Jump to content

Talk:Mars One

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.9.162.25 (talk) at 00:25, 8 October 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Info added by IP

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? — Gopher65talk 14:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, but if one of the articles mentions it, then we can put it back. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 14:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reinstated the part of the edit regarding 2021- it was in the source cited for the mission plan. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 16:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The other piece of info that he added has now been reinstated with a new source. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool:). — Gopher65talk 20:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concern

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)[reply]

Their plan is definitely possible, but it is both dangerous and (at 6 billion US dollars) underfunded. I estimate that rounding out the colony with the first 20 people would cost more like 25 billion, rather than 6 (25 billion is still cheap considering that a full return mission for 4 people has been estimated in excess of half a trillion). Mind you, they say that the six billion is for the first 4 colonists. They don't actually say how much the entire project would cost, including resupply of electronics, etc.
Regardless though, that is beyond the scope of this article. We only report on what (credible) sources are saying, not on what we ourselves think. — Gopher65talk 13:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand the conundrum of reporting what has been reported and not editorializing. That very dilemma cast Wikipedia editors as the fool, courtesy of T. Mills Kelly.
The concern is that the reporting-- the sources-- are doing just the same. That is they are not applying critical thinking, but and instead relying on the one source. The only primary source is the material found on the Mars One web site. There is little to no analysis involved in those secondary sources.
  • A one way trip is not going to happen, for several reasons. One is moral/legal-- manslaughter charges loom. And for that reason, alone, both funding and access will be denied due to the legal liability and moral culpability of the participants.
  • Two, by any other name, it is still a suicide mission and so civilian volunteers are likely to be, by default, psychologically unfit for such a mission.
  • Technical issues are glossed... if mentioned at all. Robot tractors capable of lifting and then traveling up to twenty miles over unknown terrain carrying the weight of a crewed Dragon capsule?
  • Radiation shielding in transit and on the surface?
  • The enormous quantities of water and oxygen/hydrogen and food which must be carried and then regularly sent, recovered and transported should they survive to the surface?
  • What if a contractor goes out of business and so supply shipment are no longer possible?
  • For a reality TV show? There is the indicator that this is about something other than is admitted in the conception.
I saw The Truman Show, too; but it required a suspension of disbelief to enjoy. I'm not exercising that ability here, and so am critically aware that this is fiction, sourced or not. The intent of the fiction (hoax, publicity, investor fraud, simple (and, so far) innocent foolishness, etc.) is uncertain, but I cannot be alone in being convinced that this is fiction.--cregil (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me join in on your forum conversation. Yes, they are underfunded. No they do not have the infrastructure, funds nor tecnical know-how. It is a bussiness stunt seeking legal profit generated by their intended "reality TV" show. The unlikely but best-case scenario for science & technology is that this pop SHOW would serve as a catalyst for social discussion on international funding of planetary sciences.Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Mention of "risk" is irrelevant. This is a mission which intends the volunteers to die on the surface of Mars even if/though a means to return them exists.

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)[reply]

