Is the Mars One mission a scam?
In 2012, Dutch entrepreneur Bas Lansdorp announced plans for the Mars One project – an extremely ambitious mission to establish a permanent human settlement on Mars in 2027.
One of the main funding options for the project was a reality TV series, which would document the chosen volunteers as they embark on a one-way trip to Mars and colonise its red, desolate landscape. However, as soon as the project was announced, concerns were raised over the technical and financial feasibility of such an endeavour.
More recent criticisms even suggest that the entire project could be an outright scam that is deliberately fleecing its supporters.
Joseph Roche (an assistant professor at Trinity College’s School of Education in Dublin) was one of the lucky few to become one of the ‘Mars 100’. They are the shortlisted finalists who have been whittled down from thousands of applicants and are now competing for the few places available on the Mars One mission.
Last month however, Roche spoke out against Mars One and expressed many doubts he had about the organization. In particular, he was becoming increasingly concerned over the organization’s apparent exploitation of its most dedicated supporters, as well as the flawed selection process for applicants.
Roche claims that candidates were given points during the selection process and that these points determined their likelihood of getting to the next stage of applications. However, as Roche noted: “the only way to get more points is to buy merchandise from Mars One or to donate money to them”. As a result, the most high-profile and leading contenders of the ‘Mars 100’ are the ones that made the most money for Mars One through the buying of merchandise and donations.
Essentially, the leading finalists paid for their positions.
Roche also stated that when finalists received payments for interviews, it was requested that they donate 75% of the profit to Mars One. The request for appearance fees is suspicious when you consider a project to colonise Mars requires billions of dollars to succeed. The profit made by an applicant’s media appearance would almost certainly be insignificant for such an endeavour- so why are Mars One milking their applicants for minimal donations and appearance fees?
There was also the matter of the selection process, which required hopefuls to fill out a questionnaire, upload a video to the project’s website, get a medical examination…and then have a ten minute Skype conversation with someone from Mars One. That’s it. Roche says he has not met anyone from Mars One in person, and that there were no rigorous psychological or psychometric testing as part of his assessment.
That being said, the rather laidback selection process has resulted in a number of eccentric characters appearing in the ‘Mars 100’. Take Polish man M1-K0 for instance, who claims on the Mars One website to be “one of the first four Martians to arrive on your planet”. Apparently, he has spent his time on Earth studying humanity and is now one of the leading finalists to be chosen for the mission.
It’s rather hard to take the entire endeavour seriously when one of their high-profile, leading finalists is apparently a Martian looking for a ride home.
At times, it feels that the ultimate aim of Mars One is to create an extraordinarily profitable reality TV event- rather than achieving the milestone of sending people to another planet for the first time in history.
A number of other issues also harm Mars One’s credibility. First of all, the organization’s contract with the TV production company Endemol is no longer in place. This means the proposed reality TV series set on Mars (which Mars One claimed could generate $6 billion in revenue) is not happening and as a result, the organization have lost their main source of funding. Additionally, theoretical physicist Gerard ’t Hooft (an advisor for the project) stated a more realistic launch date for the mission would be 100 years away and not in 2027.
Just to summarise then: applicants for the Mars One mission are paying the organization to secure their place and handing over money from media appearances. The selection process is about as extensive as a job application to Tesco. Mars One have lost their proposed main source of funding. Their advisor doubts the mission will launch within this century. One of their leading finalists is a Martian from Poland.
It’s quite easy to see why many people consider Mars One to be an outright scam at this point.
In a recent video, Mars One founder Bas Lansdorp addressed some of Roche’s concerns about the organization’s integrity. He stated that the “selection process will be much more thorough from here on” and went on to argue that claims that candidates bought their way through the process were untrue by saying “there are a lot of current Round Three candidates that did not make any donations to Mars One and there are also lot of people that did not make it to the third round that contributed a lot to Mars One”. Finally, Lansdorp said Mars One are working with a new production company and are currently selling their documentary series to an international broadcaster. “There is no deal in place yet,” Lansdorp admits. “But it is looking very promising and there is a lot of interest”.
