This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mars One article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The info added by that IP recently (June 2012) actually was included in the video released by the company. Does that count as a reliable source? — Gopher65 talk 14:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
This is not adding up.
The Mars One web site, the associated online discussion forum, and that I have something more than a clue about manned space-flight-- this is either embarrassingly naive or a hoax. It reminds me of Twentieth Century Motor Car Corporation. Slick graphics to capture the imagination, one "name," and no substance.
Perhaps the work of T. Mills Kelly?
-- cregil (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any legal/moral issues because people pay money to do foolish and dangerous things everyday. For example, many people have died climbing Everest, some of them would have been physically incapable of it, and should never have tried. But, has anyone ever been charged with a criminal offence?
Yes, if Mars is to be colonised, then it stands to reason that many people will die doing so. This is nothing new, and hasn't prevented mankind from making other achievements. You can't say that these people are "psychologically unfit for such a mission" because you are talking about unspecified people. We don't know what colour their hair is, let alone their mental state.
The technical issues aren't mentioned much, because these issues are to be solved by their suppliers. British Airways doesn't need to know how to make aircraft fly, they just buy planes. Also, the weight of a capsule would be far less on Mars, due to gravity being 0.38 of Earth's gravity. Landing people safely on Mars is likely to be far more difficult than moving capsules around.
Shielding out radiation is possible. We already do that in space, on the space station, for example.
They don't plan to resupply Mars. The colony would extract water from the soil, recycle used water, and extract oxygen from water. Food would be produced on Mars. Danrok ( talk) 19:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The Everest analogy and other "dangers in life" analogies when extended to their logical conclusion result in, "Since we are all going to die anyway, why not ask for volunteers to die the way we want them to die?" The answer to that is that life is valuable and so are relationships-- even in potential. It is immoral to arbitrarily conclude or prevent either.
This is something more extreme than we do to violent criminals by convicting them to life in prison, not something for which we seek out volunteers. -- cregil (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help), Dartnell, L.R. et al., "Modelling the surface and subsurface Martian radiation environment: Implications for astrobiology," Geophysical Research Letters 34, L02207,
doi:
10.1029/2006GL027494, 2007. Cheers,
BatteryIncluded (
talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Wrong? Not all. As you have said yourself, radiation can be shielded using a layer of soil. There is no shortage of soil on Mars. Danrok ( talk) 00:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Danrok, there is a massive shortage of soil between earth and Mars. That is where you need the shielding. And that shielding is going to be heavy, thick, or otherwise extremely expensive using current technology. 83.70.170.48 ( talk) 11:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Just sending people is easy. It's the same as flying an aircraft. Anyone can get it into the air only getting it down is the problem. So it's not impossible just very unlikely to be successful. After all 2/3 of all Mars missions failed. The thing I noticed is, even though it's a reality TV show, there's not a single word about communications satellites. They are at least needed when Mars is on the other side of the Sun. And they will need a lot more time (years or several circles around the Sun) to get or be put into position. If they aren't send now it will be too late. The other problem is jamming four people into a 5 m capsule. All Mars isolation experiments on Earth have shown friction and even violence problems. And these offered a lot more space and other ways to relieve stress. Mightyname ( talk) 12:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Please stop removing the SPAM tag without addressing/discussing the multiple copyright, spam and WP:PEACOCK issues in this article. BatteryIncluded ( talk) 17:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://mars-one.com. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Ben Ben ( talk) 05:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
-- cregil (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Bas Lansdorp and Arno Wielders redirect to the Mars One article. If less experienced editors were to try to recreate either BLP articles, upon finding evidence for notability of either subject, they might find it hard to get around the redirects. Search box results for both "Bas Lansdorp" and "Arno Wielders" would point to the Mars One article without the redirects, as well as any other articles in which they might appear. The redirect would seem to imply Mars One would be the only source of notability for these BLP subjects. Are the redirects strictly necessary at this point? Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 09:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Every current source (including the company's PRs) says "multiple suppliers". If that has changed, provide a source. Otherwise, stop. — Gopher65 talk 19:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
