on 5 February 2019 for non-compliance with the FSE regulations when the number of shares was increased in 2017. In February 2019, it was reported that Mars One had declared bankruptcy in a Swiss court on 15 January 2019, and was permanently dissolved as a company. The total debt is approximately €1 million. Criticism Mars One received a variety of criticism, mostly relating to medical, technical and financial feasibility. There were also unverified claims that Mars One was a scam designed to take as much money as possible from donors, including reality show contestants. Many criticized the project's US$6 billion budget as being too low to successfully transport humans to Mars, to the point of being delusional. A similar project study by NASA estimated the cost of such a feat at US$100 billion, although that included transporting the astronauts back to Earth. Objections had also been raised regarding the reality TV project associated with the expedition. Given the transient nature of most reality TV ventures, many believed that as viewership declined, funding could significantly decrease, thereby harming the entire expedition. Further, contestants reported that they were ranked based on their donations and funds raised. Academia John Logsdon, a space policy expert at George Washington University, criticized the program, saying it appeared to be a scam and not "a credible proposition". Chris Welch, director of the Masters Programs at the International Space University, said "Even ignoring the potential mismatch between the project income and its costs and questions about its longer-term viability, the Mars One proposal does not demonstrate a sufficiently deep understanding of the problems to give real confidence that the project would be able to meet its very ambitious schedule." Gerard 't Hooft, theoretical physicist and ambassador to Mars One, has stated that he thought both their proposed schedule and budget were off by a factor of ten. He said he still supported the project's overall goals. A space logistics analysis conducted by PhD candidates at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology revealed that the most optimistic of scenarios would require 15 Falcon Heavy launches that would cost approximately $4.5 billion. They concluded that the reliability of Environmental Control and Life Support systems (ECLS), the Technology Readiness Levels (TRL), and in situ resource utilization (ISRU) would have to be improved. Additionally, they determined that if the costs of launch were also lowered dramatically, together this would help to reduce the