
Mars One, which offered 1-way trips to Mars, declared bankrupt - vaughnegut
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/mars-one-bankrupt-1.5014522
======
lisper
One indication that no one is even remotely ready to think seriously about
colonizing Mars (including Space X): There are vast tracts of uninhabited land
on earth, notably in the American West. Colonizing those would be vastly
easier than colonizing Mars, and yet no one is even talking about that. A
self-sustaining colony in the middle of the Nevada desert that was able to get
by with _no_ outside help for a few years would be about 1% as hard as
colonizing Mars, and yet no one has done it, and no one AFAIK is planning to
do it. This to me is the smoking gun that no one is really taking Mars
colonization seriously. Everyone is caught up in the sexiness and glamour and
no one wants to get down in the dirt and solve the really hard problems of how
humans are actually going to survive when they are totally isolated from
civilization for years.

Yes, I know about the HI-SEAS project. That was not isolated nor self-
sustaining, and it only lasted 8 months.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/mars-
sim...](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/mars-simulation-
hi-seas-nasa-hawaii/553532/)

That's actually not even the sort of thing I'm talking about. Forget
simulating Mars. I want to see someone just colonize an uninhabited part of
_Earth_ without relying on help from the outside without any other
constraints. Until we can do _that_ , Mars is hopeless.

~~~
kakarot
I'm pretty sure we've managed to colonize a tract of uninhabited land at least
a couple of times throughout history.

Maybe we could better spend our time working on the things we _haven 't_
figured out.

~~~
lisper
> I'm pretty sure we've managed to colonize a tract of uninhabited land at
> least a couple of times throughout history.

Without a connection to existing civilization, and without a source of easily
accessible water provided by nature? No, we have never done that.

~~~
dwild
What about the ISS? The water they consume is recycled and is clearly not
provided by nature.

~~~
lisper
The ISS is very closely connected to civilization. It has real-time comms, and
in an emergency a spacecraft can reach it in about six hours, or return an
astronaut back to earth in less time than that. The longest it has ever gone
between resupply missions is four months. The shortest time between resupply
missions to Mars is two years.

~~~
kakarot
> The shortest time between resupply missions to Mars is two years.

You aren't going to be sending only one ship at a time. You will be staggering
shipments, with 3-4 ships in transit at a time. You could make the time
between resupplies as short as you want.

~~~
lisper
You don't understand the orbital mechanics of getting to Mars. Getting to Mars
only takes eight months, but you have to launch when Earth and Mars are in a
particular configuration relative to each other, and that configuration only
happens every two (Earth) years. You can launch as many ships as you like
during those windows, but you can't stagger them.

~~~
kakarot
I do understand the orbital mechanics of getting to Mars. It's the same as the
orbital mechanics of getting to anywhere.

I assume you're talking about the Hohmann transfer [0], which is the most
efficient path a ship could take. We're not optimizing for efficiency here,
we're optimizing for delivery. You should also realize that while there is a
specific moment of peak efficiency in launch times, you have a window on the
order of months before a Hohmann transfer becomes less efficient than other
methods. Once every 2 years sounds less drastic when it's 6 months out of
those 2 years.

All that being said, the Hohmann transfer is a lot sketchier in practice than
one would think. Neither Mars nor Earth has a perfectly circular orbit. It's
often easier just to take the old-fashioned route.

Take a look at this chart [1] for an idea of the spread of trip length vs
launch time.

[0] [http://www.planetary.org/multimedia/space-
images/charts/hohm...](http://www.planetary.org/multimedia/space-
images/charts/hohmann-transfer-orbit.html)

[1]
[https://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/spotlight/images/porkchop_lg.gif](https://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/spotlight/images/porkchop_lg.gif)

~~~
lisper
> I do understand the orbital mechanics of getting to Mars. It's the same as
> the orbital mechanics of getting to anywhere.

Then you don't understand the economics. Or maybe it's something else you
don't understand, but you are clearly missing _something_. The orbital
mechanics of getting to any target in the solar system are unique to that
target. Designing orbital trajectories is a profession unto itself.

Yes, it is theoretically possible to have staggered deliveries so that
spacecraft arrive at Mars on a schedule other than every two years. But think
about it: how would this help? The schedule on which the supply craft _arrive_
doesn't matter. What matters is the _latency_ between when a need manifests
itself and when it can be fulfilled. Fundamental physics lets you get to Mars
in a matter of days if you could accelerate and decelerate the entire time at
1-G. But you can't, not because orbital mechanics forbids it, but because
technology and economics and the rocket equation forbids it.