BatteryIncluded wrote in his edit summary: "Big difference between sponsors and investors (funding)". So how is that a logical reason for moving the information that a number of organizations have funded Mars One to be under the heading of "Sponsors"? SPACE INDUSTRY NEWS considers it funding and the opinion of a Wikipedia editor is less significant. Unless there is some policy based reason for moving this information it should remain as it was. BatteryIncluded's implied relation between investors and funding is unclear. Investors are not the only source of funding. - Fartherred ( talk) 17:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm inclined to support the use of the word "sponsors". Is there proof financial assistance for the materials will be provided by the listed companies in this section? Do the sources stipulate that the "funding" or "investment" is for the space mission, or do they leave it somewhat open to interpretation? The "funding" sources seem to be: a Dutch ISP, a Dutch law firm, a Dutch consulting company, a Dutch web station and an Australian SEO company. Granted, I don't live in Europe, but I can find virtually no information on these companies. Yet, they intend to help raise $6 billion USD? While these companies might pass the plausibility test for sponsorship of a reality TV show, I'm not sure they pass muster as bona fide financial investors for the spacecraft mission itself. I would think more digging needs to be done to make sure that the proposed funding/sponsor/investor sources are indeed funding the mission, rather than just "sponsoring" the reality show. I'm not proposing any changes at this time, but this seems to be a gray area which might need to be explored further. Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 08:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth: "sponsoring" is used as an English loanword in the Dutch language, but (as is often the case with such things) the precise meaning it has in English has not been ported. When the Dutch speak English, they tend to be unaware of such differences in connotations. 137.205.100.173 ( talk) 14:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The article no longer relies upon a single source for the majority of content. As such, I have moved the "one source" template to the "technology" section, as it appears to still rely heavily upon the primary source. Additional sections should be tagged by the community, as appropriate. Cheers. Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 06:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Has anyone contacted the company and asked them to release their advertising material (initial concept drawings, etc) either into the public domain or under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license? I'd really like an image or 3 in this article. — Gopher65 talk 14:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The astronaut application criteria have been released:
As of early on 10 Jan, this source has not been used in the article. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 05:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The business press is reporting that Mars One has obtained some initial Angel investment funding: This guy just got angel money to build a permanent colony on Mars, Venture Beat, 2 Feb 2013. This could be used as a source to improve the article. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 23:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this reference to tHooft should be placed in the intro. ( => The project is endorsed by Nobel Prize-winning physicist Gerard 't Hooft.[2][4]) He is a theoretical physicist, not an astronomist. So he is not very relevant to this subject, and putting that line in the intro gives this proposed mission too much credibility. Trancelot ( talk) 23:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
There are beginning to appear news accounts on the candidates for Mars One. N2e ( talk) 20:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
This: [http://www.realscience.us/2012/06/05/reality-tv-sets-sights-on-mars-for-new-show/ REAL SCIENCE] is a spam link that advertises access to science news for a fee. It should be removed. - Fartherred ( talk) 12:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The costs of a one way trip for four astronauts ignore much of the overall mission costs. In particular these costs include neither the cost of establishing a means for Mars colonists to grow their own food nor the cost of continuing resupply until they die. MarsOne The mere trip to Mars is said to cost $6 billion which is less than an "austere" manned Mars mission (including a temporary stay followed by a return of the astronauts) proposed by NASA in 2009. The mission NASA discussed is referred to as costing 100 billion USD after an 18 year program. NASA and MarsOne have different overall missions and ignoring the major costs of MarsOne's overall mission does not serve readers. - Fartherred ( talk) 14:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
1) The Mission Plan section says there is a supply mission in 2016, but the rover which will pick the settlement site doesn't launch until 2018, so Im not sure where the supplies would go. The referenced article does indeed state these dates, but it refers back to the Mars One road map, which does NOT say this. For 2016 the Road Map just lists an unspecified "Demonstration Mission".
2) Also in 2016 (according to the road map) the communication satellite will be launched. The article just mentions producing it (2014) but not the launch. (Sorry if Im breaking any etiquette here, this is my first foray into fixing Wikipedia content and Im reluctant to actually make any changes directly until I have a better feel for how things work.)
MrJoshua68 ( talk) 22:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The timeline has in fact changed. Before, the proposed year of arrival was 2023. Now, it is 2025. That might explain some of the chronological confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.184.162 ( talk) 07:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
See article here: http://www.nbcnews.com/science/more-2-700-pay-chance-take-one-way-trip-mars-8C11115364
I guess it depends on how you define "applicant". If the applicant includes an application fee and submitting a video, I think the number of applicants is probably less than 3000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.162.25 ( talk) 00:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Mars One wants to launch a copy of NASA's Phoenix Mars lander in 2018: [6]. - BatteryIncluded ( talk) 18:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Is the roadmap as of April 2013 no longer valid?
