David Spain wrote on Sat, 16 Feb 2019 20:16:27
-0500:

On 2/15/2019 4:50 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
BTW, just because folks sign releases up the wazoo, doesn't mean those
left behind can't or won't sue their carrier. We've seen this time and
again with "settlements" arranged after some tragic airline mishap.


OK, name the airlines that have been sued out of existence by grieving
relatives.


It's a bit of a stretch to compare airlines to Mars One no?


Only because, unlike airlines, they have no ongoing relationship with
equipment providers, gates, etc. Probably be more appropriate to
compare them to a fraudulent travel agency, but that puts them even
further from being "sued out of existence by grieving relatives".


Sometimes these suits are often brought by insurance companies
themselves trying to re-coup losses on life insurance policies that
don't exclude air travel for example. In this case its insurance
companies vs insurance companies.


OK, name the airlines that have been sued out of existence by grieving
insurance companies.


Not my words. Insurance companies routinely do this, it's a standard
business practice. Usually doesn't even go to court. An airline would
not be at risk because they've been indemnified by their insurance
carrier, that's why they have insurance no?


So you're just off the topic of the thread, then?


My take is Mars One was ill-considered from the get go.


My take is that it was within a hairs breadth of being fraud. Where
did the money go?


That's a great question.


Now if only we had a great answer. Presumably the money went into the
'non-profit' side of the house and vanished.


That it died
from poor organization before it got anyone killed is to its credit
actually. It would almost certainly would have had to deal with a
carrier such as SpaceX or Blue Origin to achieve its goal.


Yet it apparently had no plans to do either and was promising trips to
Mars before either of those companies would have vehicles.


Why the middle man?


Because they can take the money, deliver nothing, and then declare
bankruptcy.


Excellent point. Caveat emptor.


There are fraud laws that would cover this.


Maybe once Mars flights are more common ...


You mean 'more common' as in 'exist'?


Touche. Yes.


I'm still trying to figure out why so much of the coverage of this
seems to assume that Mars One was legitimate, despite promising things
that don't exist.


... a Mars One type
"colony" company can responsibly contract flights for carriers to get
their "communities" established, with even return capability if
something goes majorly wrong. Time will tell.


Perhaps, but they will be organizations that have some working
relationship with people who can actually deliver boosters and
vehicles and actual plans for sending people and equipment. Mars One
had none of that.


Agreed, completely.


Mars One isolated itself from the non-profit that presumably wound up
with the money.


--
You are
What you do
When it counts.