Here is the plan: first, we dust off the Apollo-era moon landing module, and associated stuff (including the “rover” vehicle). This will be used to reach the Martian surface. Next, we get the Russians to put a large liquid fueled boosted rocket into orbit. Third, we modify a space shuttle-we convert the cargo bay into living quarters for 4 or 5 astronauts, and the equipment they will have to carry.
So here’s the plan in detail: we launch the modified shuttle (containing the Apollo command module and lander) into high earth orbit, where it meets up with the booster rock, and attaches to it. The booster provides the energy to put the shuttle in the Mars-crossing elliptical orbit . Then 6-7 months later, the boosted parks the shuttle in orbit around Mars. We then use the Apollo command module to land 3 astronauts on the surface. They can spend 3-4 days looking around, gathering samples, snapping pictures, etc. They then leave the surface, and meet up with the shuttle. The boosted is discarded, and the shuttle engines are fired for thetrip back to earth. When they reach earth orbit, they are refueled from the space station, and can then return to earth. Total cost: less than $5 billion. And, this could be done relatively quickly.
In addition, we would use volunteer, civilian astronauts. All of them would sign a release, absolving NASA and the US of any liability. In return for this, they would have the book and movie rights to themselves. So: huge potential reward, and no downside if the thing fails!
This makes a lot more sense than the $100 billion plus plans for a guaranteed return mission. Also, we won’t have to wait 50 years!
How about the more direct way: “Right to the moon, Alice!”
I’m all for space exploration. But there a few holes in your plan.
[ol]
[li]we dust off the Apollo-era moon landing module, and associated stuff (including the rover vehicle): half of all the landing modules and all of the rovers (3?) are still on the Moon. There are no whole landers available, and the cost to fire up for production of one would be expensive.[/li][li]we get the Russians to put a large liquid fueled boosted rocket into orbit: The Russians can barely afford to maintain Mir or put up their promised share of the International Space Station.[/li][li]we then use the Apollo command module to land 3 astronauts on the surface: First, the Apollo landers (if they were available) only held two people. Second, they were designed to land on the Moon, which has half the surface gravity of Mars (1/6 G vs. 3/8 G).[/li][li]they then leave the surface, and meet up with the shuttle: Once again, with twice the gravity, the lunar lander wouldn’t carry enough fuel to get the astronauts back into Martian orbit.[/li][/ol]
OK, let’s make it a suicide mission. Think there would be any volunteers?
You should check out the Mars Society’s plan. Basically, it’s a series of staged missions. First one is a robotic presence that uses Mars’ resources to fill a fuel tank. The second is a manned mission where they add on a section to the first lander and then use the fuel that was prepared to return to Earth. The third mission adds on another section…etc etc. Soon, you have a colony.
The shuttle cannot leave earth orbit.
How much oxygen, water, etc. does the Shuttle hold? What’s its capacity for waste recycling/purification? I don’t believe there’s ever been a Shuttle mission anywhere near the duration of a round trip to Mars.
You wouldn’t want to push that heavy shuttle heat shield all that way. And the cost of refurbishing the one original LEM that we have left (it’s sitting in the Smithsonian and has been deliberately rendered nonfunctional) would be insane–most of the required parts have been out of production for thirty years. The LEM would be working in double the gravity it was designed for, and would have to contend with atmospheric interference as well.
But hey, I shouldn’t be poking holes in your plan. I should be thanking you for showing the same enthusiasm I have for the idea of sending humans to another planet. Keep working on it.
There are some well thought out alternatives. Scientific American recently spelled out several intriguing plans, which can be read here:
http://www.sciam.com/2000/0300issue/0300alpert.html
http://www.sciam.com/2000/0300issue/0300oberg.html
http://www.sciam.com/2000/0300issue/0300singer.html
http://www.sciam.com/2000/0300issue/0300zubrin.html
My personal favorite is the last one, the Mars Direct plan. Not only is it designed to be relatively quick and cheap, it is designed to lock in a commitment from government authorities. Once begun, such a project would be more expensive to walk away from than to continue. Our leaders’ candy-ass attitude toward space exploration has to be confronted in such a manner, or we risk falling into the same trap as we did with Apollo.