It's 2014 already and there hasn't been news of a replica of the settlement. Is this goal simply cancelled? Benimation ( talk) 18:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
It is not clear why the following lists were added to the Talk page, nor is it documented who added them, or how anyone proposed they might improve the article. So I have put them behind a show/hide button. Click further if interested. N2e ( talk) 17:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Long detailed list of US and Canadian candidates
It would be more encouraging to scale received financial support from a country per population and/or per GDP instead of absolute support.
U.S. has 297 candidates,149 male (M), and 148 female (F).
Canadian candidates at Mars One (Canada)Canada
|
Currently on the Mars One Community website. [1]
|
Day 1 | Day 2 | Day 3 | Day 4 | Day 5 | ||||
1 | Blue | 1 | ||||||
2 | Orange | 2 | ||||||
3 | Green | 3 | ||||||
4 | Yellow | 4 | ||||||
5 | Red | 5 | ||||||
6 | White | 6 | ||||||
7 | Brown | 7 | ||||||
8 | Violet | 8 | ||||||
9 | Grey | |||||||
10 | Black |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.160.202.241 ( talk) 03:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
5 English speakers:
I noticed that the history section is completely full of inaccuracies. There are all these mentions of "Dr." Rhawn Joseph and the Journal of Cosmology, and links to sources hosted in cosmology.com. They are all notorious for fringe science. I have not read any other account that links them to Mars One. I am therefore removing all those references. M3tro ( talk) 23:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I added third party notice to the header. This article is ludicrous in its current state, relying almost entirely on Mars One PR. — TimL • talk 18:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Guys! I added links to the MIT feasibility analysis, an reddit AMA with the authros and Lansdorp's answer to SpacePolicyOnline.com, I didn't write a paragraph, just added the links in bullet form. I know this is not perfect, but like I said in the edit comment: I don't really care about the content of this article; I just wanted to add another view since this project is tagged with third-party template. A user, User:Krazytea, decided to undo my edit because "reddit is not a source", he removed all the links and the section heading because "reddit is not a source"!!! I undid his undo, but I really don't care about this article to keep making sure that Mars One's trolls don't remove valid criticism from the article. I hope one of you guys steps in and make sure the miscreant Krazytea keeps his hands off the section. -- DelftUser ( talk) 10:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't give too much on this "MIT study"... Quite a bit of it is complete and utter nonsense.
That's just the most obvious flaws that everyone with a bit of background knowledge should see. I'm not sure how this reflects on the rest of the paper.
2A02:1205:5057:4C10:CBF:AE1:FD4C:B40E ( talk) 15:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Marco Tedaldi
I'm going to undo that rv. feel free to change or fix it, but yes, the pretty big chance that the whole thing is a suicide mission, or if someone wants to edit it that it is being reported as such----yes, in lede please. 2601:C:67C0:F8:800C:5FD6:3C44:DE7C ( talk) 15:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I inserted the phrase "widely criticized" into the first sentence of the article, as I believe this important detail was erroneously buried in the 3rd paragraph. Here's the revised first sentence:
Mars One is a widely criticized not-for-profit organization based in the Netherlands that has put forward plans to land the first humans onto Mars and establish a permanent human colony there by 2025.
Just to be very clear, the choice of the words "widely criticized" was very intentional: it does not level any judgment against Mars One, it does not state agreement or disagreement with the criticism, nor does it detract from the following 2 paragraphs which lay out the stated facts and goals surrounding the company and its flagship project. Nonetheless, the reality is that there are 2 important points for a casual reader to take away from a quick perusal of an Article on Mars One:
Both of the above are widely reported facts (i.e. many sources actually use the words "widely criticized" in their reporting of Mars One, for the same reason we should: because it's true and it's an important part of the collective understanding about Mars One). Examples of criticism can be seen in the extended section entitled Criticism.
