Well brave in a way. But - not sure they really understand what it is all about.
First - none of them seem like the people who would go base jumping or go sky diving or risky sports like that. Yet they are signing up for something that is potentially far more risky than that. What is it that gets someone who wouldn't think of jumping off a cliff in Norway say, with just a parachute on their back and a few seconds to deploy it or they are dead - yet they are prepared to get into a rocket that is quite likely to crash land on Mars? Far more risky than base jumping at least!
I can't help thinking that they believe that it is far safer than it really is, that at some level they haven't really recognized how dangerous it is.
Also few of them have any expertise at all relating to the space industry and to the complex systems they depend on for their lives. Remember that on Mars they would have to solve problems by themselves on the spot in an emergency. If something goes wrong with the complex equipment or computer systems, then they can't just phone tech support for help. They are just about to die because of a glitch in a program or because of some technical problem - and they ask Earth for help, and don't hear back from them for 40 minutes. And then the reply is likely to be "Sorry don't get it, please explain in more detail".
It's one thing to be able to repair mining equipment. It is another thing to be able to fix a problem in a complex spaceship. Spaceships and the likes of the ISS have whole teams of dozens of people overseeing them, full time. No way that these people can have the expertise to take the place of them on the spot. Maybe in the future when spaceships are as easy to service as cars, but not now.
And how many would be good in an emergency situation? Would they be cool headed, not panic, but be like a test pilot and just calmly do what needs to be done? As the astronauts did in the Apollo 13 mission? Or would they fluster and panic and do something that makes it worse? I'm inclined towards the latter for most of the candidates.
They seem to have chosen them as candidates for a reality show, like Big Brother, rather than for a space mission.
But apart from all that, well I've already said in many other answers here I think the basic plan is flawed.
First the biggy for me, that the main reason scientists are interested in Mars is to search for life there. But if that's your aim - then the very last thing you should be doing is to introduce a habitat full of humans and plants and soil and air and water teaming with trillions of Earth microbes, and land that on the planet. It made some sense when they thought that the surface of Mars was totally inhospitable with any life bound to be underground - even then it was a risk of planetary contamination. But now that we have at least potential for habitats for life on the surface of Mars, it is risky in the extreme.
We risk turning what could be the greatest discovery in biology for over a century, maybe in some ways for all time, discovery of life on another planet that either evolved there by itself or independently evolved from Earth life for hundreds or even billions of years - into a "ho hum" discovery of microbes that we brought to Mars ourselves plus proving that Earth seeds can grow in a greenhouse on Mars.
It is just far too soon to even think about sending humans to the Mars surface in my view. Later - who knows, as we find out more. But we take great care not to contaminate the trapped water lakes below the surface of Antarctica with surface life, and they have been separated from the surface for at most millions of years. Of course we should take even more care to protect Mars from Earth life. At least until we have a chance to study it thoroughly - and with planetary surface same as land area of Earth and with very varied terrain that could take some time.
So - Mars One could potentially help there by sending humans to Mars orbit instead of the surface. That's also far safer and means the humans can get back. And an exciting mission also, would see the whole of Mars turn underneath you, and explore it via telerobotics from orbit. To my mind far more exciting than a surface mission. Some years ago I tried to advocate this on the forums on their website but they weren't interested and moved the discussion to another forum which is not to do with Mars One.
Still- I wonder if that is a possibility in the future for them. Because - though they are optimistic, personally I can't see how they are going to get their missions approved through COSPAR and planetary protection. So I think there is a strong possibility that their mission plan may need to be changed when the time comes.
But apart from that - I think Mars is too much too soon right now. We haven't yet shown that we can keep humans alive in space for more than a few months at a time without continual resupply from Earth as the ISS is resupplied several times a year, with multiple ton payloads. And the astronauts have health issues in zero g. And cosmic radiation issues long term if they were left there for a long time. All this surely has to be solved first before we think of sending anyone as far as Mars.