"Shielding out radiation is possible. We already do that in space, on the space station, for example."
Wrong. The ISS is protected mostly by Earth's magnetosphere, which is absent on Mars. Any colonists would need at least 7 meters of soil for protection above their capsules. Check out these studies: [1], [2]. "Study: Surface of Mars Devoid of Life". Space.com. 29 January 2007. Retrieved 2011-08-22. {{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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A little off on a tangent here, I think. Soil nor any other heavy shielding is suitable beyond the VARB. Liquid hydrogen, such as would be used as propellent in a NTR, and hydrogen-rich plastics encasing a few inches of water have been proposed as light(er)-weight radiation shields-- far more effective at shielding then, say, lead walls. Metal, of any kind, is not appropriate for shielding, although when in conjunction with the the hydrogen-rich materials, a thin sheet of aluminum on the exterior has some benefit. The science of this subject is readily found on the web and in libraries (space medicine). We do not, yet, have the data necessary to know the shielding needs on the Martian surface.
With that said, this is not that article. I used examples only to indicate why I felt the Mars One proposal's lack of engineering solutions and lack of scientific focus but strength in marketing suggests that this venture is something other then is apparent. I was not asking for the editors to provide engineering solutions, but merely to recognize that a web site and four persons-- one of whom is a very able scientist (the other three who are not)-- have not provided a viable mission plan, but a glossy marketing piece.
Furthermore, when I see a discussion of the "sources" elsewhere in this Talk Page, I would remind all that there is only one source. All others are commentary on the single source, and that single source, a web site, is based on about twelve months of study. I have more study than the three non-scientists combined, so let's write on article on my deeper understanding of some of the issues? No! But neither are we to give more credence here then is due.
In short, we have a marketing proposal and no prototype, and no funding. This is not at all new to marketing-- but rarely have such amounted to anything. A thought: Just prior to the release of the film, Raiders of the Lost Ark there were major newspapers carrying articles about the Ark of the Covenant being found and given to the Rothschild family. Of course the Ark had not been found, but it had many interested in the subject just in time for the movie's release. Newspapers running that false article were either unknowingly duped or had financial cause to print what was unverifiable and reasonably incredible. Nothing external to our own desires prevents Wikipedia editors from more demanding of truth than that example. Be a bit skeptical.--cregil (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I haven't read this article in a while, but I'm pretty sure the foundation have discussed using those craft currently orbiting Mars to relay signals. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 12:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you mean now. Anything orbiting Mars wouldn't be of much help if the sun is still in the way. You may be interested in this page. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 12:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. I didn't see that last time. The Lagrange point(s) is full of Mars trojans, and solar flares are still another threat to communication. At least one more satellites is needed in another Lagrange point and/or two more on Mars' orbit (not around). The problem is inserting them takes a lot longer since there's no planet to catch them in place. Mightyname (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPAM and Peacock terms

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Apparently not: the two paragraphs under PLAN just edited by me are virtually word-for-word from the Mars one web-site.
The only significant difference was changing the first person plural of the website "we" to the third person "they." That is an editorializing and a copyright violation.
Prior to edit, these included ungrammatical use of single-quotes, weasel words ("claimed"); yet no reference, nor supporting evidence from a reliable source was provided. I sourced the Mars One web-site, but that is self-sourcing and therefore not reliable as regards evidence of the factually accuracy of the statements; rather only sourcing that the statement was made.--cregil (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Giles, I did remove these CIs, see my edit: [3]. But user:Horst-schlaemma inserted the copyright problem again, see [4] with only changing a few words and hiding a part of the text [5]. According to WP:COPYVIO I should revert this again. Other opinions? --Ben Ben (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's hard to get people to understand that "rewriting" doesn't mean reading a sentence, then using a thesaurus to replace a couple words while reordering the phrase slightly (rinse, repeat until they have a paragraph). That's still a copyvio:P. Rewriting means reading the source completely, making note of the key information in the source, and then writing a sentence, paragraph, section, or article based on that information, in your own words.
There are two choices: 1) get into an edit war, or 2) rewrite the material yourself without violating copywrite.
Method two takes longer, but usually gets better long term results. — Gopher65talk 19:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ben. No objections to reverting/deleting.
Gopher65, Yes a re-write is the obvious solution, but I think a step back may be more helpful. It seems we have nothing more than the Mars One web-site as a source for any of this. We do have commentary from various periodicals, but those offer little, if any, more than editorializing on the the same source we have.
Recreating details and highlights from the Mars One website seems to me to be one step past the line editors can take. That is to say, that in doing so there is an implicit presumption of legitimacy of the claims made on that web site by uncritically parroting it here.
External to what Mars One says about itself, are only the Letters of Interest and a Nobel laureate's (Hooft's) endorsement. The Letters of Interest have been compared to a grocery store agreeing that it is interested in selling food. Hooft is in an unrelated field, and so his endorsement and voice in space travel seems to be lacking in significance.
Which brings me to: What is the scope of this encyclopedic article? Beyond that a web site states it claims an intent to send people to Mars by 2023, using a Reality show for crew selection and funding, as endorsed by a Nobel Prize winner in speculative physics, there may be NOTHING left to say that is not beyond the limits of the Wikipedia editors.
--cregil (talk) 06:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thanks for your statements. I have deleted the text copied from the Mars One web site again, as it is a clear case of WP:COPYVIO and rewriting based on a single sourced future event isn't what is Wikipedia for. Additionally, I have given the Reality TV show its own section for that it is the key factor in their Business plan.--Ben Ben (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I agree with both of you. At this stage, it is hard to include anything else without indulging in "promoting" this commercial venture. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's *really* hard to know where to draw the line on a speculative commercial venture. This not only applies to space travel, but to games (which often end up being vapourware), pretty much anything in the tech hardware industry (HVDs come to mind. Lots of smoke, but no fire), and even things like the mining sector. The greater the amount of capitol that the project requires, the less chance that it will go forward, in general. My opinion is that we should do the following:
  • Assess notability by whether or not it gets significant mention in the media (this is a poor measure of notability, but it's the only one we can use for speculative ventures, since there is no end result for us to look at).
  • Assess likelihood of success based on who is involved (Google is more likely to make good on a promised new device than a random small company with 6 unknown employees). If the company itself is new, we look at who is involved, and their past success/failure rate. If they've never had a success, we should be wary.
  • Decide how much detail an article should have based on the two above criteria.
If there is large public interest (as measured with media presence), and there are reliable people/companies involved, then we should have a fairly detailed article, despite the fact that the project or product is at an early development state, and is highly speculative.
On the other hand if there is both minimal public interest (but still notable enough for Wikipedia inclusion) and little to no people or companies involved that have a good past success rate for such ventures (either as funders or directly working on the project), we decide that the product is (at the moment) too speculative to have a large article which includes all the little details that the company in question has provided. That would be less encyclopedia building, and more advertising for a company. If it eventually turns out that the product is indeed real, then the article can be expanded to reflect that new reality.
In my opinion there is slightly above minimal notability for the Mars One article (slightly), while there are no notable people (from the field in question) or companies actively working on the project or funding it. That may change in the coming years, but it's true right now.
Now look at a project that *does* meet these guidelines: the Stratolauncher. It's funded by primarily by Paul Allen, with many of the various components of the final system being designed and built by Burt Rutan and SpaceX. Both the funder and two of the three contracted companies have a proven tendency to succeed at speculative projects. That doesn't mean that they *will* succeed, but merely that we should make the assumption that their is a decent chance that the project will go ahead. Therefore, it should have a detailed article right from the beginning. — Gopher65talk 14:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mars One Team

