They have a big obstacle, how to fulfill the planetary protection requirements. This is nothing special to Mars One, all the Mars colonization proposals have this issue - but nobody has mapped out a solution to it. So - no point really in discussing other issues if they can't prove that it is possible to go to Mars in an environmentally responsible way. It would not be permitted under the Outer Space Treaty which nearly all nations including all main space faring nations have signed.
Exobiologists think there is a reasonable possibility that Mars had life in the past, like Earth.
If it did, there's also an excellent chance it is still there to this day and there are possible habitats on Mars recently discovered, in last six years, where life could survive on the surface - and clear "smoking gun" evidence of liquid water on Mars through the isotope ratios showing that oxygen from water on the surface has exchanged with the atmosphere in the recent geological past.
We haven't yet sent a rover to Mars with the capability of detecting this life in the concentrations expected - with possible exception of the Viking Labelled release which gave controversial results.
Curiosity is primarily a geological mission and doesn't really have instruments sensitive enough to spot present day life (because it would probably be sparser than life in the Atacama deserts or McMurdo dry valleys - and Curiosity couldn't spot life there) - or past life - because past life would be seriously degraded by cosmic radiation and by radioactivity in the rocks.
It can discover organics, has already. May just possibly find evidence suggestive of life, but highly unlikely to find life and e.g. distinguish it from meteorite organics - even if it were to examine a sample with present day life in it, or one that had life in the past.
ExoMars due to launch in 2018 has this capability - it is searching for past life, not targeting likely locations for present day life. But for that search also - it's likely to be a long one, or at any rate would be very lucky to find it with our first mission to search for past life.
To have - even amino acids left - then it has to be buried very quickly to at least 10 meters depth - and then uncovered again in the recent past, again excavated to a depth of 10 meters - billions of years old deposits get degraded by cosmic radiation so there aren't even amino acids left. And we don't yet know where are the best places to look - was it everywhere or only in special locations?
Anyway - in short, it's not at all likely by 2024 that we will have much idea whether there is life on Mars or not.
In those circumstances, how could the rules for planetary protection be relaxed to permit humans to land there?
We have strict rules for robots on Mars to prevent them contaminating it - why treat humans as a special case so it doesn't matter if they contaminate Mars, though it matters greatly if the robots do?
And - a human mission to Mars would run a big risk of contaminating it especially in case of a hard landing - crash that kills everyone on board - surely a reasonably likely outcome with such a risky innovative mission.
Space missions are not yet routine and easy. Our savest spacecraft must surely be the Soyuz. But it is still not as safe as a flight in a plane or drive in a car. A mission to Mars - obviously going to be more risky than that - more likely similar to risks of wingsuit flying or BASE jumping.
Okay if the Mars One volunteers want to take part in a high risk sport - that's their decision. But there's a major risk of contaminating Mars in event of a hard landing. And that - I can't see it being permitted.
So I think Mars One, and also SpaceX will fail when the people involved set down and explain to the rest of us how they plan to colonize Mars without greatly increasing the risk of contaminating it.
So, I don't see how it can happen, not in such a short timescale. Will probably be another 50 years to explore Mars adequately to find out if there is life there - or we might well find interesting life in less than that, maybe even by 2024 and if we have found interesting and different life on Mars then can't see it being approved in that case at all. Not until we get a chance to study it.
Mars One say that they have met with the planetary protection team and that they are okay with the mission. But nobody has yet given a detailed account of how they plan to protect Mars from contamination with the trillions of microbes in ten thousand or more species on every human and in every human habitat - including many extremophiles (you get them everywhere not just in extreme environments) with some at least probably able to survive on Mars.
They haven't explained how they will deal with a hard landing to start with. Until you can do that there isn't much point in going into details of how you stop microbes leaking from spacesuits, airlocks, or when you vent wastes from the habitat.
To give some context, then the target probability for robotic missions is 1 in 10000 of contamination for any one mission to achieve a reasonable level of planetary protection over a large number of missions.
For robots landing on Mars that's achieved by sterilizing the spacecraft, inside and out, to a high level.
For humans obviously sterilizing the inside is impossible. And chance of a hard landing - even in a reasonably safe mission - surprised if they can get it as good as 1 in 100, I'd be surprised if they achieve a 1 in 10 chance of failure actually (and 7 previous successful landings would not prove a less than 1 in 10 chance of failure or even a 1 in 5).
Indeed, if you take the Mars One idea of 7 previous successes before you send humans - well if you suppose that they actually achieved a 50/50 chance of success - you could get 7 successes in a row pretty easily - there is a 1 in 128 chance of that happening. If you flip a coin 7 times, there is a 1 in 128 chance of getting a run of heads all the way through with a perfectly fair die.
So 7 successes doesn't give you a high level of confidence at all in reliability of the spaceship.