While the validity of such criticisms is still open to debate (as we've seen on this article's Talk page), the existence of them is not. Strom ( talk) 18:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Why has Dr. Roche been excluded from the academia section and put in his own "Reality Show Contestants" section? I can find no sources that list him as a participant in a reality show? In my iopinion, his criticism should be noted in the academia section and link to his own article on the Guardian. MrMonster911 ( talk) 13:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
https://medium.com/matter/mars-one-insider-quits-dangerously-flawed-project-2dfef95217d3 -- Craigboy ( talk) 22:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Unrealistic/ Have nowhere near the resources to be able to do anything they say they will achive. Fiction, Lies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.13.12 ( talk) 07:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
The CEO of Mars One already said that it was a fantasy anyway Giggett ( talk) 16:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I mean really, there is a difference between fantasy and optimism. They claimed that no new technology was necessary. This has been shown to be false (in peer reviewed articles). They claim a 2020 launch date for their robot, but 4 years (or less) is NOT enough time to design, build and test the robot as well as buy and schedule the rocket to get it to Mars. That is, there is zero possibility of this happening as a private enterprise. I just finished reading Sydney Do, et al's 2014 article which is referenced in Criticisms Academia, and I think that the paragraph included is quite flawed. First they did NOT conclude that the "best case" cost would be $4.5 billion. (That's US$) They concluded that the launches to deliver the INITIAL equipment and 4 "colonists" would be $4.5 billion, with accumulating expenses to resupply them every two years, and with increasing costs as the number of colonists brought in increased. They found that the least expensive way to maintain people on Mars was to supply their food from Earth, and NOT grow it on Mars. They found that the technology doesn't exist, or hasn't been demonstrated to be "spaceflight ready", contradicting Mars One's claims. These, I think are the major conclusions of that paper relevant here. Their finding that growing crops to supply 100% of a colony's food would generate too much oxygen leading to atmosphere venting, depletion of stored make up nitrogen, and a low pressure fatal-to-life end to the colony (unless a Nitrogen/Argon collector were included as well as an oxygen collector) is, I think not important enough to merit inclusion here (although I found their analysis quite interesting) and should be removed. (It is so garbled in its present state that if it isn't removed it should be rewritten.) 173.189.74.202 ( talk) 17:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
We know the headquarters or business address of NASA, ESA, JAXA, etc. For Mars One, since it has such an ambitious plan of being the first to put humanity on Mars, surely its headquarters must be some impressive building one can visit and which has dozens of highly qualified staff. However, according to this 2013 article, its registered address is, ahem, just the house of founder Bas Lansdorp and its headquarters is a rented office. Hmmm. It's now 2016. Have they even secured funding to buy their own building? (Not to mention the trip to Mars.) Titus III ( talk) 23:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I highly doubt, that Round 3 is still going to take place this month, since the single source for this is over a year old and Mars One has since then made absolutely no effort to update on their current status. Maybe we should change this in the Selection chapter, or at least point out that it's outdated or unlikely to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.180.92.200 ( talk) 12:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC) It turns out I was correct. There was no selection round 3 in September. Also Mars One has updated their roadmap. It now says the selction process is going to take place in 2017. Although I highly doubt, that they are ever going to select the final astronauts, let alone start to pay them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.245.144.182 ( talk) 12:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Well the most likely option is for them to wait until SpaceX completes their rocket and then convert Mars One into a reality TV contest for free tickets on the SpaceX ship, with 4 winners every 2 years. Any TV contest can give away 1 million a season and besides spending 1 million every 2 years seems a better viable option for Mars One than spending 6 billion every 20 years. By that time, anyone with $200 K could go to Mars, but Mars One winners will be able to go for free, with a return option if they want too since the SpaceX ship is a reusable rocket. Did I also mention that the first trip to Mars can still be by 2024? Giggett ( talk) 05:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
But why would you need Mars One for that TV show? Any network could do that if they wanted to. They already have the money and the network. I think Mars One is going absolutetly nowhere. Especially after they bought/ got bought by this shady company to join the stock market. It's getting more and more clear, that this is a scam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.171.221.200 ( talk) 21:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mars One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mars One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Page https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2019/02/controversial-mars-one-start-up-declared-bankrupt/ today includes :
Now, it has emerged that Mars One Ventures – the for-profit arm of Mars One – has been declared bankrupt by the Civil Court of the City of Basel in Switzerland, and permanently dissolved.
Lansdorp has told Engadget that the Mars One Foundation – the non-profit arm of Mars One – is still operating but will not be able to act without further investment. Mars One has announced via its website that it is “currently working on a solution with an investor”.
94.30.84.71 ( talk) 21:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Jojo siwa born in 1867 is one of the best artist in the world. She uses to be in dance mom but she learned nothing. She realease a song that made everyone happy. 206.167.116.64 ( talk) 14:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mars One article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The info added by that IP recently (June 2012) actually was included in the video released by the company. Does that count as a reliable source? — Gopher65 talk 14:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
This is not adding up.
