consistent TV viewer numbers and demand for advertisement slots from companies? They won't be leaving for Mars until 8-10 years later! There will NEVER be enough prolonged viewer demand/numbers in conjunction advertisement slot being bought to support this trip to Mars, let alone the development of an actual working project. NO WAY, NEVER, NOT EVER!

Second, he's found a way to reduce his costs with a sham non-profit. Essentially "Donations" to help "seed" the project go to the non-profit, called Mars One, which includes HIS salary expenses etc, BUT, when the time comes to "sell" the show for TV those profits solely belong to his for-profit company Interplanetary Media Group.

Sound like a good way to get "other peoples money" to pay for Bas Lansdorp's "living" while he gets to "play" scientist/inventor/media mogul while not actually creating anything at the end of the day. Sounds like a good business plan/scam to me, I'm definitely going to start something similar this week! I too would like 8-10 years worth of salary, by simply selling tall tales on someone else's dollar and if it all works out in the end getting residuals reruns for decades. Its nearly as good as being a politician or a Wall Street executive as far as I am concerned.

I'll repeat, unless a Jeff Bezos or Paul Allen type, decides down the road to fund this to the tune of $1 billion start up money, it ain't happening. He uses revenue from the Olympics as an example of how much money the Mars One project will make, but if the Olympics were longer than 3 weeks and took 8-10 years to determine success or failure, no one would be watching past about a dozen reality TV episodes. My American Idol and Avatar revenue examples still stand and are perfectly valid analogs to how much such a TV show would make at BEST.

The competing Inspiration Mars project is FAR more likely to happen. Plus, Dennis Tito is behind it, whom has proven he can get investment partners (BTW, he was the first space tourist to pay out of pocket).
edit on 16-1-2014 by boohoo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 11:31 PM
link   

boohoo
I just read more about the project there is NO WAY this trip going to happen under this format or business plan. I know quite a few people here have dismissed my concerns with the projects fund raising methodology, but have any of you READ how Bas Lansdorp plans to pay for the projects estimated $6 Billion cost? They will NEVER have enough money to do that even if the project design and plans are sound.

First off like I said, he plans to pay for it with a Reality TV business model. OK, did anyone here notice that the projected time to properly train these astronauts is 8-10 YEARS? Yes, I agree that is what could be necessary time wise, BUT again, how do you get 8-10 years of consistent TV viewer numbers and demand for advertisement slots from companies? They won't be leaving for Mars until 8-10 years later! There will NEVER be enough prolonged viewer demand/numbers in conjunction advertisement slot being bought to support this trip to Mars, let alone the development of an actual working project. NO WAY, NEVER, NOT EVER!


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.




Second, he's found a way to reduce his costs with a sham non-profit. Essentially "Donations" to help "seed" the project go to the non-profit, called Mars One, which includes HIS salary expenses etc, BUT, when the time comes to "sell" the show for TV those profits solely belong to his for-profit company Interplanetary Media Group.


This is not much different than running a Kickstarter campaign to fund a video game design as plenty of gaming companies do.



Sound like a good way to get "other peoples money" to pay for Bas Lansdorp's "living" while he gets to "play" scientist/inventor/media mogul while not actually creating anything at the end of the day. Sounds like a good business plan/scam to me, I'm definitely going to start something similar this week! I too would like 8-10 years worth of salary, by simply selling tall tales on someone else's dollar and if it all works out in the end getting residuals reruns for decades. Its nearly as good as being a politician or a Wall Street executive as far as I am concerned.


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.




I'll repeat, unless a Jeff Bezos or Paul Allen type, decides down the road to fund this to the tune of $1 billion start up money, it ain't happening. He uses revenue from the Olympics as an example of how much money the Mars One project will make, but if the Olympics were longer than 3 weeks and took 8-10 years to determine success or failure, no one would be watching past about a dozen reality TV episodes. My American Idol and Avatar revenue examples still stand and are perfectly valid analogs to how much such a TV show would make at BEST.