But even if they did achieve 1 in 100 - from a planetary protection point of view, if you apply the standards used for robots - that's so bad, that really there's no point in discussing further any of their other provisions for planetary protection.
So they won't succeed, because nobody can succeed, because nobody will get permission to land on Mars by 2024 or even 2 or 3 decades from now.
All of that is of no avail if they can't pass planetary protection!
I don't apologise for keeping this answer focused on the planetary protection issues. Because this is a potential major show stopper.
I have discussed the other issues in other answers:
I think a reasonably safe flight to Mars orbit (not to the surface, just to get to orbit around Mars) would probably require many previous missions - one of those at least - a full mission length spaceflight closer to home, e.g. to L2 to prove reliability of the systems used in a situation where the crew can be rescued or return to Earth in case of a major issue discovered. That's just like the missions they did in LEO, same duration as the Apollo flight, before they went to the Moon. Wouldn't be surprised if we need a dozen or more previous flights, to LEO, testing artificial gravity, testing the environment control systems, finally full duration mission to L2, before we get to the Apollo moon landing level of safety for a mission to Mars orbit.
I hardly see any point in looking into these other issues however, until someone at least provides some reasonably detailed explanation of how and why they think these missions can pass planetary protection by 2024. Especially, an explanation of how they can protect Mars from Earth microbe contamination in event of a hard landing on the planet.
If nobody can show how to do that - the show will not go ahead - so what's the point in debating it further?
LIFE REASONABLY LIKELY ON MARS
Exobiologists think there is a reasonable possibility that Mars had life in the past, like Earth.
If it did, there's also an excellent chance it is still there to this day and there are possible habitats on Mars recently discovered, in last six years, where life could survive on the surface - and clear "smoking gun" evidence of liquid water on Mars through the isotope ratios showing that oxygen from water on the surface has exchanged with the atmosphere in the recent geological past.
ALMOST NO CHANCE OF DETECTING IT WITH ROVERS SO FAR OR BY 2024
We haven't yet sent a rover to Mars with the capability of detecting this life in the concentrations expected - with possible exception of the Viking Labelled release which gave controversial results.
Curiosity is primarily a geological mission and doesn't really have instruments sensitive enough to spot present day life (because it would probably be sparser than life in the Atacama deserts or McMurdo dry valleys - and Curiosity couldn't spot life there) - or past life - because past life would be seriously degraded by cosmic radiation and by radioactivity in the rocks.
It can discover organics, has already. May just possibly find evidence suggestive of life, but highly unlikely to find life and e.g. distinguish it from meteorite organics - even if it were to examine a sample with present day life in it, or one that had life in the past.
ExoMars due to launch in 2018 has this capability - it is searching for past life, not targeting likely locations for present day life. But for that search also - it's likely to be a long one, or at any rate would be very lucky to find it with our first mission to search for past life.
To have - even amino acids left - then it has to be buried very quickly to at least 10 meters depth - and then uncovered again in the recent past, again excavated to a depth of 10 meters - billions of years old deposits get degraded by cosmic radiation so there aren't even amino acids left. And we don't yet know where are the best places to look - was it everywhere or only in special locations?
Anyway - in short, it's not at all likely by 2024 that we will have much idea whether there is life on Mars or not.
HOW COULD THE RULES FOR PLANETARY PROTECTION OF MARS TO BE RELAXED IN 2024 TO PERMIT HUMAN LANDING - WITH NO SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION?
In those circumstances, how could the rules for planetary protection be relaxed to permit humans to land there?
We have strict rules for robots on Mars to prevent them contaminating it - why treat humans as a special case so it doesn't matter if they contaminate Mars, though it matters greatly if the robots do?
And - a human mission to Mars would run a big risk of contaminating it especially in case of a hard landing - crash that kills everyone on board - surely a reasonably likely outcome with such a risky innovative mission.
Space missions are not yet routine and easy. Our savest spacecraft must surely be the Soyuz. But it is still not as safe as a flight in a plane or drive in a car. A mission to Mars - obviously going to be more risky than that - more likely similar to risks of wingsuit flying or BASE jumping.
Okay if the Mars One volunteers want to take part in a high risk sport - that's their decision. But there's a major risk of contaminating Mars in event of a hard landing. And that - I can't see it being permitted.
THAT'S THE POINT OF FAILURE, I PREDICT - WHEN SPACEX AND MARS ONE HAVE TO EXPLAIN TO THE REST OF US HOW THEY PLAN TO KEEP TO PLANETARY PROTECTION PROVISIONS
So I think Mars One, and also SpaceX will fail when the people involved set down and explain to the rest of us how they plan to colonize Mars without greatly increasing the risk of contaminating it.
So, I don't see how it can happen, not in such a short timescale. Will probably be another 50 years to explore Mars adequately to find out if there is life there - or we might well find interesting life in less than that, maybe even by 2024 and if we have found interesting and different life on Mars then can't see it being approved in that case at all. Not until we get a chance to study it.