I see one of the contributors created pages (which link here) for:
Each of those are mentioned as "the Team" on the Mars One web site.
While interesting to know who is connected, the first two seem to have no public presence other than a commercial one, and so probably inappropriate to mention in the article. I refer to editorial ethic, not to their notability (as the marketing is obviously generating a buzz and the illustrations capturing the imaginations among many).
In fact, to Flinkenflögel and Versteeg, I would think a recommendation of "speedy deletion" of their redirecting pages is called for.
Arno Wielders, on the other hand, having an empty wiki page, probably ought to have some mention in the article, as it appears he has related public, historical, academic and professional involvement which is significant.
Thoughts?

--cregil (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Giles. Sorry, but your speedy tagging wasn't correct. You cannot tag articles for speedy deletion with your own specifications what a valid reason for speedying is. Please read Wikipedia:CSD. Have tagged the articles additionally with a {{Db-multiple|G6|rationale=deleted from the redirected page for having no claim of significance|A7}}.--Ben Ben (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As reviewing administrator, I deleted the articles on SF and BV. If there ever is sufficient information to show some chance of notability & to make the pages, they can be re-created. DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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? OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 09:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Not one supplier

Every current source (including the company's PRs) says "multiple suppliers". If that has changed, provide a source. Otherwise, stop. — Gopher65talk 19:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if they are buying sand from your neice. For second time, the issue is grammar. Fix it or or step aside. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... *sighs* People need to start learning the basics of grammar before they go on the internet and correct other people. It isn't just you, so don't feel too bad.
Here's a breakdown:
Your sentence: Mars One has identified SpaceX to supply every component of the mission.
Your sentence made grammatically correct: Mars One has identified SpaceX as being the supplier for every component of the mission.
That's still factually incorrect, but at least I've corrected your engrish. "...has identified SpaceX to supply..." is about as wrong as English can get.
In order to simply the sentence for us to analyze, we can take out the parenthetical phrase between the commas (even though it is just fine where it is).
Simplified sentence: Mars One has identified potential suppliers for every component of the mission.
Where is the problem in that sentence? I'm guessing you don't have one, since that's the version you replaced the original with. Now, for the sake of all of our sanities (if that's a word:P), please go and read that wikilink on comma use for parenthetical phrases. Here it is again.
Now that you've read that, let us add the parenthetical phrase back into the sentence. As you can see from the link, that is a grammatically correct thing to do. Original sentence: Mars One has identified potential suppliers, such as SpaceX, for every component of the mission. — Gopher65talk 23:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you favor Space X over all other suppliers? That is non-neutrality, bias and takes away the clarity of what is actually meant. The structre of the sentence suggests a competition from several contractors to be the sole supplier of every component. If you care of clarity, you'd stop being an asshole about it. Per your own writting lets settle for the simplified sentence you wrote above: Mars One has identified potential suppliers for every component of the mission. Or better yet, from the source: Mars One has identified at least one potential supplier for every component of the mission. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even editors need editors! Yes, the version I first noticed appeared to be saying that SpaceX was going to do everything. They may have no part in it, for all we can know of the future. --cregil (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At one point I added another supplier, but someone else removed it. I shrugged at let it be, given that no suppliers have yet been confirmed. Letters of intent are a pretty weak thing to report about. — Gopher65talk 16:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irrational change of section heading