So the obvious place to do that is the Moon especially with discovery of volatiles there. And the people who say "Moon, boring, already done that" bear in mind that within a year or two of a Mars landing they would be saying "Mars, boring, already done that". The Moon is fascinating, especially now with discovery of volatiles at the poles, ice and frozen CO2, and lots that we don't know about it. If you don't find the Moon fascinating, you are likely to get bored by Mars pretty soon, after the initial interest of having a dull reddish brown light over everything and reddish brown landscape wears off.
So, seems to me, one of the first questions to ask is "would you be interested in going to the Moon instead". If anyone answers "No" then chances are their notions about Mars are largely based on fantasy and sci. fi. and they are probably not good candidates.
There are things that make Mars especially interesting of course, such as possibility of life gets scientists really excited. We will want to explore it thoroughly.
But the Moon is also very interesting, and it too may have useful information about past life on Earth as we may find ancient meteorites from Earth on the Moon. Which wouldn't be much to look at, but it might have ancient fossils or even organics. And the life likely to be found on Mars wouldn't look much more exciting chances are. Smears of microbial mat or just possibly patches of lichen on the rocks. That's about it, but if independently evolved from Earth, tremendously exciting for biology.
And on the Moon - you can have a lifeboat. They have them on the ISS, required to have a spaceship docked at any time which the astronauts can get into and get back to Earth at almost a moments notice. Same also on the Moon, they could get back to Earth with a day or so of travel, and using not very powerful motors due to its light gravity.
But in Mars orbit your lifeboat could take over two years to get back to Earth (six months at the most optimum time for heading back). And on the surface you can't have one at all. And I think they would be bound to die, myself, on the journey out there, or from a crash as they attempt to land, and if they survive that, to die on the surface from some malfunction of the equipment. If done now.
So, let's start with the Moon. Then explore Mars from orbit - once we get to the stage where we have enough confidence to send someone into deep space for years at end without a lifeboat to get back - or else - after we get super fast transport so can get to Mars and back in days. And leave the surface for the future.
If we need to keep Mars surface free of Earth life, it is possible still to set up a settlement in Mars orbit exploring it via telerobotics and telepresence, which would be in many ways "more real" than being there in person. After all nobody will ever touch the open Mars surface with their bare hands or look out on the Mars sky except from within a spacesuit, at least not in our lifetimes. So why not look at it with digitially anhanced vision from within an orbiting spacecraft, safe from any perils on the surface, and with the ability to get back to Earth every couple of years? At some point you may want to come back. Either because you are ill,or old, or just because you have had enough or you only wanted to be there for two years in the first place, like those who live in Antarctic field stations. Can you imagine how trapped and lonely you would feel, on another planet, Earth a distant dot in the night sky, and if you felt you desperately wanted to get back to Earth, but no way to do it?
And BTW Mars is never going to be habitable for humans in the near future. Mars Society's plans for terraforming Mars are projected to take 1,000 years to get to the point where trees grow, but no animals or birds, and humans move around in aqualung air breathers like divers in the ocean. And that is a very optimisitic projection involving use of high technology sustained for ten centuries, the likes of giant mirrors in orbit and greenhouse gas factories on Mars, and probably also many comets diverted to hit Mars, with much to go wrong, and with many substantial differences between Mars and Earth.
Sorry I can't be more optimistic about it but I was asked to answer, and that's how I see it. They might have a role to play at some point in the future as a privately funded part of a larger venture. I think surely using equipment first tested in space closer to home, on the Moon - or the lunar L1 and L2 positions. Maybe they can do telerobotic exploration of Mars but delayed a couple of decades or whatever it is from their original forecast. (I think myself that probably the first attempts at long term survival without continual resupply from Earth, say on the Moon will turn up many issues to fix so it might well be a while, say a couple of decades before we work out all the bugs).
I don't see it happening when they expect or an expedition to the surface any time soon.
