I agree, at least to the degree that they're "obvious"... ie, the HUD/glasses form factor is the culprit. You look like a Borg, it's kinda creepy, etc.. But to me the most attractive aspect of G/Glass was simply its ability to record my movements throughout the day, like a policeman's lapel-cam. At the end of the day, I could save a few highlights, and clear the buffer, like a diary.

As for the HUD display, augmented reality is overrated, If I need "augmented" info in real time like that, I'll get an iWatch instead. However I do like the idea of a "body-cam" to serve as a record in case something happens. And this could be done with clip-on, blue-tooth jewelry (perhaps in a "swarm" for 3D capture) instead of a face-mounted camera-cum-display gizmo.

So yeah, as TFA says, they'll "save the technology" for later use..

Looks like a very interesting book, thanks for the link.

My point was that Mars-One doesn't have to bring down costs because the industry is already doing that. Lansdorp is just betting that the costs will be within reach by the time he has to start bending metal. That gives him a few years, realistically, to ramp up the TV show and start generating some revenue. In the meantime, SpaceX will have upended the launch industry with the advent of reusability and Dragon.V2 will have flown astronauts to the ISS. You have to view it in that context, not the current one.

Do I think Mars-One is a bit "too visionary" to ever become reality? Yeah, of course I do. But that doesn't mean it's impossible. It's not possible today, certainly, but I think it is possible -- just barely -- in the long run, and I'm sure Mr. Lansdorp agrees.

Also, I'm sure I don't have to remind anyone here what most folks thought of that wooly-headed visionary Elon Musk about 13 years ago...

Ditto.

Obviously they didn't have SpaceX's capabilities available when they approved the Curiosity mission over a decade ago.

Having a rocket thruster that can ignite in supersonic mode is a game-changer, especially for Mars. Most people in "the business" didn't think it was possible until SpaceX proved them wrong. This is just another example of folks not realizing how much the game has changed while they weren't paying attention.

We are on the brink of massive changes in aerospace... I just hope enough people will "tune in" before it's too late.

Remember Viking I and II? They didn't need complicated airbags/sky-cranes and such because they used a "brute-force" powered landing just like Apollo. But SpaceX now claims to have a Super-Draco thruster that can ignite under supersonic conditions... IOW, SpaceX claims it's Dragon.V2 capsule can land propulsively on "any surface" in the solar system, including (especially) Mars. Based on recent performance in the last few years, how much money would you be willing to bet that Elon Musk is wrong about this?

This is where the reusable booster comes in handy... if your limiting factor is fuel, then just use multiple cheap launches to assemble the hardware and fuel on orbit before trans-mars injection.

I can certainly understand the skepticism, but I think a lot of the skeptics are not up to speed with the latest in NewSpace. For example, SpaceX is on the verge of proving the viability of reusing booster stages... that alone will drop the cost-per-pound to orbit by an order of magnitude.

There are dozens of companies such as Masten, Sierra Nevada, Armadillo, XCOR, MoonEx, Bigelow (etc) some of which have been profitable for many years, working on various aspects of the overall project (for their own purposes of course), such as RCS thrusters, GNC avionics, spacesuits, hab modules, etc.. So a lot of the stuff Mars-One will need is already available off the shelf, and at a much lower cost than NASA has traditionally paid in the past.

Comparing Mars-One's plans to past experience is an apples-to-oranges comparison. You have to evaluate their plans according to what can reasonably be expected within the next half-decade or so.

Exactly. As Elon has noted many times, when you have to forcefully recall your product from unwilling customers who then go on to hold a candle-light vigil for the destruction of their cars, the "market" is not a barrier to your product... you're doing all this because you want to kill it, pure and simple.

Perhaps the market was small and upscale, but it existed, and it was strong. GM could have pursued development in this space, but it vehemently decided not to. Tesla just picked up that residual demand and built on it.

As DSI and PR get up to speed, we're going to have an avalanche of data to process. As long as they're willing to give back, I'm happy to donate some CPU time to their efforts.

But there's a whole 'nuther layer of potential... having amateur astronomers net-link their instruments to the overall effort... what kind of pinpoints could we arrive at by crunching the numbers from thousands of points on our globe?

LOL!! The Fed may be independent of gov't but it's not independent of corporate plutocracy. Indeed, this is the crucial struggle of our times, wresting control of our politics and our economy from these fat-cat SOBs.

Get thee hence to Wolf-PAC.com and pitch in to help save our democracy from these blood-suckers.

At about 10m15s in this press conference, Elon calls hydrogen a "pernicious molecule" while fielding a question about fuel cells. He also mentions some other drawbacks, such as its being odorless and invisible (so you can't smell when it's leaking), and it's extremely flammable... and burns with an invisible flame.

Hydrogen is very efficient as a rocket fuel, which is why it's used. But liquid methane is pretty good too, and has a lot fewer "issues" to deal with.

And the Fed's so-called "quantitative easing" is different from that... how?

It appears that the debt-backed money system we've been using since 1971 (when Nixon closed the gold window) has run itself out to its logical conclusion: an exponential explosion of debt as we approach the vertical asymptote.

I'm not arguing for a gold standard; a fiat system can work just fine as long as the quantity is controlled sensibly, as you imply. But I don't think that ceding the "issuing power" to private banks is a good solution either. For example, the Bank of North Dakota strikes a good balance. It doesn't issue currency per se, but it does handle all the state's revenues, and makes loans (which is essentially the same thing as issuing currency) to local banks and some other institutional borrowers. And the interest on those loans goes into ND's coffers instead of being paid to, say, Goldman Sachs.

So, contrary to what the GP said, ND is in fact "making a profit" from all this, which is a distinct benefit to all its citizens.

The gov't could at least lose less money if it issued its own currency (beyond just coins) instead of borrowing its money supply from privately owned banks.

If the population of hard-to-spot brown dwarf stars turns out to be higher than previously thought, would the increased mass be enough to account for dark matter?

You can't be serious. Of COURSE there will be a "free hardware" movement. It's already beginning to happen...

Hm... well, I got myself all het-up to rant, but seem to have blown it in the first line of text. That pretty much covers it.

G'night...

Moon-Ex CEO Bob Richards was on a panel at the International Symposium on Personal and Commercial Spaceflight (ISPCS) last October. He didn't break any "news" there, but gave a welcome update on the latest developments. Very interesting talk, worth a look.