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)[reply]

Whatever, and money gathering HAS to be on top?? BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Erste oder letzte spielt keine Rolle. - Fartherred (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does matter: WP:MOS BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Erste oder letzte ist mir egal. - Fartherred (talk) 08:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 08:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Analysis point by point:
  • OliverTwisted is inclined to support the word sponsors. As above: "SPACE INDUSTRY NEWS considers it funding and the opinion of a Wikipedia editor is less significant."
  • "Is there proof financial assistance for the materials will be provided by the listed companies in this section?" This has no logical relation to the choice in question.
  • "Yet, they intend to help raise $6 billion USD?" This has no logical relation to the choice in question. Calling funding funding is not calling it full funding any more than calling sponsors sponsors would imply full funding.
  • "I'm not sure they pass muster as bona fide financial investors for the spacecraft mission itself." This has no logical relation to the choice in question. There is no need for a provider of funding to be an investor.
  • "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." This has no logical relation to the choice in question. Being a sponsor is one way of providing funding. In all cases of providing funding to Mars One, that funding goes to Mars One. Whether they use their funding to plan, engineer, and carry out a one-way trip to Mars or they use their funding to buy coffee and doughnuts is irrelevant to the question of whether that funding is funding or not.
Wikipedia policy is to present the views of sources as closely as is convenient to the article without giving undo weight to any particular point of view. Since the point of view that the heading "Funding" is inappropriate for sponsors is advanced only by editors of Wikipedia and appears nowhere in a reliable source, using the heading "Funding" would best follow policy. Since there is no policy based argument to change the heading to "Sponsors", indeed no logical argument whatsoever for that change, and since the heading "Funding" leaves open the later inclusion of other sorts of funding than sponsorship, the heading for the funding section should remain "Funding" - Fartherred (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Update) I've added a clarification from the reporting of the project on Space.com. According to "officials", the current corporate sponsorship is being used: mostly to fund the conceptual design studies provided by the aerospace suppliers. OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 08:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that Mars One is using money to fund conceptual design studies, a claim I noticed before, but it is a separate point from the proper heading under which to list sponsors.
SPACE INDUSTRY NEWS has the list of sponsors under the headline of "Mars One Receives First Funding for 2023 Manned Mission to Mars".
Space.com in its article about "Private Manned Mars Mission Gets First Sponsors" writes, "A Dutch company...has received its first funding from sponsors,".
UNEXPLAINED MYSTERIES under the headline "Mars One mission receives first funding" writes that the company received its first funding from sponsors.
The website moonandback.com writes that Mars-One says that it received sufficient sponsorship money for a reality TV show which will hopefully fund the Mars expedition.
In all of these cases money from sponsors is referred to as funding. So, the list of sponsors can go under a heading of funding or sponsors. It will not change the meaning much. - Fartherred (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Funding" as the section header, and I agree that further distinctions can be made. However, as to some of your points above, whether or not vague terms were chosen at article creation should not preclude more specific information from being substituted, as it becomes available. I've added a clarification in the text of the section from more specific reporting of the project on Space.com, for discerning readers. As they make the distinction in current application of the funding, so should Wikipedia, which has used that same source several times in the article. Finally, starting a new topic header by calling an experienced Wikipedia editor's changes "irrational" in the title itself is really bad form. These talk page posts are archived, not deleted. I think the topic title should be changed. Something can be rational and potentially incorrect at the same time.OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 11:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've read quite a bit about this, and the funding the received is not the primary funding that they're going to use to fund Mars One. Rather it is advertising income that they're going to use to fund detailed concept studies. Those studies will in turn be used to gain the largescale investment necessary to begin designing, testing, and constructing hardware.
To reiterate, the current sponsorship money is only being used to get more money, not to actually truly further Mars One's end goals (building and launching hardware).
The word "funded" implies (to native English speakers) that Mars One has received substantial monetary support, and is either nearing or has already reached its goal of 6 billion. The word "sponsored" implies that a small amount of the funding total has been reached. Therefore using the word "funded" is inappropriate. There is a reason so many of the articles out there used variants of the word "sponsored" when writing about this news... because it's the only word that correctly describes the situation.
I don't know why people who speak English as a second or third (or 8th:)) language keep coming to English Wikipedia and insisting that their poor understanding of the language is correct. I speak a bit of (broken) French and Spanish, but you don't see me over on French Wikipedia trying to impose my bad French on their articles. If I have something to add I write it, and then I let them correct my grammar and word use. They understand the flow and structure of their language far better than I ever will. — Gopher65talk 13:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The word funded could be used to imply full funding, as in a hypothetical statement: "Our school gymnasium project is funded." but there is no such statement about a trip to Mars in the [[Mars One]] article. In fact the word funded does not appear. The use of funding by four sources on the internet cited above seems to indicate that the word funding is appropriate for professional level writers of the English language to use in describing the level of funding that Mars One has currently obtained. There has been no reliable source cited to indicate any implied meaning of full funding in the sense that the word funding is used in this article. As to the meaning of sponsored, there is no indication that when the Beverly Hillbillies theme song referred to "our sponsor of this week...Kellogg's of Battle creek" that the actors and production crew were living on beans and spaghetti noodles without sauce until the show could get full funding. However, since some editors have suggested such a misunderstanding I have edited the article to make it clear that current funding for Mars One is a minor fraction of what they are trying to achieve. - Fartherred (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that that rant is out of the way, I don't have a problem with OliverTwisted's compromise wording:). The section heading is also appropriate. — Gopher65talk 13:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To what compromise wording do you refer? - Fartherred (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "one source" template from article