I’d go, RM! 
Anything in the name of science.
This suggestion reminds me of Steve Martin’s instructions on how you can get a million dollars and not pay taxes. [Mumble this quickly] First, get a million dollars. [Now speak normally] Second, when the tax man comes…
Sorry, egkelly, but there are quite a few insurmountable problems with your plan. I’m not saying you didn’t research this before you posted, but maybe your research was lacking.
First, we dust off the Apollo-era moon landing module, and associated stuff (including the “rover” vehicle). This will be used to reach the Martian surface.
As AWB pointed out, there are no extant Apollo landing modules to be “dusted off,” and anyway Mars’s gravity is much stronger than the Moon’s so they wouldn’t work for that reason. And for another, unlike the Moon, Mars has an atmosphere. The lunar modules didn’t have heat shields, so you’d have to redesign them anyway.
Third, we modify a space shuttle-we convert the cargo bay into living quarters for 4 or 5 astronauts, and the equipment they will have to carry.
As carnivorousplant mentioned, the space shuttle can’t leave Earth orbit. There are several reasons for this. One is that the shuttle would have to accelerate much more than it ever has, to reach a trans-Mars trajectory. It wasn’t built for that kind of acceleration.
Another reason is that the shuttle isn’t shielded from cosmic radiation or solar flares; in Low Earth Orbit the Earth’s magnetic field takes care of that. Your astronauts would reach Mars either dead from radiation burns or with the beginnings of fatal tumors inside them. Furthermore, I think you underestimate the complexity of “converting the cargo bay into living quarters.”
They can spend 3-4 days looking around, gathering samples, snapping pictures, etc.
All this, for a visit of only 3 or 4 days?! Obviously you just want to get there and plant a flag; you don’t care about doing meaningful science while you’re there.
This makes a lot more sense than the $100 billion plus plans for a guaranteed return mission. Also, we won’t have to wait 50 years!
Where did you get that price tag and timeframe? The Bush-era Space Exploration Initiative described a $450 billion, 30-year plan…obviously bloated and unworkable. Robert Zubrin’s famous and attractive “Mars Direct” architecture puts five humans on Mars after 10 years and $50 billion; I’ve never heard anyone talk about a $100 billion/50 year mission.
**
[/QUOTE]
There we go, that’s the spirit. I’d bet that they could shoot up enough equipment and food that you’d not die for at least a year.
Then, we’d have to rescue you.
I wonder why NASA doesn’t do more of this volunteer stuff. If they’d been able to store up enough food and water to keep me alive for a while, I’d have gladly jumped on board Voyager2, knowing I’d never return…
NASA does do voluenteer stuff. The ask people to see if they want to go to space. People usually say yes. Then they go through extensive tests and training to see if that person is qualified to go into space. This isn’t like “Armagedon” where they take a bunch of people off the street and send them into space. What do you wnat them to do? [ hey buddy yeah you over there peeing in the corner. How would like to go into space? You would? Great! We blast off at 10:15 tomorrow. Be the or be square.] I certainly hope they do not do that.
But not voluenteer siucide stuff.
OK, we’ve got at least two who want to go, consequences be damned. That indicates, to me, that we’ve got enough support to try something really monumental. Here it is: for ten thousand dollars a ticket, we hold a lottery. Proceeds (and advertising) build a private rocket, set to blast off to Mars. Winner gets to forfeit all their life’s possessions in support of the project.
You know what would shut it down? Environmental issues, so we got to make sure that the lottery winner is sterilized.
That should sell, don’t you think? Necros, Orestes?
The author of the article, Robert Zubrin, has also written a fascinating book, “The Case for Mars,” wehere he puts forth his proposals for private exploration and colonization of Mars, followed by government missions. He makes an interesting parallel in the conquest of North America, where it started with mainly corporate concerns, which were then followed by government controls.
> The shuttle cannot leave earth orbit.
Then how do the astronauts get back home? 
The heck with that – sell the TV rights to CBS and film the candidates. The project will pay for itself.
We can call it Not-Survivor.
I’m in. But I’m going dressed as Bugs Bunny.