The Mars One web site, the associated online discussion forum, and that I have something more than a clue about manned space-flight-- this is either embarrassingly naive or a hoax. It reminds me of Twentieth Century Motor Car Corporation. Slick graphics to capture the imagination, one "name," and no substance.
Perhaps the work of T. Mills Kelly?
-- cregil (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any legal/moral issues because people pay money to do foolish and dangerous things everyday. For example, many people have died climbing Everest, some of them would have been physically incapable of it, and should never have tried. But, has anyone ever been charged with a criminal offence?
Yes, if Mars is to be colonised, then it stands to reason that many people will die doing so. This is nothing new, and hasn't prevented mankind from making other achievements. You can't say that these people are "psychologically unfit for such a mission" because you are talking about unspecified people. We don't know what colour their hair is, let alone their mental state.
The technical issues aren't mentioned much, because these issues are to be solved by their suppliers. British Airways doesn't need to know how to make aircraft fly, they just buy planes. Also, the weight of a capsule would be far less on Mars, due to gravity being 0.38 of Earth's gravity. Landing people safely on Mars is likely to be far more difficult than moving capsules around.
Shielding out radiation is possible. We already do that in space, on the space station, for example.
They don't plan to resupply Mars. The colony would extract water from the soil, recycle used water, and extract oxygen from water. Food would be produced on Mars. Danrok ( talk) 19:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The Everest analogy and other "dangers in life" analogies when extended to their logical conclusion result in, "Since we are all going to die anyway, why not ask for volunteers to die the way we want them to die?" The answer to that is that life is valuable and so are relationships-- even in potential. It is immoral to arbitrarily conclude or prevent either.
This is something more extreme than we do to violent criminals by convicting them to life in prison, not something for which we seek out volunteers. -- cregil (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help), Dartnell, L.R. et al., "Modelling the surface and subsurface Martian radiation environment: Implications for astrobiology," Geophysical Research Letters 34, L02207,
doi:
10.1029/2006GL027494, 2007. Cheers,
BatteryIncluded (
talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Wrong? Not all. As you have said yourself, radiation can be shielded using a layer of soil. There is no shortage of soil on Mars. Danrok ( talk) 00:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Danrok, there is a massive shortage of soil between earth and Mars. That is where you need the shielding. And that shielding is going to be heavy, thick, or otherwise extremely expensive using current technology. 83.70.170.48 ( talk) 11:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Just sending people is easy. It's the same as flying an aircraft. Anyone can get it into the air only getting it down is the problem. So it's not impossible just very unlikely to be successful. After all 2/3 of all Mars missions failed. The thing I noticed is, even though it's a reality TV show, there's not a single word about communications satellites. They are at least needed when Mars is on the other side of the Sun. And they will need a lot more time (years or several circles around the Sun) to get or be put into position. If they aren't send now it will be too late. The other problem is jamming four people into a 5 m capsule. All Mars isolation experiments on Earth have shown friction and even violence problems. And these offered a lot more space and other ways to relieve stress. Mightyname ( talk) 12:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Please stop removing the SPAM tag without addressing/discussing the multiple copyright, spam and WP:PEACOCK issues in this article. BatteryIncluded ( talk) 17:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://mars-one.com. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Ben Ben ( talk) 05:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
-- cregil (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Bas Lansdorp and Arno Wielders redirect to the Mars One article. If less experienced editors were to try to recreate either BLP articles, upon finding evidence for notability of either subject, they might find it hard to get around the redirects. Search box results for both "Bas Lansdorp" and "Arno Wielders" would point to the Mars One article without the redirects, as well as any other articles in which they might appear. The redirect would seem to imply Mars One would be the only source of notability for these BLP subjects. Are the redirects strictly necessary at this point? Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 09:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Every current source (including the company's PRs) says "multiple suppliers". If that has changed, provide a source. Otherwise, stop. — Gopher65 talk 19:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
