#1
|
|||
|
|||
R.I.P. Mars One
Mars One, which was proposing one-way trips to Mars has declared bankruptcy. https://spacenews.com/mars-one-company-goes-bankrupt/ Alain Fournier |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
R.I.P. Mars One
Alain Fournier wrote on Mon, 11 Feb 2019
20:03:57 -0500: Mars One, which was proposing one-way trips to Mars has declared bankruptcy. https://spacenews.com/mars-one-company-goes-bankrupt/ Is this any surprise? Did they ever do anything but take in money? How can you promise trips to Mars in a couple years with no rocket, no vehicle, no nothing? -- You are What you do When it counts. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
R.I.P. Mars One
On 2/11/2019 8:03 PM, Alain Fournier wrote:
Mars One, which was proposing one-way trips to Mars has declared bankruptcy. https://spacenews.com/mars-one-company-goes-bankrupt/ Alain Fournier At least they didn't get sued out of existence by grieving families. Dave |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
R.I.P. Mars One
In article , says...
On 2/11/2019 8:03 PM, Alain Fournier wrote: Mars One, which was proposing one-way trips to Mars has declared bankruptcy. https://spacenews.com/mars-one-company-goes-bankrupt/ Alain Fournier At least they didn't get sued out of existence by grieving families. What crewed spaceflight company has ever been "sued out of existence by grieving families"? When the US does start flying crew commercially, the FAA attitude is more or less make sure that the participants are informed of the risk. That's about it. I don't see this upcoming era of crewed commercial spaceflight being that much different than early aviation when crashes and deaths were frequent. How the heck else are we supposed to learn how to make spaceflight routine and affordable? I keep meaning to buy this book by one of our former frequent posters: Safe Is Not an Option Paperback - October 31, 2013 by Rand E. Simberg (Author), William Simon (Editor), Ed Lu (Foreword) https://www.amazon.com/Safe-Not-Opti.../dp/0989135519 I ought to just buy it on Kindle ($3.79) and read it on my phone (I don't have a dedicated Kindle with e-Ink display). Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
R.I.P. Mars One
On Feb/12/2019 at 12:10, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote on Mon, 11 Feb 2019 20:03:57 -0500: Mars One, which was proposing one-way trips to Mars has declared bankruptcy. https://spacenews.com/mars-one-company-goes-bankrupt/ Is this any surprise? Did they ever do anything but take in money? How can you promise trips to Mars in a couple years with no rocket, no vehicle, no nothing? I agree. I vaguely remember another company which also had a dubious space project. Some company, in Scandinavia I think, was proposing to use decommissioned Russian missiles and put a space tourist where the nuclear warhead was. I don't remember seeing anywhere that the project has been abandoned. But I haven't seen anywhere yet that they have sent to space a customer (or the customers corpse if said customer doesn't survive). Does anyone remember that project? Does anyone know if it has been officially cancelled? Alain Fournier |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
R.I.P. Mars One
On 2/13/2019 6:12 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , says... On 2/11/2019 8:03 PM, Alain Fournier wrote: Mars One, which was proposing one-way trips to Mars has declared bankruptcy. https://spacenews.com/mars-one-company-goes-bankrupt/ Alain Fournier At least they didn't get sued out of existence by grieving families. What crewed spaceflight company has ever been "sued out of existence by grieving families"? Well first. This wasn't a spaceflight company. This was an outfit providing "one-way" trips to Mars. Kinda like those ill fated guided tours up Mt. Everest. When the US does start flying crew commercially, the FAA attitude is more or less make sure that the participants are informed of the risk. That's about it. I don't see this upcoming era of crewed commercial spaceflight being that much different than early aviation when crashes and deaths were frequent. How the heck else are we supposed to learn how to make spaceflight routine and affordable? Jeff please don't confuse spaceflight companies with Mars One. SpaceX at least provisionally is providing a return capability for their proposal. It may require in-situ refueling, but I'm sure they will have that solved before sending up large numbers of people. Unlike Mars One. I keep meaning to buy this book by one of our former frequent posters: Safe Is Not an Option Paperback - October 31, 2013 by Rand E. Simberg (Author), William Simon (Editor), Ed Lu (Foreword) https://www.amazon.com/Safe-Not-Opti.../dp/0989135519 I ought to just buy it on Kindle ($3.79) and read it on my phone (I don't have a dedicated Kindle with e-Ink display). It's an excellent read, yes you should definitely get it. It has really nothing to do with Mars One. Jeff 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. 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. My take is Mars One was ill-considered from the get go. 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. Why the middle man? Maybe once Mars flights are more common 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. Dave |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