The one thing you're going to need to optimize for more than anything else is
kilogram delivered per dollar spent. That means being as efficient as you
possibly can because launch costs are ridiculously high even with reusable
boosters. That means using Hohmann orbits, and that means eight month transfer
times with launch windows every two years. Yes, those windows are fairly
broad, but that doesn't matter. You're still going to have to wait for periods
of time measured in months and years for your Amazon order to be fulfilled on
Mars.

~~~
kakarot
Orbital mechanics is orbital mechanics. The math doesn't change just because
it's Mars and not some random object in the Kuiper belt.

> But think about it: how would this help? The schedule on which the supply
> craft arrive doesn't matter. What matters is the latency between when a need
> manifests itself and when it can be fulfilled.

Think about this: You're no longer disagreeing with my premise, and are now
moving goalposts. My premise remains true, so your accusation that I don't
understand the orbital mechanics involved here is unfounded and unwarranted. A
little deconstructive to meaningful conversation, which you seem keen on
having with people.

> Fundamental physics lets you get to Mars in a matter of days if you could
> accelerate and decelerate the entire time at 1-G

It's also a bit deconstructive to talk about extremities. Keeping the
discussion within rational limits helps us tackle this realistically and
collaboratively.

Now this discussion has shifted to latency vs regularity and yeah, it will
take some planning ahead to smooth things out, and everything must come in
triplicate in case the replacement breaks while you'r installing it. But
that's entirely feasible and the only barrier is money. So what we need to
focus on with regards to the great Nevada desert is things like terraforming.
Sustainability is no problem if you have a water source and a climate
something can grow in.

~~~
lisper
> The math doesn't change just because it's Mars and not some random object in
> the Kuiper belt.

That depends on what you consider "the math." In principle, it's all F=ma. In
practice it's a good deal more complicated than that. There's a reason people
make careers out of designing orbital trajectories.

> the only barrier is money

Well, yeah, the only barrier was only ever money. But that's a pretty big
barrier right now.

> what we need to focus on with regards to the great Nevada desert is things
> like terraforming

Yes, terraforming is one way to solve the problem of sustainability. But I
don't think we're any closer to being able to have a serious discussion of
terraforming than we are about having a self-sustaining settlement without
terraforming first.

------
KnightOfWords
Well, that's no surprise. Their plan was essentially to hold a televised
execution while lacking the budget to build the scaffold.

Here's a technical assessment of the viability of their plan:
[https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2014/01/18/ask-
etha...](https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2014/01/18/ask-ethan-20-is-
the-mars-one-crew-doomed)

~~~
tempestn
I think calling it a televised execution is quite an oversimplification. Mars
One was deeply flawed, but the basic concept of a one way colonization mission
to Mars isn't insane. A one-way mission is legitimately simpler from a
technical perspective, and there are obviously plenty of people who would be
happy to go. If it were done well, with a high probability of survival and
prosperity (and really, only in that case), I would be fascinated to watch.

Not to mention, even if the initial mission were one-way, it's entirely
possible that return trips could be possible within the lifetimes of the
initial colonists. And besides, everyone dies; I can see why someone might
choose a life of adventure (and pain, toil, monotony, etc.) on Mars over a
life of relative comfort on Earth, even if I wouldn't make the same choice.

~~~
Faark
> would be fascinated to watch

I'd expect it to get boring quick, just like watching rocket launches. New
exciting images can only happen every so often. You probably want some drama
or tension for better ratings. That's a pretty big mismatch of incentives
combined with tricky power dynamic. I'd stay away from that unless that
reality show is just a small side venture. And no way it could ever
significantly finance a mars base in the first place.

~~~
yreg
About as fascinating to watch as media produced on the ISS. So after the
initial hype, not mainstream.

------
adrianhon
I know that for everyone here, it was obvious from the start that Mars One was
never going to fly. What really gets my goat is the utter gullibility of the
media. Here are a few of the articles from The Guardian:

22 Apr 2013: Life on Mars to become a reality in 2023, Dutch firm claims

19 Jan 2014: Why we want to spend the rest of our lives on Mars

9 Feb 2015: Mars One mission: a one-way trip to the red planet in 2024

17 Feb 2015: Mars One shortlist: the top 10 hopefuls

19 Feb 2015: Why I want to be a passenger on Mars One

30 May 2015: Can Mars One colonise the red planet?

It was always complete bullshit, anyone with a smidge of technical or
scientific background said so repeatedly, so why they did write about it so
many times? Yes, I know the proximate reasons – Mars One had a good PR agency,
The Guardian wants clicks, etc. But The Guardian is meant to be a good,
trustworthy news source, and here they were giving credibility to what I can
only describe as a scam artist, or at best, a completely deluded entrepreneur.

It should never have gotten as far as it did, and I blame the media for this.