BatteryIncluded wrote in his edit summary: "Big difference between sponsors and investors (funding)". So how is that a logical reason for moving the information that a number of organizations have funded Mars One to be under the heading of "Sponsors"? SPACE INDUSTRY NEWS considers it funding and the opinion of a Wikipedia editor is less significant. Unless there is some policy based reason for moving this information it should remain as it was. BatteryIncluded's implied relation between investors and funding is unclear. Investors are not the only source of funding. - Fartherred ( talk) 17:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm inclined to support the use of the word "sponsors". Is there proof financial assistance for the materials will be provided by the listed companies in this section? Do the sources stipulate that the "funding" or "investment" is for the space mission, or do they leave it somewhat open to interpretation? The "funding" sources seem to be: a Dutch ISP, a Dutch law firm, a Dutch consulting company, a Dutch web station and an Australian SEO company. Granted, I don't live in Europe, but I can find virtually no information on these companies. Yet, they intend to help raise $6 billion USD? While these companies might pass the plausibility test for sponsorship of a reality TV show, I'm not sure they pass muster as bona fide financial investors for the spacecraft mission itself. I would think more digging needs to be done to make sure that the proposed funding/sponsor/investor sources are indeed funding the mission, rather than just "sponsoring" the reality show. I'm not proposing any changes at this time, but this seems to be a gray area which might need to be explored further. Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 08:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth: "sponsoring" is used as an English loanword in the Dutch language, but (as is often the case with such things) the precise meaning it has in English has not been ported. When the Dutch speak English, they tend to be unaware of such differences in connotations. 137.205.100.173 ( talk) 14:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The article no longer relies upon a single source for the majority of content. As such, I have moved the "one source" template to the "technology" section, as it appears to still rely heavily upon the primary source. Additional sections should be tagged by the community, as appropriate. Cheers. Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 06:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Has anyone contacted the company and asked them to release their advertising material (initial concept drawings, etc) either into the public domain or under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license? I'd really like an image or 3 in this article. — Gopher65 talk 14:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The astronaut application criteria have been released:
As of early on 10 Jan, this source has not been used in the article. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 05:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The business press is reporting that Mars One has obtained some initial Angel investment funding: This guy just got angel money to build a permanent colony on Mars, Venture Beat, 2 Feb 2013. This could be used as a source to improve the article. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 23:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this reference to tHooft should be placed in the intro. ( => The project is endorsed by Nobel Prize-winning physicist Gerard 't Hooft.[2][4]) He is a theoretical physicist, not an astronomist. So he is not very relevant to this subject, and putting that line in the intro gives this proposed mission too much credibility. Trancelot ( talk) 23:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
There are beginning to appear news accounts on the candidates for Mars One. N2e ( talk) 20:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
This: [http://www.realscience.us/2012/06/05/reality-tv-sets-sights-on-mars-for-new-show/ REAL SCIENCE] is a spam link that advertises access to science news for a fee. It should be removed. - Fartherred ( talk) 12:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The costs of a one way trip for four astronauts ignore much of the overall mission costs. In particular these costs include neither the cost of establishing a means for Mars colonists to grow their own food nor the cost of continuing resupply until they die. MarsOne The mere trip to Mars is said to cost $6 billion which is less than an "austere" manned Mars mission (including a temporary stay followed by a return of the astronauts) proposed by NASA in 2009. The mission NASA discussed is referred to as costing 100 billion USD after an 18 year program. NASA and MarsOne have different overall missions and ignoring the major costs of MarsOne's overall mission does not serve readers. - Fartherred ( talk) 14:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
1) The Mission Plan section says there is a supply mission in 2016, but the rover which will pick the settlement site doesn't launch until 2018, so Im not sure where the supplies would go. The referenced article does indeed state these dates, but it refers back to the Mars One road map, which does NOT say this. For 2016 the Road Map just lists an unspecified "Demonstration Mission".
2) Also in 2016 (according to the road map) the communication satellite will be launched. The article just mentions producing it (2014) but not the launch. (Sorry if Im breaking any etiquette here, this is my first foray into fixing Wikipedia content and Im reluctant to actually make any changes directly until I have a better feel for how things work.)
MrJoshua68 ( talk) 22:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
The timeline has in fact changed. Before, the proposed year of arrival was 2023. Now, it is 2025. That might explain some of the chronological confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.184.162 ( talk) 07:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
See article here: http://www.nbcnews.com/science/more-2-700-pay-chance-take-one-way-trip-mars-8C11115364
I guess it depends on how you define "applicant". If the applicant includes an application fee and submitting a video, I think the number of applicants is probably less than 3000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.162.25 ( talk) 00:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Mars One wants to launch a copy of NASA's Phoenix Mars lander in 2018: [6]. - BatteryIncluded ( talk) 18:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Is the roadmap as of April 2013 no longer valid?