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 competing Inspiration Mars project is FAR more likely to happen. Plus, Dennis Tito is behind it, whom has proven he can get investment partners (BTW, he was the first space tourist to pay out of pocket)


Cool. But he has no money to pay out of pocket for this mission does he? Nope he wants US taxpayers to foot the bill for it.

Inspiration Mars is a joke. Where are Dennis Tito's investors? Which actual space hardware companies has he secured? Mars One has Lockheed-Martin, Space-X, Bigelow Aerospace and Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd.

Tito has what? A plan? A stupid and seemingly politically motivated plan.

Must be a married couple of one woman and one man? Must be American? .... sorry no gay couples allowed and dammit no foreigners either!!!!


Sounds really inclusive. Somehow I don't think our first venture beyond the Earth-Moon system should be based on 1950s ideology.

Not to mention what is the point of going to Mars to fly by and come back? No landing?

No one in new space takes Tito's plan seriously for good reason.

He wants government handouts to support his plan. Mars One is totally private.

See: Inspiration Mars Pivots, Seeks Government Support and Backing


WASHINGTON — When multimillionaire and one-time space tourist Dennis Tito announced Inspiration Mars early this year, it was billed as a nonprofit venture, funded via philanthropy, to send two people on a 501-day Mars flyby mission that would launch in early January 2018. Tito said he planned to fund the mission primarily through donations; he was open to selling some data collected during the mission to NASA, but that was, at that time, the only kind of funding he was seeking from the space agency.

Less than nine months later, Tito and Inspiration Mars have changed course. In a report summary released Nov. 20, timed with testimony given by Tito before a hearing of the House Science Committee’s space subcommittee, Inspiration Mars rolled out an alternative plan that relies on a public-private partnership with NASA.....It would also rely primarily on NASA funding to make the mission possible. This proposal would, in effect, reshape national space policy, with a very short period for Congress and the White House to endorse this approach in order to meet its launch _


LMAO!!


The chances of NASA ever approving funding for his hairbrained idea are less than zero.

Here's a quick summation from someone close to the people Tito has been talking to:

"He has no real support. If Mars One is a longshot then Inspiration Mars is hopeless and a more than a little crazy. A two person crew which has to be an American married couple places unrealistic limitations on the mission as does its ambitious timeline of a 2017 launch. The goal of the mission is to do a flyby which would have little if any scientific value. The reliance of his plan on NASA and US government support probably dooms it before it ever gets off the ground."


A spokesman for NASA has stated that “Inspiration Mars’s proposed schedule is a significant challenge due to life support systems, space radiation response, habitats and the human psychology of being in a small spacecraft for over 500 days”, but that "we remain open to further collaboration as their proposal and plans for a later mission develop.” John Logsdon, professor emeritus at George Washington University’s Space Policy Institute, has criticised the short time-frame for preparation of the mission, saying that it is "totally implausible" for a mission to be launched in 2017, although the later "Plan B" mission might be possible "if the stars align".


If you honestly believe Mars One is a scam then Inspiration Mars is grand larceny at taxpayer expense.
edit on 17-1-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 12:37 AM
link   

carewemust
You get to Mars, look up at the stars and feel let-down because after all those months of travel, you really didn't go very far. The stars and constellations will look pretty much the same, albeit brighter.

I'd much rather give my life attempting something far more grander, like Jodie Foster did in that movie (can't remember the name) where she transcended normal space/time. Perhaps death will be like that. We can only hope.
cwm


Beautiful man, beautiful. Though she dreamt it all up didn't she? Lol



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 12:42 AM
link   

boohoo
I just read more about the project there is NO WAY this trip going to happen under this format or business plan. I know quite a few people here have dismissed my concerns with the projects fund raising methodology, but have any of you READ how Bas Lansdorp plans to pay for the projects estimated $6 Billion cost? Sure he will be able to pay HIS salary and living expenses DURING the whole process of creating this sham, but that doesn't mean anyone is actually leaving for Mars at the end of the day. They will NEVER have enough money to do that even if the project design and plans are sound.