~~~
tim333
In fairness to the Guardian they were skeptical:

"how can you not be suspicious of a bloke who has no rockets or spacesuits but
says he’s off to Mars soon"

and it's quite an interesting story.

------
duchenne
I find it amazing that, even though Mars One looked so sketchy since the
beginning, still 200,000 people applied for their program. That means that
still many people dream about exploring space. If a solid project was
launched, probably hundreds of millions of people would apply to travel and
settle down on another planet. It makes me very hopeful.

Until a few years ago, medias were always very negative and described space
exploration as a waste of money. But, it is getting a bit better. This may be
thanks to Space X, the new race to the Moon (China), the landings on a comet
(Europe) and an asteroid (Japan), the Indian mission on Mars, and so on.

Now, the project of replacing the ISS (end scheduled in 2020) with a permanent
base on the Moon sounds more plausible (Moon Village).

~~~
manigandham
There's a big difference though between wanting to go and actually being
capable and qualified.

The first several waves will need to be the absolute best of us to have a
chance of establishing a permanent settlement.

~~~
antt
One only needs to look at the death records for New England in the early
period to realize that's not the case. An 90% mortality within a year is no
stop for colonization if there is enough political will for it.

~~~
AtHeartEngineer
Ya I'd definitely go. I have military experience, flight experience, and I am
educated, but definitely not in the top percentages that astronauts are in.
Even if there was a 90% chance of death the first few years, I'd 100% go. I'd
get on a rocket to Mars now, knowing there's not support structure at the
destination, and I'm sure I'd cry and be freaked out, but I would definitely
get on that rocket. I hope one day I can.

~~~
koheripbal
I wonder if someone wanting to go despite a 90% death rate should be
disqualified on psychological grounds?

Sort of like the old joke that "I'd never want to join a club that would have
me as a member".

~~~
fernandopj
There are missions well above 90% death rate which are very valid. Kamikaze
attacks on wars. Chernobyl water release. And so on. You wouldn't apply the
same psychological tests on those volunteers as you would on a ISS mission.
You'd just thank them as they go.

------
fipple
My friend "applied," knowing full well it was a scam. He said that he
regretted nothing, as it allowed him to fantasize about the journey more
concretely. So perhaps it served the same function as pornography.

~~~
belorn
I think it is more similar to lottery than pornography in that it enable
people to fantasize about the future.

~~~
idlewords
Shirley Jackson's Lottery.

------
supermw
Instead of offering dumb 1-way trips to Mars why not create round trips to the
Moon and back? You can see Earth from the surface of the moon, see the lunar
lander, drive a lunar rover, bounce around for a bit then hop in your module
and head back home and live the rest of your life with a new perspective. More
interesting than Mars, and doesn't take months to get there.

~~~
sandworm101
Not as simple as you would think. Mars has atmosphere for capture braking, for
parachute landings. The moon requires lots of powered deltav to get onto the
surface from low earth orbit, more so than mars iirc.

~~~
ukulele
Are you suggesting that going to Mars is easier than going to the moon?

~~~
mcv
In terms of delta-V, Deimos is about as far as the surface of the moon. In
terms of travel time, it's a hundred times farther away. For humans that is a
crippling difference, but for rovers not so much.

Mars is not Deimos of course. My point is merely that from a delta-V
perspective, the solar system suddenly looks very different.

~~~
sandworm101
Downvoted by people who know nothing about space physics. Deimos is indeed
just about the same distance as the moon in terms of energy required. With one
exception. When approaching a multi-body system there are gravity-boost
options for slowing a spacecraft. Not an option when aproaching the moon.

~~~
mcv
Yeah, I'm a bit surprised to get downvoted for posting an interesting and
unexpected truth. I'd love to hear what kind of reasoning the downvoters have
for this.