It's 2014 already and there hasn't been news of a replica of the settlement. Is this goal simply cancelled? Benimation ( talk) 18:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
It is not clear why the following lists were added to the Talk page, nor is it documented who added them, or how anyone proposed they might improve the article. So I have put them behind a show/hide button. Click further if interested. N2e ( talk) 17:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Long detailed list of US and Canadian candidates
It would be more encouraging to scale received financial support from a country per population and/or per GDP instead of absolute support.
U.S. has 297 candidates,149 male (M), and 148 female (F).
Canadian candidates at Mars One (Canada)Canada
|
Currently on the Mars One Community website. [1]
|
Day 1 | Day 2 | Day 3 | Day 4 | Day 5 | ||||
1 | Blue | 1 | ||||||
2 | Orange | 2 | ||||||
3 | Green | 3 | ||||||
4 | Yellow | 4 | ||||||
5 | Red | 5 | ||||||
6 | White | 6 | ||||||
7 | Brown | 7 | ||||||
8 | Violet | 8 | ||||||
9 | Grey | |||||||
10 | Black |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.160.202.241 ( talk) 03:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
5 English speakers:
I noticed that the history section is completely full of inaccuracies. There are all these mentions of "Dr." Rhawn Joseph and the Journal of Cosmology, and links to sources hosted in cosmology.com. They are all notorious for fringe science. I have not read any other account that links them to Mars One. I am therefore removing all those references. M3tro ( talk) 23:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I added third party notice to the header. This article is ludicrous in its current state, relying almost entirely on Mars One PR. — TimL • talk 18:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Guys! I added links to the MIT feasibility analysis, an reddit AMA with the authros and Lansdorp's answer to SpacePolicyOnline.com, I didn't write a paragraph, just added the links in bullet form. I know this is not perfect, but like I said in the edit comment: I don't really care about the content of this article; I just wanted to add another view since this project is tagged with third-party template. A user, User:Krazytea, decided to undo my edit because "reddit is not a source", he removed all the links and the section heading because "reddit is not a source"!!! I undid his undo, but I really don't care about this article to keep making sure that Mars One's trolls don't remove valid criticism from the article. I hope one of you guys steps in and make sure the miscreant Krazytea keeps his hands off the section. -- DelftUser ( talk) 10:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't give too much on this "MIT study"... Quite a bit of it is complete and utter nonsense.
That's just the most obvious flaws that everyone with a bit of background knowledge should see. I'm not sure how this reflects on the rest of the paper.
2A02:1205:5057:4C10:CBF:AE1:FD4C:B40E ( talk) 15:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC) Marco Tedaldi
I'm going to undo that rv. feel free to change or fix it, but yes, the pretty big chance that the whole thing is a suicide mission, or if someone wants to edit it that it is being reported as such----yes, in lede please. 2601:C:67C0:F8:800C:5FD6:3C44:DE7C ( talk) 15:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I inserted the phrase "widely criticized" into the first sentence of the article, as I believe this important detail was erroneously buried in the 3rd paragraph. Here's the revised first sentence:
Mars One is a widely criticized not-for-profit organization based in the Netherlands that has put forward plans to land the first humans onto Mars and establish a permanent human colony there by 2025.
Just to be very clear, the choice of the words "widely criticized" was very intentional: it does not level any judgment against Mars One, it does not state agreement or disagreement with the criticism, nor does it detract from the following 2 paragraphs which lay out the stated facts and goals surrounding the company and its flagship project. Nonetheless, the reality is that there are 2 important points for a casual reader to take away from a quick perusal of an Article on Mars One:
Both of the above are widely reported facts (i.e. many sources actually use the words "widely criticized" in their reporting of Mars One, for the same reason we should: because it's true and it's an important part of the collective understanding about Mars One). Examples of criticism can be seen in the extended section entitled Criticism.