First off like I said, he plans to pay for it with a Reality TV business model. OK, did anyone here notice that the projected time to properly train these astronauts is 8-10 YEARS? Yes, I agree that is what could be necessary time wise, BUT again, how do you get 8-10 years of consistent TV viewer numbers and demand for advertisement slots from companies? They won't be leaving for Mars until 8-10 years later! There will NEVER be enough prolonged viewer demand/numbers in conjunction advertisement slot being bought to support this trip to Mars, let alone the development of an actual working project. NO WAY, NEVER, NOT EVER!

Second, he's found a way to reduce his costs with a sham non-profit. Essentially "Donations" to help "seed" the project go to the non-profit, called Mars One, which includes HIS salary expenses etc, BUT, when the time comes to "sell" the show for TV those profits solely belong to his for-profit company Interplanetary Media Group.

Sound like a good way to get "other peoples money" to pay for Bas Lansdorp's "living" while he gets to "play" scientist/inventor/media mogul while not actually creating anything at the end of the day. Sounds like a good business plan/scam to me, I'm definitely going to start something similar this week! I too would like 8-10 years worth of salary, by simply selling tall tales on someone else's dollar and if it all works out in the end getting residuals reruns for decades. Its nearly as good as being a politician or a Wall Street executive as far as I am concerned.

I'll repeat, unless a Jeff Bezos or Paul Allen type, decides down the road to fund this to the tune of $1 billion start up money, it ain't happening. He uses revenue from the Olympics as an example of how much money the Mars One project will make, but if the Olympics were longer than 3 weeks and took 8-10 years to determine success or failure, no one would be watching past about a dozen reality TV episodes. My American Idol and Avatar revenue examples still stand and are perfectly valid analogs to how much such a TV show would make at BEST.

The competing Inspiration Mars project is FAR more likely to happen. Plus, Dennis Tito is behind it, whom has proven he can get investment partners (BTW, he was the first space tourist to pay out of pocket).
edit on 16-1-2014 by boohoo because: (no reason given)


I agree its not gonna happen, its madness. There is no way they or anyone is sending a human being(s) to Mars is just 10years time, its ridiculous. We can barely send probes there without them crashing or going missing.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 12:45 AM
link   
what you end up with is the waste of 4 perfectly good organ donors! but you don't have to ask me, scientist will tell you the same exact thing. nice knowing you 4 intrepid idiots! fair winds and following seas !



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Wonder if four people is enough starting off on the project. Surely during that time to the planet they would have at least one breakdown, maybe one death. At least more issues, health, death/s later on.
One article, of someone planning to goes, explains it's more than just that trip when they find if they are confirmed to go, it's a whole life change up until then, of course after,
Mother, Kids Hope Dad Won't Leave Them Forever on Mars Mission



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 01:22 AM
link   

dreamingawake
Wonder if four people is enough starting off on the project. Surely during that time to the planet they would have at least one breakdown, maybe one death. At least more issues, health, death/s later on.
One article, of someone planning to goes, explains it's more than just that trip when they find if they are confirmed to go, it's a whole life change up until then, of course after,
Mother, Kids Hope Dad Won't Leave Them Forever on Mars Mission


Yeah I thought that too, only 4 at the beginning is daft, what if 1 or 2 change their mind the week before? Which is bound to happen, though the family/kiddy reason might not as I don't think they will pick 4 with close family. This whole thing is ludicrous.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 01:46 AM
link   

doorhandle
Yeah I thought that too, only 4 at the beginning is daft, what if 1 or 2 change their mind the week before? Which is bound to happen, though the family/kiddy reason might not as I don't think they will pick 4 with close family.


Just as in every human spaceflight mission there are alternative astronauts for ones which may get sick or decide not to go at the last moment. The Mars One problem is not one of too few applicants. Its one of too many.