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. OliverTwisted (Talk)(Stuff) 06:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Image

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. — Gopher65talk 14:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Astronaut application criteria released

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)[reply]

initial Angel investment funding

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)[reply]

Gerard 't Hooft

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)[reply]

One-way Mars astronaut candidates

There are beginning to appear news accounts on the candidates for Mars One. N2e (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The link to the REAL SCIENCE article is still available from a 28 April 2013 version in the article history.
I have had second thoughts about the above link. I cannot fully evaluate the site because I will not subscribe or sign up for a viewing of the cited article. We cannot reasonably expect that all reliable sources are provided free, such as books. When I first activated the link to the cited article on the REAL SCIENCE site, I found only the advertisement for REAL SCIENCE. If the article is not free, at least I do not need the hard sell advertisement. I tried the deleted link again today and there was an offer to sign up to see the cited article. Is this organization worth while? Is the citation relevant? If we have a couple of users with access to the cite who will vouch for it, is that good enough? - Fartherred (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall mission costs are not defined

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)[reply]

The cost savings come from not bringing them back. Personally I think that the six billion dollars is a bit on the low side. Others have estimated a one way mission to Mars at about 10 billion (at the lower end). But while 6 billion is a tad low, it isn't ridiculously low. Not having to lug a huge return rocket all the way to the surface of Mars saves you a good 90 billion. And yeah, that 6 billion doesn't include lifelong resupply. — Gopher65talk 00:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And somehow I don't think the government is very efficient when spending money... Ypnypn (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who are these others?--Craigboy (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "Mars to Stay" article has one such "about 10 billion" quote by Eric Berger from pre-Mars one days, although it's a hazer one than normal. — Gopher65talk 12:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The timeline is off

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)[reply]

why not just say it'll all happen next Tuesday, this project is so wildly implausible that it's approximately as correct either way 99.249.254.228 (talk) 04:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Are there really 200,000 applicants?

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mars_One&oldid=576218739"