While the validity of such criticisms is still open to debate (as we've seen on this article's Talk page), the existence of them is not. Strom ( talk) 18:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Why has Dr. Roche been excluded from the academia section and put in his own "Reality Show Contestants" section? I can find no sources that list him as a participant in a reality show? In my iopinion, his criticism should be noted in the academia section and link to his own article on the Guardian. MrMonster911 ( talk) 13:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
https://medium.com/matter/mars-one-insider-quits-dangerously-flawed-project-2dfef95217d3 -- Craigboy ( talk) 22:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Unrealistic/ Have nowhere near the resources to be able to do anything they say they will achive. Fiction, Lies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.13.12 ( talk) 07:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
The CEO of Mars One already said that it was a fantasy anyway Giggett ( talk) 16:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I mean really, there is a difference between fantasy and optimism. They claimed that no new technology was necessary. This has been shown to be false (in peer reviewed articles). They claim a 2020 launch date for their robot, but 4 years (or less) is NOT enough time to design, build and test the robot as well as buy and schedule the rocket to get it to Mars. That is, there is zero possibility of this happening as a private enterprise. I just finished reading Sydney Do, et al's 2014 article which is referenced in Criticisms Academia, and I think that the paragraph included is quite flawed. First they did NOT conclude that the "best case" cost would be $4.5 billion. (That's US$) They concluded that the launches to deliver the INITIAL equipment and 4 "colonists" would be $4.5 billion, with accumulating expenses to resupply them every two years, and with increasing costs as the number of colonists brought in increased. They found that the least expensive way to maintain people on Mars was to supply their food from Earth, and NOT grow it on Mars. They found that the technology doesn't exist, or hasn't been demonstrated to be "spaceflight ready", contradicting Mars One's claims. These, I think are the major conclusions of that paper relevant here. Their finding that growing crops to supply 100% of a colony's food would generate too much oxygen leading to atmosphere venting, depletion of stored make up nitrogen, and a low pressure fatal-to-life end to the colony (unless a Nitrogen/Argon collector were included as well as an oxygen collector) is, I think not important enough to merit inclusion here (although I found their analysis quite interesting) and should be removed. (It is so garbled in its present state that if it isn't removed it should be rewritten.) 173.189.74.202 ( talk) 17:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
We know the headquarters or business address of NASA, ESA, JAXA, etc. For Mars One, since it has such an ambitious plan of being the first to put humanity on Mars, surely its headquarters must be some impressive building one can visit and which has dozens of highly qualified staff. However, according to this 2013 article, its registered address is, ahem, just the house of founder Bas Lansdorp and its headquarters is a rented office. Hmmm. It's now 2016. Have they even secured funding to buy their own building? (Not to mention the trip to Mars.) Titus III ( talk) 23:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I highly doubt, that Round 3 is still going to take place this month, since the single source for this is over a year old and Mars One has since then made absolutely no effort to update on their current status. Maybe we should change this in the Selection chapter, or at least point out that it's outdated or unlikely to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.180.92.200 ( talk) 12:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC) It turns out I was correct. There was no selection round 3 in September. Also Mars One has updated their roadmap. It now says the selction process is going to take place in 2017. Although I highly doubt, that they are ever going to select the final astronauts, let alone start to pay them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.245.144.182 ( talk) 12:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Well the most likely option is for them to wait until SpaceX completes their rocket and then convert Mars One into a reality TV contest for free tickets on the SpaceX ship, with 4 winners every 2 years. Any TV contest can give away 1 million a season and besides spending 1 million every 2 years seems a better viable option for Mars One than spending 6 billion every 20 years. By that time, anyone with $200 K could go to Mars, but Mars One winners will be able to go for free, with a return option if they want too since the SpaceX ship is a reusable rocket. Did I also mention that the first trip to Mars can still be by 2024? Giggett ( talk) 05:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
But why would you need Mars One for that TV show? Any network could do that if they wanted to. They already have the money and the network. I think Mars One is going absolutetly nowhere. Especially after they bought/ got bought by this shady company to join the stock market. It's getting more and more clear, that this is a scam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.171.221.200 ( talk) 21:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mars One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mars One. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Page https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2019/02/controversial-mars-one-start-up-declared-bankrupt/ today includes :
Now, it has emerged that Mars One Ventures – the for-profit arm of Mars One – has been declared bankrupt by the Civil Court of the City of Basel in Switzerland, and permanently dissolved.
Lansdorp has told Engadget that the Mars One Foundation – the non-profit arm of Mars One – is still operating but will not be able to act without further investment. Mars One has announced via its website that it is “currently working on a solution with an investor”.
94.30.84.71 ( talk) 21:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Jojo siwa born in 1867 is one of the best artist in the world. She uses to be in dance mom but she learned nothing. She realease a song that made everyone happy. 206.167.116.64 ( talk) 14:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)