The crews for Mars Two, Three, and Four will probably be made up of people who didn't get picked for Mars One.



This whole thing is ludicrous.


Actually it's not. No more ludicrous than expecting people to fly around in airplanes 200 years ago. If done right this can be done.

The original NASA plan to land on Mars in 1985 would have had a crew of 5 or 6. Not much more than Mars One. And unlike Mars One, that crew was expected to take everything with them.

The Mars One crew will arrive to a full stocked and ready base which arrived years before they touchdown and will be met by another 4 people just 3-4 years later.

edit on 17-1-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 


No, it is ridiculous. We have barely been to the moon, or even the bottom of our oceans for crying out loud, yet we are trying to send people to Mars? In 10 years! Organising soccer world cup tournaments take longer than that. Its not the fact they are trying that is confusing me, it is the short time frame..if they said 20 or 30 years, maybe, after a lot of test flights.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 02:11 AM
link   

doorhandle
reply to post by JadeStar
 


No, it is ridiculous. We have barely been to the moon, or even the bottom of our oceans for crying out loud, yet we are trying to send people to Mars? In 10 years! Organising soccer world cup tournaments take longer than that.


We have been planning and studying humans to Mars missions since 1969. Most of the research has been done and paid for by your or my tax dollars depending on what country you live in, and is public domain.



Its not the fact they are trying that is confusing me, it is the short time frame..if they said 20 or 30 years, maybe, after a lot of test flights.


If they said 20 or 30 years (like NASA has been saying for the last 40 years) then in 2044 we'll likely still be planning to go to Mars in "20 or 30 years"

In other words, they would not have the people or aerospace companies on board if they were planning on a mission that far out. If they hit a setback they will delay the mission. They're not stupid. But they also are confident that this can be done based on current, time tested technology.

The company that is building their lander (Lockheed Martin) has built several for NASA which successfully landed on Mars. Robert Zubrin, author of the Mars Direct mission NASA has been studying since the 1990s is now part of the Mars One team.

Again. I've studied the Mars One stuff pretty closely and I am a staunch skeptic of hairbrained ideas. This is visionary but it is not ridiculous.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 


All valid points and I agree it is visionary. If it was NASA or even China or Russia I could sort of, just, see how they could pull it off. But it isn't it is a private enterprise, NASA has wiped there hands of them...they want nothing to do with it.

Now a private manned venture to Mars, in 10 years is not gonna happen with current technology. Ill bet you $10 it doesn't.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 04:12 AM
link   

doorhandle
reply to post by JadeStar
 


All valid points and I agree it is visionary. If it was NASA or even China or Russia I could sort of, just, see how they could pull it off. But it isn't it is a private enterprise, NASA has wiped there hands of them...they want nothing to do with it.


Fair enough. What you have to realize is that a lot of ex-NASA people or people who work closely with NASA like Bigelow, Lockheed, etc are on board and they have been wanting to do a manned Mars mission for decades. The plans have been there. The people have grown old waiting for the US to finally make Mars a priority for manned exploration. Additionally a new generation like me grew up watching the Mars Exploration Rovers (Opportunity and Spirit) roll around on Mars and have been wondering why it's taking so long to get there




Now a private manned venture to Mars, in 10 years is not gonna happen with current technology. Ill bet you $10 it doesn't.


It might not. However in 20 years. I would take that bet. By then we'll have plenty of private space craft in Low Earth Orbit and someone, whether it be Mars One or someone else, will eventually decide to start sending people to Mars.

That said, I fully expect Mars One to have setbacks, I'd say count on it, they've already modified their schedule once. But I see none of their setbacks as showstoppers other than budget. A setback here or there just postpones the crew launch till later.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 04:12 AM
link   
duplicate post
edit on 17-1-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
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!


JadeStar
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.


JadeStar
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.


JadeStar
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.



JadeStar
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.





new topics
 
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join