More of my Mars answers here:
Mars and Space by Robert Walker on Lists of My Answers
First - none of them seem like the people who would go base jumping or go sky diving or risky sports like that. Yet they are signing up for something that is potentially far more risky than that. What is it that gets someone who wouldn't think of jumping off a cliff in Norway say, with just a parachute on their back and a few seconds to deploy it or they are dead - yet they are prepared to get into a rocket that is quite likely to crash land on Mars? Far more risky than base jumping at least!
I can't help thinking that they believe that it is far safer than it really is, that at some level they haven't really recognized how dangerous it is.
Also few of them have any expertise at all relating to the space industry and to the complex systems they depend on for their lives. Remember that on Mars they would have to solve problems by themselves on the spot in an emergency. If something goes wrong with the complex equipment or computer systems, then they can't just phone tech support for help. They are just about to die because of a glitch in a program or because of some technical problem - and they ask Earth for help, and don't hear back from them for 40 minutes. And then the reply is likely to be "Sorry don't get it, please explain in more detail".
It's one thing to be able to repair mining equipment. It is another thing to be able to fix a problem in a complex spaceship. Spaceships and the likes of the ISS have whole teams of dozens of people overseeing them, full time. No way that these people can have the expertise to take the place of them on the spot. Maybe in the future when spaceships are as easy to service as cars, but not now.
And how many would be good in an emergency situation? Would they be cool headed, not panic, but be like a test pilot and just calmly do what needs to be done? As the astronauts did in the Apollo 13 mission? Or would they fluster and panic and do something that makes it worse? I'm inclined towards the latter for most of the candidates.
They seem to have chosen them as candidates for a reality show, like Big Brother, rather than for a space mission.
But apart from all that, well I've already said in many other answers here I think the basic plan is flawed.
First the biggy for me, that the main reason scientists are interested in Mars is to search for life there. But if that's your aim - then the very last thing you should be doing is to introduce a habitat full of humans and plants and soil and air and water teaming with trillions of Earth microbes, and land that on the planet. It made some sense when they thought that the surface of Mars was totally inhospitable with any life bound to be underground - even then it was a risk of planetary contamination. But now that we have at least potential for habitats for life on the surface of Mars, it is risky in the extreme.
We risk turning what could be the greatest discovery in biology for over a century, maybe in some ways for all time, discovery of life on another planet that either evolved there by itself or independently evolved from Earth life for hundreds or even billions of years - into a "ho hum" discovery of microbes that we brought to Mars ourselves plus proving that Earth seeds can grow in a greenhouse on Mars.
It is just far too soon to even think about sending humans to the Mars surface in my view. Later - who knows, as we find out more. But we take great care not to contaminate the trapped water lakes below the surface of Antarctica with surface life, and they have been separated from the surface for at most millions of years. Of course we should take even more care to protect Mars from Earth life. At least until we have a chance to study it thoroughly - and with planetary surface same as land area of Earth and with very varied terrain that could take some time.
So - Mars One could potentially help there by sending humans to Mars orbit instead of the surface. That's also far safer and means the humans can get back. And an exciting mission also, would see the whole of Mars turn underneath you, and explore it via telerobotics from orbit. To my mind far more exciting than a surface mission. Some years ago I tried to advocate this on the forums on their website but they weren't interested and moved the discussion to another forum which is not to do with Mars One.
Still- I wonder if that is a possibility in the future for them. Because - though they are optimistic, personally I can't see how they are going to get their missions approved through COSPAR and planetary protection. So I think there is a strong possibility that their mission plan may need to be changed when the time comes.
But apart from that - I think Mars is too much too soon right now. We haven't yet shown that we can keep humans alive in space for more than a few months at a time without continual resupply from Earth as the ISS is resupplied several times a year, with multiple ton payloads. And the astronauts have health issues in zero g. And cosmic radiation issues long term if they were left there for a long time. All this surely has to be solved first before we think of sending anyone as far as Mars.