Mars One say that they have met with the planetary protection team and that they are okay with the mission. But nobody has yet given a detailed account of how they plan to protect Mars from contamination with the trillions of microbes in ten thousand or more species on every human and in every human habitat - including many extremophiles (you get them everywhere not just in extreme environments) with some at least probably able to survive on Mars.
HARD LANDING LIKELY TO BE BIGGEST STICKING POINT - WITHOUT SOLVING THAT NO POINT IN DISCUSSING THE REST
They haven't explained how they will deal with a hard landing to start with. Until you can do that there isn't much point in going into details of how you stop microbes leaking from spacesuits, airlocks, or when you vent wastes from the habitat.
To give some context, then the target probability for robotic missions is 1 in 10000 of contamination for any one mission to achieve a reasonable level of planetary protection over a large number of missions.
For robots landing on Mars that's achieved by sterilizing the spacecraft, inside and out, to a high level.
For humans obviously sterilizing the inside is impossible. And chance of a hard landing - even in a reasonably safe mission - surprised if they can get it as good as 1 in 100, I'd be surprised if they achieve a 1 in 10 chance of failure actually (and 7 previous successful landings would not prove a less than 1 in 10 chance of failure or even a 1 in 5).
MARS ONE'S AIM OF 7 SUCCESSES BEFORE LANDING A HUMAN DON'T PROVE ANYTHING ABOUT RELIABILITY - EVEN IF THEY DO ACHIEVE IT
Indeed, if you take the Mars One idea of 7 previous successes before you send humans - well if you suppose that they actually achieved a 50/50 chance of success - you could get 7 successes in a row pretty easily - there is a 1 in 128 chance of that happening. If you flip a coin 7 times, there is a 1 in 128 chance of getting a run of heads all the way through with a perfectly fair die.
So 7 successes doesn't give you a high level of confidence at all in reliability of the spaceship.
But even if they did achieve 1 in 100 - from a planetary protection point of view, if you apply the standards used for robots - that's so bad, that really there's no point in discussing further any of their other provisions for planetary protection.
SO NO CHANCE OF ANY OF THESE MARS COLONIZATION PROGRAMS SUCCEEDING BY 2024
So they won't succeed, because nobody can succeed, because nobody will get permission to land on Mars by 2024 or even 2 or 3 decades from now.
All of that is of no avail if they can't pass planetary protection!
I don't apologise for keeping this answer focused on the planetary protection issues. Because this is a potential major show stopper.
I have discussed the other issues in other answers:
- Safety of landing - Mars the most dangerous landing in our inner solar system - not enough atmosphere for aerobraking, too much for Lunar type powered descent - once you hit the atmosphere committed to land but can't parachute down all the way. It's probably as much of a jump forward in technology as developing the Space Shuttle, probably more so.
- No proven technology yet to keep humans alive for long periods of time in space conditions without continual resupply from Earth (ISS doesn't count, as it depends on resupply and testing on Earth doesn't count as space conditions lead to many changes)
- Health issues of humans in Mars g - nobody knows if the human body can adapt - there are major changes in zero g such as, blood pools in upper part of body, heart rate increases, red blood cell count goes down, convection is different with low gravity - even microbes behave differently in zero g - all the balances of our body not evolved to cope with zero g - digestion impaired - don't drink enough - magnesium deficiency etc etc - well how many of those are also issues in low g - nobody knows. Humans might be able to survive a full life span on Mars, or last only a couple of years before dying, or anywhere in between, or indeed even live longer; we have zero data on this.
I think a reasonably safe flight to Mars orbit (not to the surface, just to get to orbit around Mars) would probably require many previous missions - one of those at least - a full mission length spaceflight closer to home, e.g. to L2 to prove reliability of the systems used in a situation where the crew can be rescued or return to Earth in case of a major issue discovered. That's just like the missions they did in LEO, same duration as the Apollo flight, before they went to the Moon. Wouldn't be surprised if we need a dozen or more previous flights, to LEO, testing artificial gravity, testing the environment control systems, finally full duration mission to L2, before we get to the Apollo moon landing level of safety for a mission to Mars orbit.
I hardly see any point in looking into these other issues however, until someone at least provides some reasonably detailed explanation of how and why they think these missions can pass planetary protection by 2024. Especially, an explanation of how they can protect Mars from Earth microbe contamination in event of a hard landing on the planet.
If nobody can show how to do that - the show will not go ahead - so what's the point in debating it further?
About the Author
Robert Walker
Writer of articles on Mars and Space issues - Software Developer of Tune Smithy, Bounce Metronome etc.Studied at Wolfson College, Oxford
Lives in Isle of Mull
4.8m answer views110.4k this month
Top Writer2017, 2016, and 2015
Published WriterHuffPost, Slate, and 4 moreHuffPost, Slate, Forbes, Newsweek, Business Insider, and Science 2.0