I'm personally quite fascinated by Deimos. It's far away and yet relatively
easy to reach. Some people believe there might be quite a bit of water on
Deimos. Put together, that might make it an interesting option for a base, for
refuelling, if nothing else. Especially once Mars gets a colony and we start
mining asteroids, I wouldn't be surprised if Deimos turns out to be a nice
central point between the three.

Or not. I'm not a rocket scientist, but I find this a fascinating subject.

~~~
sandworm101
It is a tuesday. HN is full of millenials who think they know everything. Id
bet most of the haters in this thread had to google "deltaV". The smart people
show up on the weekends. Im only here because im visiting family and work
doesnt have my cell number.

------
JoeDaDude
This looked like a con job from the start. I can only hope some creditors get
their money back, and that those responsible get punished accordingly.

~~~
stupidcar
Yep, and as often happens when a scam involves science or tech, many
journalists helped out by promoting their ridiculous claims without due
challenge or skepticism.

------
tdons
The writing has been on the wall for a while now.

Even Gerard 't Hooft, famous physics nobel prize winner and one of the
ambassadors of Mars One said the schedule and budget were off by a factor of
10. [1]

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/feb/23/mars-one-
pla...](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/feb/23/mars-one-plan-
colonise-red-planet-unrealistic-leading-supporter)

------
analog31
It's not a legitimate airline unless it's been bankrupt at least twice. ;-)

~~~
blocked_again
But this is a noairline not an airline.

------
bArray
Much too ambitious, especially with massive organizations (such as NASA) being
unable to with much larger budgets and experience. Called it as a non-starter
from the get-go. Good thing too, probably would have blown up on the pad and
never left earth.

I think they could have got quite a bit of funding from crowd sourcing with
lower ambitions, such as having a crowd-sourced satellite to go to Mars to
conduct research. They could pay some external company to do a lot of the
engineering and just act as a middle-man.

Like the cube sats, offer to take other people's research/commercial projects
all the way to Mars and you have yourself a semi-viable investment project.
For the backers, allow them time on the satellite, name stuff, something on
the satellite that stores something personal to them (perhaps digitally and
transmitting it back to earth with a massive time delay) - I think people
would be interested.

------
exabrial
Yet someone got paid and declared mission accomplished. Hilarious unless you
were an investor. Maybe the engineers that worked at the company wrote really
productive code in a really productive language. And the company offered
amenities and benefits that were unlike anything else.

~~~
lozenge
What engineers? AFAICR the team was six marketers... because it was a
marketing stunt/scam.

------
oskhan
It's like Fyre Festival, but in spaaaaace.

------
Shengbo
Based on the AMAs the founder gave on Reddit, it looked like a scam to be
honest.

[1]
[https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/uta10/iama_founder_of...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/uta10/iama_founder_of_mars_one_settling_humans_on_mars/?sort=qa)

[2]
[https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1tw2fy/i_am_bas_lansd...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1tw2fy/i_am_bas_lansdorp_cofounder_of_marsone_mankinds/?sort=qa)

------
gftttgggfffddd
A lot of people who were looking forward to dying in space are going to be
disappointed.

~~~
jeena
But to be honest, it sounds much more exciting to die in space than to die in
a hospital.

~~~
dennisgorelik
If your goal is to die while having fun -- there are much cheaper alternatives
available right here on Earth.

~~~
jeena
I didn't write fun, I wrote excitement. Taking drugs is fun, adventures are
exciting.

------
kartikkumar
Bas Lansdorp was one of the supervisors for my BSc graduation group project at
TU Delft. I had some interesting interactions with him and a few others
affiliated with Mars One back then, before Mars One was on the table.

I think the whole Mars One story will make it into a Hollywood script, because
there's been more drama than most good movies I've watched in recent times.

There are thoughts about the project that I'd rather not share publicly,
especially since I also know one of the main authors of the MIT study that
became the focus of a lot of the critique about the feasibility/viability of
the entire project.

Safe to say, Mars exploration is hyper-complex because of complexity in a
whole host of dimensions, not just technical/scientific. Mars One exemplifies
that.

I'm involved in Mars analog simulations missions through the Austrian Space
Forum [1], so I've got a pretty good reading of the complexity that goes into
planning & operational excellence.

If I had to sum up the whole Mars One journey in one word, it would be:
underestimation.

[1] [https://oewf.org](https://oewf.org)

~~~
akhilcacharya
The idea is so absurd I really hope it's a comedy.

------
Asooka
Personally, I'm waiting for the "put rocket boosters on Mars and fling it into
Venus, re-enacting the impact that created the Moon and altering Venus's orbit
to be approximately opposite of Earth's (but still safely far away), thus
creating Earth-2" mission.