It’s difficult to determine for sure whether the mission is a deceptive scam that exploits the public’s interest in space or just a poorly organized, unprepared endeavour that is way out of its depth.
Either way, it’s now clear more than ever that Mars One will not be heading to Mars any time soon.
Comments (5)
Here is one of the candidates rebuttal to the reported criticism, for a balanced view of the subject:
https://youtu.be/O-mjGkHvH3c
Hi Christian, thanks for the video. Bans Lansdorp made similar points in the video he released following Roche’s criticism- some of which I addressed in the article, such as the claim that the selection process will be a lot more rigorous and thorough from now on, and that Mars One are currently securing a deal with a new production company.
However, my conclusion in the article is that Mars One is potentially just a “poorly organized, unprepared endeavour that is way out of its depth” rather than an outright scam, and I still maintain that opinion. This is because its received criticism from almost every angle- the issues with funding; technological concerns; the unrealistic timeline and launch date; the flawed selection process; the ‘Martian’ candidate called M1-K0 etc. It’s hard not to be skeptical, which is why I think the majority of the public have lost faith in the mission.
So, as a Mars One candidate yourself, I’d be interested to know whether you think Mars One has a chance of succeeding and launching in 2027 despite the criticism? And whether you’d agree that Mars One, up to now, has been poorly organised?
Personally I think it’s too early to pass judgement on whether Mars One is out of their league or not, I’m convinced that the mission is technically feasible, the big question is whether Mars One can raise the money they need quickly enough to meet the ambitious timeline, and I’m not in a position to argue one way or the other at this point in the process.
Your conclusion is yours to reach, I will not argue that, but, in my opinion, basing it on the amount of criticism the project has received is a poor choice, you should, again, in my opinion, take the validity of the criticism into account too. My fellow candidate Ryan MacDonald addresses Dr. Roches criticism very well, in my opinion, and I agree with him on almost all the points he makes.
As for the chances of success, I agree (and I’ve said this in almost every interview I’ve given, though it has rarely made the cut into actual articles) that I believe they are small. A lot of us candidates agree that they are, but if you want something to happen, you do not give up because the chances of it happening are small, you contribute in order to increase the odds.
The project management could have made better choices here and there (especially with the benefit of hindsight, if I’d been in charge there’s only a few things I could say I’d have done differently at the time, that would have been for the better and quite a few situations I’d likely have messed up badly), but having seen some fraction of the work that goes on behind the scenes, I wouldn’t call them poorly organised, they haven’t always been well geared for public reactions but that’s more a matter of manpower than organisation.
In conclusion, I’m not saying don’t be skeptical, I’m saying be skeptical of everyone, the skeptics too, dig for sources and form your own opinion, if you subscribe to other peoples opinions, make sure you trust those people.
Thank you for replying and answering my questions Christian. I think your insight as a Mars One candidate further confirms my own personal opinion that Mars One has been poorly managed at times and overly ambitious- rather than being an outright scam (though, it’s hard to determine for sure).
I’d like to point out though that my conclusion was not based on the amount of criticism the project has received but on the essential facts at the heart of the controversy surrounding Mars One- most notably, the concerns about funding; the overly ambitious and unrealistic timeline; the fact one of the ‘Mars 100’ is a ‘Martian’ called M1-K0 etc.
Whilst there are conflicting reports on certain issues which often seem to be one person’s story versus another (such as the thoroughness of the selection process and claims that candidates essentially paid for their place- all of which I acknowledged both sides of the argument for in the article), I feel the aforementioned factors are indisputable and are what led me to the conclusion that Mars One has been poorly managed, overly ambitious and unprepared- whether or not the endeavor is a scam or legit.
The CEO of Y&R (of Mad Men fame) who has masterminded billions in revenue at the Olympics, Paul Romer, and other media Titans disagree with the conventional wisdom that the funding plan is impractical.
If you research the history of colonial expeditions, you will find that quite often, these ventures had exotic or unprecedented JIT funding models with plans and technology ridiculed by many experts. Thankfully, they went anyway or we wouldn’t be here to argue the point.