Perhaps they can borrow the movie set they used to film the fake lunar landings? Also, a few practice rounds in the Nevada desert might be in order. Did the applicants actually pay for this opportunity, how much?

"In addition, an MIT study calculated that should a successful landing be made, the outpost's life support system would fail within 10 weeks of the first landing."
However, this does not negate the statement that Mars One travelers will spend the rest of their lives there.
The half-assed nature of this "plan" kinda reminds me of Marshall Applewhite's Heaven's Gate cult:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Applewhite
They were going to rendezvous with the Hale-Bop comet and get new bodies from some friendly aliens. One important distinction is that Applewhite killed just 37 people. Mars One plans to kill 100 people.

Mars one isnt sending all 100 people to mars. Only 4. It says so I'm the article. And also if you believe that the moon landings were fake, get off this website. This is A science and gadget website. Not a conservative forum.

It used to be that we were supposed to dream big, but now it seems that we have a fear of going (fearlessly) into the night. We want to send 4 people to mars and call it a colony, so if we send 8 people would that constitute a nation? More than that would make it an Empire. If it is to be only four people; Adam, Eve, Cain, and Able, maybe they should colonize the moon instead. The moon is closer and can be resupplied with air, water and food; just like the ISS. The facility could be a lot bigger and hold a lot more people. Could the Lunar Station hold up to 4,000 people, and be stationed for years at a time? A R&D center for technological development that would develop the tech for planetary habitation? Why the big rush to Mars? I know. We have been to the moon, so its like we been there and done that. Although, we did not stay there.

This seems like an expensive suicide mission. The surface temperature of Mars is -60C, or colder so energy requirements just to stop from freezing to death would be enormous. There's no surface liquid water, and no oxygen worth counting on, the atmosphere being about 95% CO2, and highly toxic. All the living modules would require airlocks that would evacuate all the air, or the air to breathe would be steadily lost every time anyone exited the module, or a huge influx of CO2 would enter on re-entry. [CO2 in the Earths atmosphere is about 0.04%] There is zero possibility of growing food except in the living modules, and sunlight is very weak, so artificial light would be essential. The only likely source of power that would be viable would be nuclear, which introduces its own dangers, and the problem of cooling arises, as there is no surface water to draw on. I think 'the rest of their lives,' might be very, very, short, and a reality show, maybe just one edition, and then RIP.

What little hope I had for the success of this venture,faded when reality bit.If we are going to colonize enviroments like this,then a little bioengineering is in order. Until we can produce craft like the EBEs flit around in,we are just not going very far,if we had swift spacecraft then we could establish camps on places like Mars,until then,sending anybody there,is tatamount to burying them alive. Crazy as it seems,the Govt may already posses the technology to make advanced spacecraft(see the disclosure project) but its a Genie that for whatever reason that maybe shouldnt be let out of the bottle right now. What will probaly happen is when these technologies emerge.they will prove so absurdly simple,that the average man will not have to be in chains any longer.

A lot of people have died just trying a trick and yelling "Watch this!!!". This project might have some merit if it where sustainable. But as far as I can tell from what has been published, with no proven large supply of natural resources, it is doomed sooner or later.

They won't get there alive; technology has to be invented to get them there safely. As yet does not exist, life support, radiation protection, and fuel. These kids that think they will be going are dreaming, it won't be them that goes, maybe their children possibly. It’s ridiculous to think they will send anyone to Mars in the next 30 years more than likely much longer, we can’t even get to LEO reliably.

Such extreme pessimism from the article writer and posters, for that MIT study, the reason why they stated the life support would only last 10 weeks is they believed that the amount of plant life required would rapidly cause a build up of dangerous levels of oxygen and that the atmosphere would need to be bled off with nitrogen used to maintain balance which would be in limited supply, this seems short sited to me because separating oxygen from the atmosphere is a reasonably trivial and well understood precess so that the habitats nitrogen doesn't need to be vented. the whole premiss for the one way trip is that its significantly cheaper and easier to do then a return trip.
and Nik, i do not know if you realise this but in your comment you mention that the habitat will have both cooling and heating issues at the exact same time which is a contradiction and the atmosphere would have a pressure value below that of the habitat so there would be no influx of CO2

Why Mars? Why not the Moon? It confuses the space colonization with Mayflower of 1600