------
_carl_jung
I look forward to the Netflix documentary.

~~~
tempestn
Mars One: The Greatest One-Way Trip to Mars that Never Happened

------
chriskanan
So many comments here are really depressing and lack a sense of adventure and
romance. Yes, Mars One did not have a sound plan, but it inspired a certain
kind of person who wants a grand adventure with impact. Mars to Stay is a
legitimate idea and makes a lot of sense for colonization:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_to_Stay](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_to_Stay)

The Mars One idea of turning the colonists life into a reality TV show would
be the first reality TV show I'd ever want to watch and would make a fantastic
documentary.

So, while Mars One was severely flawed, I think the Mars to Stay philosophy
makes a lot of sense if we want to colonize Mars.

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uqKGREZs6-w](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uqKGREZs6-w)

~~~
Deestan
> So many comments here are really depressing and lack a sense of adventure
> and romance.

(Since you are not replying to any specific such posts, I assume you are
referring to those who point out that this was expected because Mars One was
clearly not viable.)

Adventure and romance are good, and can be communicated through fiction, sky
castle thinktanks, forums for interested people, etc. Pretending to actually
_do_ it is not necessary.

Lying to people and siphoning money out of crowdfunding can not be excused by
"at least they made it sound fun". That's what _all_ fraudsters do - they sell
a dream and remove your money.

~~~
chriskanan
As I pointed out in my comment, Mars One didn't have a sound plan. Like most
others following the effort, I thought it was a scam meant to enrich Bas
Lansdorp. That they are a scam isn't news: everyone knew this. I'd guess that
most of the donors even knew this.

That said, I think the idea of a one-way Mars colonization mission has a lot
of merit, as long as there is some chance of survival. "Mars to Stay" as a
one-way trip is something that has many proponents, most famously Buzz Aldrin.
The one good thing about Mars One is that they got people talking about this
proposition and doing a deeper analysis of how it could be achieved.

------
mark_l_watson
I don’t know much about this subject so excuse a naive question: why Mars and
why not the asteroid belts where I have read that there are raw materials and
large amounts of ice? Is it because of negative health effects living in zero
gravity and/or problems creating artificial gravity with rotation?

------
jlebar
Great podcast about this, although I'm halfway spoiling it by telling you it's
about Mars One.

[http://loveandradio.org/2014/05/hostile-
planet/](http://loveandradio.org/2014/05/hostile-planet/)

------
HillRat
I, for one, am shocked that these guys couldn’t crowdfund their way to Mars.
After all, it only cost NASA (frantically punching numbers into a 4-function
desk calculator) $315bn to get to the Moon in current dollars. I mean, that’s
only 77x total funds raised on Kickstarter to date. Perhaps they should have
added the Kupier Belt as a stretch goal?

~~~
tombert
While I agree with your point on this, just to play devil's advocate I have to
point out that a lot has changed since the 1960's. We have designed more
efficient rockets, we have much better computer guidance systems, we have much
lighter-weight synthetic materials that could save on fuel, etc. Conceivably
if we were to go to the Moon today, it would be substantially cheaper.

That said, I did feel like this project was overly ambitious. Even with my
previous points, rockets are expensive, and space R&D is pricey.

~~~
stickfigure
_Conceivably if we were to go to the Moon today, it would be substantially
cheaper._

This seems contrary to experience. In constant dollars, a jetliner today is
5-10X the price of a jetliner of the 1960s. Mass transit rail miles are >10X.
The solutions may be better, but they don't seem to be cheaper.

Launch costs do seem to have fallen quite a bit in very recent history though.
So maybe?

~~~
sgt101
Jet technology is much more complex to meet environmental, safety and
efficiency goals. Fuel was much cheaper in the 1960's, I wonder what the cost
of a jet is in terms of it's operating life?

Rail and other ground works have got much more expensive as labour costs (in
the developed world) have risen. I expect that rail costs in China are not
10x? I would be interested to know !

In term of moonshots I think that safety and risk would mean that a modern
mission would be much more expensive than Apollo.

------
martin-adams
What would concern me is if they did managed to get people to Mars, then went
bankrupt, leaving no new supplies being sent across.

------
outside1234
Nobody wanted 1-way trips to Mars? Shocking.

~~~
azinman2
Apparently a good number did! Which baffles me... why would you want that?
Sounds like a very odd death trap with no resources, economy, services,
entrertainnent, ability to travel, etc etc.

