Yes, that is an important distinction. But in recent years, the gap between possible and practical tends to shorten quite fast. I guess they take advice from the "singularitarian" type futurists, and base their plans on the expectation of accelerating growth in available technology and resources. That is a risky bet, but until they actually send a person to space, they only risk as much as your next TV startup. And who knows if that will ever happen. However, there is hope they will help to promote and advance the necessary technology.

That's the experience with antarctic bases because it is cheaper to send supplies there. The balance is different on Mars. There was no experiment so far wit an explicit goal and sufficient funding to achieve as much self-sufficiency as possible in Antarctic. Space station is closer, but it's a closed system, so also different. We can use our experience from both cases, but Mars will be unique.

It is largely about Mars One and their timeline. For example, they assume Falcon Heavy to be the largest available transport, while SpaceX Raptor engine and Mars Colonial Transporter may become available shortly after the Mars One projected dates.

It is impossible to imagine every possible approach to build a Mars Base, so it is logical that they evaluate a specific plan.

They also make a lot of assumptions, for example: "If crops grown on Mars are the only food source, they will produce unsafe oxygen levels in the habitat." I imagine that beside traditional crops, one could use algae, bacteria, maybe insects to try and balance that. Also, as a Mars base is not a closed system, this balance could be supported from the outside environment.

Mars One does not claim that the current level of detail in their plan is sufficient. The problem is they are handwaving by saying "well, we will outsource the design". Perhaps it is good to push for more details by analyzing the currently available details like this. But while doing so, one necessarily makes a lot of assumptions, so it is unfair to present it as if the whole idea is proven unsustainable. And that is the impression people will get from articles like this. There must be a way for a more constructive discussion.

Great post. I would only like to emphasize that we don't have to build a 100% self-sustaining colony from the first launch, and that a Mars base is not a closed environment. So, two comforting factors:

1. Importing even only a few small key components (like CPUs or nuclear fuel) can cut a huge part of that tech tree you mentioned, until the local capabilities are improved.

2. We still have a whole huge planet there. It may not have all the same resources we have on Earth, so optimal technological processes may differ, but once you start leveraging local resources at large scale, some inputs may become really cheap and solve parts of your tech tree in other ways than it is currently done on Earth.

Learning how to solve this bootstrapping problem will be one of top benefits we get from this project.

There's also hope that to keep the impression of working towards a real colony, they might sponsor some space-related research & development. And there is some value even in simply making the colonization idea more popular and raising discussion about it. Now, for example, whoever plans a Mars colony, will know he has to address some points mentioned in this MIT study.

Instead of wasting time and money on attacking straw men based on your assumptions, how about taking a part of the problem that you fully understand, and spending the same time and money on working out a solution?

Anyway, this might be a useful way to troll Mars One for adding more essence to their plans. Given that "the team is willing to update their analysis if more information becomes available", this could become a nice opportunity for Mars One if they use it wisely.

"If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

Granted, this study is supposedly more than a one man's rant, but I'm afraid that the room for assumptions is too big to guarantee an unbiased conclusion.

It is now Mars One team's move to provide a good rebuttal. So far, Bas Lansdorp's response is inadequate:

Indeed; a decent education for a web designer, for example, is hard to come by. People with CS and print design backgrounds are filling it. For mobile design it's even worse. The education system simply cannot keep up.

You had me until the cruise ships and the international travel ban. Now I'm scratching my had about whether the rest of your post is just as groundless, and if I should review my own wishful thinking that prevented me from filtering it earlier.

The Pirate Bay definitely deserves praise for staying up, despite being famous and constantly attacked by the media mafia. They bring hope that one day we may live in a world where sharing of knowledge, art and data is encouraged rather that prosecuted, and that some of today's files will survive until then, as well.

It will require a lot of work until we get there in the social realm (fighting the abusive law). It may help if technical solutions exist (decentralization, anonymity, security) that allow everyone to ignore the nonsensical law, to make the case even more obvious and to get by with our files in the meanwhile.

They should put this in Sheldon's script! It is pure beauty!

A brief summary of the winners is here.

Yes. More people should read "Elements of Style" and "On Writing Well".

True. Finding interesting destinations and developing new propulsion methods are mutually complementary tasks. Both are important and can be done in parallel by people with different talents and interests.