Hey Albert. Perhaps, instead of personally attacking the author, you could offer some insight into some of the issues she’s raised about Mars One.

For example, could you explain why Mars One didn’t post the true figures for the number of applicants? Why did they feel the need to exaggerate?

Why haven’t they secured a media partner who would provide the bulk of the financing for the mission?

Why did Mars One at first claim that they would only need to use existing technology, then changed their statements to say that they would need to design and develop new ones? And how are they able to do this without increasing their 6 billion dollar budget?

Why did they attack the MIT feasibility study, then claim it supported the feasibility of Mars One when the authors clearly denied ever saying it was technically possible?

Why is Mars One asking its candidates to withhold information from the media and to ‘manage’ the press rather than being open and transparent? And why ask the candidates to praise the training program when the training program hasn’t even been implemented as of yet?

These are all legitimate questions that need answers, not simply contrarian criticisms. It worries me that Mars One and Lansdorp have been less than forthcoming about dealing with these very serious issues.

Could you provide us with some insight, Albert?