~~~
kazinator
Why would you want a one-way trip out of a uterus onto this planet called
Earth? It's ultimately a death trap. Oh, has resources, economy, services,
entertainment and travel: for a privileged minority.

~~~
Johnny555
Earth is a death-trap since no one lives forever, some people just like the
chance of doing something more substantial than working a 9-5 job every day
and then dying on the same planet they were born on.

------
tzfld
Does anyone remember Dennis Tito's Inspiration Mars Foundation?

------
tempodox
Even extraordinarily exorbitant fads finally fade.

------
ng-user
This reminds me of the Fyre documentary.

------
GreenToad5
Just to go out on a limb here, I am guessing that the "one way" bit put a bit
of a kink in their marketing efforts...

------
pfdietz
Perhaps the point of this was to build a database of people who are
demonstrably gullible, to be targets of future scams.

------
harrygeez
How did I not see this coming

------
gesman
Fraud

------
m23khan
just Yesterday I commented on another article here about space colonialization
being alchemy of our times and I got downvoted. And Today this...

~~~
Johnny555
But unlike alchemy, space colonization is actually technologically possible,
it's just prohibitively expensive and would likely take global cooperation to
make it possible -- which won't happen without some clear extinction threat to
Earth and given the response to the threat of global climate change, I'm
skeptical that enough people would believe scientists claiming that we're a
decade from a life-ending asteroid strike.

~~~
stickfigure
Alchemy is certainly possible with today's technology, and has been done:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesis_of_precious_metals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesis_of_precious_metals)

It's not cost effective, but it is cheaper than space colonization.

------
pseingatl
There can't be a Mars colony without a legal code for Mars. Shanghai in the
1930's is the existing framework. It didn't work then, and it won't work now.

See, marslegalcode.org.

------
neotek
Gosh, what a surprise. I'm sure this saga will convince the general public of
the need to be more sceptical about pie-in-the-sky bullshit in the future, and
nobody will ever fall for pseudo-scientific scams again.

Now, if you'll excuse me I'm just going to go for a quick jaunt on the
Hyperloop.

------
runyor
As long as everybody is investing their time, money and health as free choice
I think it's a good thing and we should support them.

Of course it's a pipe dream. Of course people will dump sh*tloads of money for
no results. Of course people will die if they really start doing stuff like
this. But is there really a way to achieve such kind of goal without such
sacrifices?

~~~
loeg
By that logic, we should celebrate Madoff for sacrificing other people's
money. I don't think it's unreasonable for society to set limits on the scams
and cons businesses are allowed to be based on.

~~~
runyor
Let's say you are right. Then we should discuss why Mars One is a scam and
SpaceX isn't. And just saying "SpaceX has succeeded until now" is not really
cutting it. Being a billionaire and probably having quite some parental and
silicon valley network to make use of, Musk simply also had much better odds.
But this is not something you or I couldn't have guessed when Mars One
started. It's quite obvious.

So from what I can see you can't say one is a scam and the other isn't. Both
are a gamble and the one succeeded until now while the other hasn't. A scam
is, when they didn't even try to do anything. Or when they used the money to
buy yachts instead of financing space base science. Is there something like
this? If they sold a pipe dream and worked hard to try to make it become
reality, imho, it's not enough to call it a scam.

------
sriku
I'm surprised at the negativity on this on a startup accelerator's site where
"a small chance of success" \- Gimli style - means game on.

At my org, we've had one of these round 3 candidates give a talk about it and
the interview and training process they went through seemed like no joke. It
seemed to me that if you were to start a company with the final selectees, it
would be hard to fail.

~~~
Areading314
I think there are a lot of people on here who think that "conquering space" is
a giant distraction from the many very real problems that exist here on Earth
that can actually be solved by self-sustaining businesses.

~~~
neatcoder
I think such thinking is very short-sighted. Space exploration is necessary.
It satisfies human curiosity, a very innate need among humans, one of the
reasons why our species has been very successful so far.

That there are real problems that exist here on the Earth somehow does not
preclude space exploration. Space exploration and solving problems on the
Earth are not mutually exclusive activities. They can both be done in parallel
and sometimes one helps the other and vice versa.

~~~
Retra
On the other hand, any argument which proposes that we should explore space
_because_ we are unable to solve problems on Earth is entirely foolhardy and
fantastical.

