
Galaxy Quest - markmassie
http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/galaxy-quest?fullpage=1
======
shanusmagnus
I wonder how it will affect things if she doesn't go? You get married with
(presumably) the assumption that this person is the core of your life, but
then this Mars stuff happens and it becomes apparent where the spouse falls in
the pecking order of your value system. Does it cast a dark cloud on the
relationship afterward? "I want to be with you forever unless this really cool
opportunity comes up, then I'm leaving you and the kids and we'll never see
each other again."

This isn't a criticism -- it's nothing to me how these people choose to live
their lives, and I'm all about pursuing your dreams. But it seems like there
would be consequences to being so formally (and publicly) ranked second, or
lower, by your wife.

~~~
resu_nimda
Well it just takes being a strong, independent person. Personally I don't
really subscribe to the marriage-above-all-else philosophy. You have to accept
that you are not the center of the universe, and even if someone truly loves
you their agenda might not line up with yours. By the same token the husband
should feel free to seek whatever he needs to make do in light of that. It may
be cliche, but "if you love someone, set them free." It certainly does take
courage and resolve to do that.

~~~
eggnet
You forgot the kids.

------
mekkz
I'm not sure how this ended up on the front page... I thought we already
decided that Mars One is a giant scam: [http://www.iflscience.com/space/whats-
going-mars-one](http://www.iflscience.com/space/whats-going-mars-one)

~~~
tzs
Even if it is a scam, I don't see how that is relevant. Most of the article is
about things that apply to this kind of grand endeavor regardless of whether
it turns out to be realistic and legit, completely nuts and legit, or
illegitimate.

~~~
atroyn
"Even if it is a scam, I don't see how that is relevant." Well that certainly
neatly summarises the sort of magical thinking about technology currently in
vogue.

The fact is it does matter whether or not Mars One is realistic or legitimate.
Because there's always a backlash. Right now we have some optimism about space
- big, hairy expensive programs like the ISS are actually getting done. Space
X is actually achieving what so many internet billionaire's pet space projects
failed to do previously. "Grand Endeavours" aren't made up of PR stunts and
ridiculous plans - they're made up of really smart, tough people working on
really hard problems for a long time.

What happens when the Mars One backlash and disappointment hits the
mainstream? Do you think the average person is going to have a lot of faith in
subsequent NASA proposals for Mars? What do you think is the flipside of this?

------
oxide
"Mars One did certainly request donations along with 75 percent of any
proceeds from participants’ media interviews, but this had no impact on
Sonia’s selection that we could see."

this is denial. if it isn't, it's a giant red flag at the very least.

------
mscarborough
That is a very long article over-dramatizing a fantasy scenario that will 100%
not happen in their lifetime. These folks sure glommed onto something that
allows them to talk about themselves a lot.

If Mars One wasn't just a short-term money grab, they wouldn't be too
concerned with collecting 75% of interview fees. That is so bush league that
to imagine your whole life is going to be shaped by this organization is
pretty delusional.

------
rm445
"Galaxy" quest? I know that authors in print publications generally don't
write the headlines, and it seems a perfectly worthy article despite the
iffiness of the Mars One project. But I still wonder why writers generally
make no effort to distinguish between the Solar System, our Galaxy, other
galaxies and the whole universe.

Of course, 'Galaxy Quest' is a pretty popular science fiction film, but it's
one that parodies mainly a space opera series that takes place long after the
Solar System has been explored. For anyone interested enough to read the
article, titling it 'Galaxy Quest' is an outright distraction. You can say I'm
pointlessly nitpicking, but I genuinely believe that laziness and sticking to
convention ('here's a sci-fi reference!') has fuelled the decline of print
journalism in favour of more authentic fare.

------
lifeisstillgood
But seriously I thought this Mars One thing was just crap - we have no idea
how to build the rockets to get there let alone land, find water, make food
and oxygen. I mean nice idea and all that but... It's crap. By the time we
sort this out these folks will be retired and we will be looking for another
20 younger folks to go die.

Surely they can't think she is actually going to go, as opposed to go do
training and have some fun things to say at cocktail parties.

Edit: ok so maybe we have an idea, but not enough to just ask Elon for the
extras package, and no where near enough money to do the research and
development. I mean - moonshot, 5% of GDP for 10 years.

~~~
rm445
Robert Zubrin reckoned the whole Mars Direct programme would cost $55 billion
in 1995 dollars.

Let's say 'The Case for Mars' is viable but the costings were optimistic, and
should be more like $500 billion in 2015 dollars, that's more like 0.3% of USA
GDP for ten years. Way greater than Mars One's supposed budget but achievable
if America decided to colonise Mars.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Iirc NASA's budget for Apollo reached 5% of GDP - so I would rather look at
the past project costs than future projections.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
So some slightly more researched figures:

[http://mobile.extremetech.com/latest/221705-the-
apollo-11-mo...](http://mobile.extremetech.com/latest/221705-the-
apollo-11-moon-landing-45-years-on-looking-back-at-mankinds-giant-
leap?origref=)

>> In 2009, NASA looked back at the cost of the Apollo program in its
entirety, and arrived at a figure of $170 billion in 2005 dollars.

1966 NASA funding peaked at 4.4% of Federal Budget (not GDP). So my memory is
way off.

The parent post of 500bn looks more reasonable against the Apollo cost of
170bn, but current Federal budget is 3.9 Trillion, 4.4% of which is 170bn.

So looking at NASA as % of federal budget we see 170bn per annum for best part
of a decade, or close on 2 trillion dollars.

Whichever way we look at it, Mars will be pricey. And well beyond non state
actors.