So the obvious place to do that is the Moon especially with discovery of volatiles there. And the people who say "Moon, boring, already done that" bear in mind that within a year or two of a Mars landing they would be saying "Mars, boring, already done that". The Moon is fascinating, especially now with discovery of volatiles at the poles, ice and frozen CO2, and lots that we don't know about it. If you don't find the Moon fascinating, you are likely to get bored by Mars pretty soon, after the initial interest of having a dull reddish brown light over everything and reddish brown landscape wears off.
So, seems to me, one of the first questions to ask is "would you be interested in going to the Moon instead". If anyone answers "No" then chances are their notions about Mars are largely based on fantasy and sci. fi. and they are probably not good candidates.
There are things that make Mars especially interesting of course, such as possibility of life gets scientists really excited. We will want to explore it thoroughly.
But the Moon is also very interesting, and it too may have useful information about past life on Earth as we may find ancient meteorites from Earth on the Moon. Which wouldn't be much to look at, but it might have ancient fossils or even organics. And the life likely to be found on Mars wouldn't look much more exciting chances are. Smears of microbial mat or just possibly patches of lichen on the rocks. That's about it, but if independently evolved from Earth, tremendously exciting for biology.
And on the Moon - you can have a lifeboat. They have them on the ISS, required to have a spaceship docked at any time which the astronauts can get into and get back to Earth at almost a moments notice. Same also on the Moon, they could get back to Earth with a day or so of travel, and using not very powerful motors due to its light gravity.
But in Mars orbit your lifeboat could take over two years to get back to Earth (six months at the most optimum time for heading back). And on the surface you can't have one at all. And I think they would be bound to die, myself, on the journey out there, or from a crash as they attempt to land, and if they survive that, to die on the surface from some malfunction of the equipment. If done now.
So, let's start with the Moon. Then explore Mars from orbit - once we get to the stage where we have enough confidence to send someone into deep space for years at end without a lifeboat to get back - or else - after we get super fast transport so can get to Mars and back in days. And leave the surface for the future.
If we need to keep Mars surface free of Earth life, it is possible still to set up a settlement in Mars orbit exploring it via telerobotics and telepresence, which would be in many ways "more real" than being there in person. After all nobody will ever touch the open Mars surface with their bare hands or look out on the Mars sky except from within a spacesuit, at least not in our lifetimes. So why not look at it with digitially anhanced vision from within an orbiting spacecraft, safe from any perils on the surface, and with the ability to get back to Earth every couple of years? At some point you may want to come back. Either because you are ill,or old, or just because you have had enough or you only wanted to be there for two years in the first place, like those who live in Antarctic field stations. Can you imagine how trapped and lonely you would feel, on another planet, Earth a distant dot in the night sky, and if you felt you desperately wanted to get back to Earth, but no way to do it?
And BTW Mars is never going to be habitable for humans in the near future. Mars Society's plans for terraforming Mars are projected to take 1,000 years to get to the point where trees grow, but no animals or birds, and humans move around in aqualung air breathers like divers in the ocean. And that is a very optimisitic projection involving use of high technology sustained for ten centuries, the likes of giant mirrors in orbit and greenhouse gas factories on Mars, and probably also many comets diverted to hit Mars, with much to go wrong, and with many substantial differences between Mars and Earth.
Sorry I can't be more optimistic about it but I was asked to answer, and that's how I see it. They might have a role to play at some point in the future as a privately funded part of a larger venture. I think surely using equipment first tested in space closer to home, on the Moon - or the lunar L1 and L2 positions. Maybe they can do telerobotic exploration of Mars but delayed a couple of decades or whatever it is from their original forecast. (I think myself that probably the first attempts at long term survival without continual resupply from Earth, say on the Moon will turn up many issues to fix so it might well be a while, say a couple of decades before we work out all the bugs).
I don't see it happening when they expect or an expedition to the surface any time soon.
More of my Mars answers here:
Mars and Space by Robert Walker on Lists of My Answers
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