Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday February 12 2019, @01:12AM   Printer-friendly
from the Mars-or-Bust!-Whooops! dept.

A grand mission to Mars that was always light on details has come to a decidedly terrestrial end. Mars One, a controversial space exploration project that made it as far as the "highly produced videos" stage of space colonization, has quietly filed for bankruptcy, according to a liquidation listing spotted by a Redditor on r/space.

As the post explains, the private company that spearheaded the Mars One spectacle is actually made up of two parts, a not-for-profit called the Mars One Foundation and a for-profit company known as Mars One Ventures. In 2016, Swiss financial services company InFin Innovative Finance AG picked up Mars One Ventures in a takeover bid.

When contacted about the bankruptcy, Mars One co-founder and CEO Bas Lansdorp told Engadget that the Mars One Foundation continues to operate but is stalled unless it receives an infusion of funds as Lansdorp works "to find a solution."

Mars One was ill-fated from its inception, more grounded in CGI videos and marketing hype for a Mars mission reality TV show than any kind of scientific reality. And they couldn't even get the show off the ground.

https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/11/mars-one-ventures-bankrupt/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday February 12 2019, @02:52AM (7 children)

    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Tuesday February 12 2019, @02:52AM (#799898)

    I was under the impression they were going to pay for the whole thing with some kind of reality TV type thing.

    I then assumed that (based on the bits of reality TV I see) if they managed to get a crew to Mars, on the second day there some fool would leave the back door open and kill everyone involved.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @03:03AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @03:03AM (#799902)

    Well looks like you assumed wrong then.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @03:15AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @03:15AM (#799909)
    Actually, depression may kick in even before, on the way to Mars.
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Tuesday February 12 2019, @03:41AM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday February 12 2019, @03:41AM (#799921) Journal

      Mars One's original plan called for a Falcon Heavy to send 4 people. Crew Dragon 2 has about 10 m3 of volume. Starship has about 1,000 m3 of volume. The latter option should be much less depressing, even if they increased the crew size.

      Furthermore, SpaceX plans to refuel Starship in orbit, which should allow it to get to Mars months faster.

      We'll get a first glimpse of what it would be like to live in Starship if SpaceX follows through on the plan to send artists + a billionaire or two around the Moon. Maybe some of them will be depressed before they board the ship, and one of the visionaries could create history's most infamous work of art: the first murder in space (live streamed).

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Tuesday February 12 2019, @03:20AM (3 children)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday February 12 2019, @03:20AM (#799912) Journal

    As amusing as Survivor or Big Brother on Mars would be, I don't think that was the vibe they were going for. The actual video content would be more along the lines of NASA TV, but a little sexed up in the editor's room.

    The comparison Mars One really liked was the Olympics. Olympics cost billions of dollars but "make" billions through advertising and brand sponsorships, etc. If it costs $5-10 billion to send a bunch of people to Mars, that's hardly outside the realm of what can be paid for, and there would be months of content coming from multiple cameras that could be monetized (starting with the journey through space).

    It's probable that people would get bored of the mission fast, but key moments could be watched by hundreds of millions of people. The spaceship or base could have some corporate logos on it. Then you would have years of additional exposure as long as the colony didn't die out.

    So the plan was perhaps plausible, but would greatly benefit from something like a working BFR (their original plan called for 4 colonists to be sent using Falcon Heavy + Dragon capsule, which is no longer planned to be human rated and would suck compared to a BFR). They also never collected enough money to do any sort of launch, so it is a moot point.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by physicsmajor on Tuesday February 12 2019, @05:07AM (1 child)

      by physicsmajor (1471) on Tuesday February 12 2019, @05:07AM (#799935)

      The key issue with their entire plan was the reality TV. Have you ever seen clips of actual astronauts in space, doing actual things? It's fascinating yet very boring. It's methodical, same stuff happens nearly every day, they get along, there's no gossip. This doesn't make riveting TV; furthermore any serious legitimate astronaut is chosen to not create bullshit conflict and get along.

      Mars One was either going to fail because their content (save a few scattered milestones) would be incredibly stale, because they picked the right people - or fail because they pick your average cast of Survivor instead and they've managed to fail and die from internal conflict practically before leaving Earth orbit. Definitely before getting to Mars.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Tuesday February 12 2019, @07:13AM

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday February 12 2019, @07:13AM (#799978) Journal

        I mentioned NASA TV for a reason.

        If they did hire a reality TV production team, they could edit the footage to create fake conflicts, or even coach the participants, although the 4-24 minute delay would make it harder to have a chat. The hazards would also be played up to build tension.

        Stirring up real drama is a bad idea since it would hurt morale and could endanger colonists (more). And the colonists would to some extent be responsible for keeping themselves alive by building structures, operating equipment, and growing new food, which is a bit more than you have to do in the Big Brother house.

        There is plenty of advertising potential, but it's hard to measure it and the costs would have to be split several ways.

        Maybe NASA could hire amateur Martians to do experiments and foot part of the bill. But they might as well send real astronauts. NASA could even play the advertising game [nytimes.com].

        One of their original cost estimates was $6 billion. Slash that to $3 billion, and maybe Coke would pay for the whole thing...

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday February 12 2019, @06:33AM

      by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Tuesday February 12 2019, @06:33AM (#799968)

      That sounds more likely than my idea.