R.I.P. Mars One
David Spain wrote on Fri, 15 Feb 2019 08:08:11
-0500: On 2/13/2019 6:12 AM, Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... On 2/11/2019 8:03 PM, Alain Fournier wrote: Mars One, which was proposing one-way trips to Mars has declared bankruptcy. https://spacenews.com/mars-one-company-goes-bankrupt/ Alain Fournier At least they didn't get sued out of existence by grieving families. What crewed spaceflight company has ever been "sued out of existence by grieving families"? Well first. This wasn't a spaceflight company. This was an outfit providing "one-way" trips to Mars. Kinda like those ill fated guided tours up Mt. Everest. Yes, this wasn't a spaceflight company because one can apparently get people to Mars without spaceflight. When the US does start flying crew commercially, the FAA attitude is more or less make sure that the participants are informed of the risk. That's about it. I don't see this upcoming era of crewed commercial spaceflight being that much different than early aviation when crashes and deaths were frequent. How the heck else are we supposed to learn how to make spaceflight routine and affordable? Jeff please don't confuse spaceflight companies with Mars One. Yes, because you can get people to Mars just by having them click their heels together three times and chant, "There's no place like Mars". No spaceflight at all required. SpaceX at least provisionally is providing a return capability for their proposal. It may require in-situ refueling, but I'm sure they will have that solved before sending up large numbers of people. Unlike Mars One. What's that got to do with whether something is 'space flight' (flying through space) or not? I keep meaning to buy this book by one of our former frequent posters: Safe Is Not an Option Paperback - October 31, 2013 by Rand E. Simberg (Author), William Simon (Editor), Ed Lu (Foreword) https://www.amazon.com/Safe-Not-Opti.../dp/0989135519 I ought to just buy it on Kindle ($3.79) and read it on my phone (I don't have a dedicated Kindle with e-Ink display). It's an excellent read, yes you should definitely get it. It has really nothing to do with Mars One. I'm pretty sure no one implied that it did. 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. 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. 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 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. Maybe once Mars flights are more common ... You mean 'more common' as in '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. -- "Taught me how to shoot to kill. A specialist with a deadly skill. A skill I needed to have to be a survivor. It's over now, or so they say. But sometimes it don't work out that way. And you're never the same when you've been under fire." -- Huey Lewis and the News "Walking On A Thin Line" |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
R.I.P. Mars One
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? 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? 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. 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. Maybe once Mars flights are more common ... You mean 'more common' as in 'exist'? Touche. Yes. ... 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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
R.I.P. Mars One
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA's Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity, now in its seventh yearon Mars, has a new capability | Sam Wormley[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | March 24th 10 03:30 AM |
Mars Express radar reveals complex structure in ionosphere of Mars(Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | News | 0 | December 1st 05 05:25 AM |
Buried craters and underground ice -- Mars Express uncovers depthsof Mars (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | News | 0 | December 1st 05 05:20 AM |
Finally, southern hemisphere clouds on Mars![ Polarized clouds on Mars, further evidence for liquid water in Solis Lacus, Mars?] | Robert Clark | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 16th 05 04:45 PM |
JAXA gave up injecting Mars Orbiter "Nozomi" into orbit of Mars (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 10th 03 04:58 AM |