~~~
rm445
Good post, and well done for finding the numbers.

However the point of _Mars Direct_ was to avoid some of the endlessly-
extrapolating-upwards budget numbers by avoiding big technology developments
(building a giant ship in orbit / launching from a moonbase / exotic engine
technology); making use of elements present on Mars to produce rocket fuel on-
planet from a smaller feedstock sent from Earth; and making use of automation,
by preceding each manned trip with an unmanned fuel-production vehicle, with
there always being one more lot of return fuel than human crews on Mars.

I quite agree with "beyond non state actors" \- much of the above appears in
_Mars One_ 's plans, probably because it's the only way they could even start
to appear plausible on a below-shoestring budget. But for a state actor, or at
least for the USA or some as-yet-unbuilt alliance of developed countries, Mars
is possible with 80s technology, at a viable price. You don't need to multiply
the numbers up forever, so long as you resist distracting proposals from those
who in reality want funding for a moonbase, or nuclear rockets, or whatever
other technologies that promise first you have to solve a difficult, expensive
problem, then Mars is cheap and easy.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Well, I am not convinced. The Apollo program probably looked cheap and easy
when JFK promised it. It did not try and create exotic solutions, but had to
for example push the frontiers of chip fabrication just to get 72kb of memory
on board.

I am pretty certain that some of the nice cheap ideas mentioned (automated
fuel production?) seem simple in a lab on earth but making it work reliably
after landing on Mars will take extra effort - even if the basic underlying
technology is under grad level right now.

I will still say that the last closest thing humanity tried to Mars landing
was Apollo, and 4.4% of federal budget per annum is a good proxy for the cost
of a Mars landing. No matter how much tried and true technology you think you
can bring in from elsewhere.

Of course I hope I am wrong and we have built most of the basics in Apollo and
since. But ...

------
gus_massa
It's linked in the article, but worth reading:

* "Mars One Finalist Explains Exactly How It‘s Ripping Off Supporters": [https://medium.com/matter/mars-one-insider-quits-dangerously...](https://medium.com/matter/mars-one-insider-quits-dangerously-flawed-project-2dfef95217d3)

> _No money, no process, no explanation: An insider speaks out on the
> hopelessly flawed scheme._

* iflscience coverage: [http://www.iflscience.com/space/whats-going-mars-one](http://www.iflscience.com/space/whats-going-mars-one) (HN: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9250474](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9250474) (81 points, 132 days ago, 23 comments))

------
pugio
It doesn't matter if Mars One is a scam, the article makes a good point: Our
sense of optimism, of pioneering spirit, of looking to the stars, has suffered
greatly in recent decades.

If all it does is nudge people from looking forward to a now ubiquitous (in
fiction) dystopic future, to again staring at the sky with wonder and
possibility, it will be a resounding success. I wonder if that wasn't a large
part of the point of the whole undertaking.

Also, regardless of whether the mission is ever launched or not, the article
is interesting for being a science fiction story that isn't. I grew up with
authors looking for the small human stories in spaceflight and star
colonization, and now here's a true personal one, for real... Someone is
actually thinking deeply on what it will be like for their own spouse to leave
them for MARS. That this can happen now, even if this particular mission
ultimately leads nowhere, is incredible.

------
nemo
Mars One actually accepted applicants who were married? I'd thought I'd
already lost all respect for them but somehow found more to lose.

~~~
danielweber
Since Mars One isn't sending anyone anywhere, it doesn't matter if the
applicants are married or not.

~~~
nemo
Sure, they aren't actually sending anyone, but they are pretending they are,
and gullible people believe them. Accepting applicants who are married and
screwing with their spouses' minds is incredibly ugly, even if it's just
messing with people's heads and not actually separating families.

------
tvawnz
What an annoying article. I don't really see the point of it besides it being
half humblebrag half swan song. All the actual information has been covered to
death.

I do like the paroxysms of noble largesse regarding his wife though. Strangely
cuckoldish.

~~~
al2o3cr
Did you mean "BY GRABTHAR'S HAMMER, what an annoying article!" :)

------
trav4225
No offense, but I just find this sad.

~~~
moubarak
In what way? i find it sad that Mars One > family for some "nerds". Family is
the real mission and the real heros are those who achieve that status. Family
also has a greater social benefit. The OP talks about Mars One as the mission
that has great social benefit. That's really sad.

~~~
oafitupa
Yeah who cares about saving humanity from extinction. Let's just stay here
with out families and our 4x4's until we drown. Real heroes.

~~~
danielweber
I fully intend to go to Mars, but someone "just staying here with their
family" is just as noble a mission.

