They have some major flaws in their analysis which I’m documenting now.
They’ve created their magic bullet analysis tool, but seem to have lost the target. Typical of people that put too much faith in models where they are blind to its flaws. More to come.
I skipped to the summary (bad habit of mine I know). And one of my critiques of this paper already is the proposition that Mars One will “require approximately” 15 Falcon [9] Heavy launches at an “cost” (presumably estimated since as of this writing no Falcon 9 Heavy has yet flown) of 4.5 billion dollars.
Not even Elon Musk proposes using F9H for a Mars Colonial Transport. That rocket, if what has been written on the subject to date is accurate, has yet to come off the drawing boards, let alone be built. I think using cost estimates based on F9H technology for a project still a long ways off is premature to say the least. Also I admit I have not yet delved into the paper more deeply to see if the 4.5B estimate takes into consideration re-usability….
Rand,
When I saw your one liner about “not ready for prime time”, I was wondering whether you were meant that regarding Mars One or the MIT analysis (or both)…
~Jon
I was referring to Mars One (in MIT’s opinion), but I haven’t read enough of the critique to say if I agree or not. I do share David Spain’s concerns about their assumptions.
The analysis is completely flawed but don’t read my post. I can summarize here.
1) The plants will kill them in 68 hours.
Based on the false assumption that no monitoring or corrective action will be taken until they die on that day. They even offer the solution. Don’t live with your plants. Give them a separate habitat.
2) This is actually issue 3 so let’s address that.
3) The space logistics analysis revealed that, for the best scenario considered, establishing the first crew for a Mars settlement will require approximately 15 Falcon Heavy launchers and require $4.5 billion in funding, and these numbers will grow with additional crews.
Then they say why this isn’t so. Actually this touches on a complaint I have with the Mars One plan. They don’t take ISRU far enough. There are two stages of ISRU. That for life support which is essential. And everything else which isn’t. Not only should you produce life support, they should be able to also locally produce the machine themselves that produce that life support. Which is not that hard considering the nature of what they have to produce
This eliminate all ‘spares’ accept for non essentials which I say because of the mass surcharge of everything sent to mars should arrive as the personal property of the new colonists solving two problems. No other resupply is required and each colonist arrives with enough assets to look over the next rill as Rand so poetically put it.
“… the next logical leap that the ISRU machinery itself should be producible by the martians.”
Which is part of the assumption that any sound colony plan must make, that the colonists can bootstrap to produce EVERYTHING needed to survive, including replacements for essential tools. Continued dependence on resupply from back on Earth is a recipe for failure. The colony isn’t properly established until housing and greenhouses have been constructed from local materials.
Wondering how well you could build a greenhouse on Mars from just masonry and glass …
No, they said “68 days” not 68 hrs.
And it’s spelled “rille”
And I think Mars One is pretty crazy w/o, for instance, a lot of work on vertebrate adaptation (or not) to partial g.
That being said, as a former MIT Aero/Astro grad student, from experience I am always skeptical about such analyses. Maybe these guys are smarter than I was, but assumptions and “plausible numbers” are often questionable.
Absolutely right. RUNNING ON FUMES. Good night.
Those who can, do. Those who can’t… tell the doers they can’t possibly succeed.
They have some major flaws in their analysis which I’m documenting now.
They’ve created their magic bullet analysis tool, but seem to have lost the target. Typical of people that put too much faith in models where they are blind to its flaws. More to come.
I skipped to the summary (bad habit of mine I know). And one of my critiques of this paper already is the proposition that Mars One will “require approximately” 15 Falcon [9] Heavy launches at an “cost” (presumably estimated since as of this writing no Falcon 9 Heavy has yet flown) of 4.5 billion dollars.
Not even Elon Musk proposes using F9H for a Mars Colonial Transport. That rocket, if what has been written on the subject to date is accurate, has yet to come off the drawing boards, let alone be built. I think using cost estimates based on F9H technology for a project still a long ways off is premature to say the least. Also I admit I have not yet delved into the paper more deeply to see if the 4.5B estimate takes into consideration re-usability….
Rand,
When I saw your one liner about “not ready for prime time”, I was wondering whether you were meant that regarding Mars One or the MIT analysis (or both)…
~Jon
I was referring to Mars One (in MIT’s opinion), but I haven’t read enough of the critique to say if I agree or not. I do share David Spain’s concerns about their assumptions.
The analysis is completely flawed but don’t read my post. I can summarize here.
1) The plants will kill them in 68 hours.
Based on the false assumption that no monitoring or corrective action will be taken until they die on that day. They even offer the solution. Don’t live with your plants. Give them a separate habitat.
2) This is actually issue 3 so let’s address that.
3) The space logistics analysis revealed that, for the best scenario considered, establishing the first crew for a Mars settlement will require approximately 15 Falcon Heavy launchers and require $4.5 billion in funding, and these numbers will grow with additional crews.
Then they say why this isn’t so. Actually this touches on a complaint I have with the Mars One plan. They don’t take ISRU far enough. There are two stages of ISRU. That for life support which is essential. And everything else which isn’t. Not only should you produce life support, they should be able to also locally produce the machine themselves that produce that life support. Which is not that hard considering the nature of what they have to produce
This eliminate all ‘spares’ accept for non essentials which I say because of the mass surcharge of everything sent to mars should arrive as the personal property of the new colonists solving two problems. No other resupply is required and each colonist arrives with enough assets to look over the next rill as Rand so poetically put it.
“… the next logical leap that the ISRU machinery itself should be producible by the martians.”
Which is part of the assumption that any sound colony plan must make, that the colonists can bootstrap to produce EVERYTHING needed to survive, including replacements for essential tools. Continued dependence on resupply from back on Earth is a recipe for failure. The colony isn’t properly established until housing and greenhouses have been constructed from local materials.
Wondering how well you could build a greenhouse on Mars from just masonry and glass …
No, they said “68 days” not 68 hrs.
And it’s spelled “rille”
And I think Mars One is pretty crazy w/o, for instance, a lot of work on vertebrate adaptation (or not) to partial g.
That being said, as a former MIT Aero/Astro grad student, from experience I am always skeptical about such analyses. Maybe these guys are smarter than I was, but assumptions and “plausible numbers” are often questionable.
Absolutely right. RUNNING ON FUMES. Good night.
Those who can, do. Those who can’t… tell the doers they can’t possibly succeed.