Definitely not in the quantum world. In politics, though, much more useful.

And there you go, my first vote goes to you. ;)

Not only those reasons but the proximity factor is largely rendered moot by the fact you can't just hop in your rocket and get there right away. In neither case is there an emergency rescue coming soon enough to do more than clean up the mess left after the emergency has run its course.

As I see it: Mars firsr, which opens the belt, which provides the mass for tether relays to be built, which then provides the means for rapid and safe travel from Mars orbit to Luna and earth orbit. Hell, call it the Galt Line for snickering.

Then from there you can build shipyards at Mars Planitia as well as mass haulers and more tether cyclers to build orbital infrastructure. Mass is cheapest from the belt to orbit.

And that is where the honest money is to be made. Personally my goal is to build the first pre-fab Martian colony company. :-D. Let Musk get us there and I'll get your colony setup.

Yes it is rather counterintuitive, but that is the frightening yet awesome power of math. ;)

As I like to say "commence sense isn't always common or correct".

I get it.
Now I believe we should have been on Mars by now. You can understand, I'm sure, you can understand how a tyro like me would assume that the closer would be easier. Like many other things I've discovered, the obvious isn't always so obvious.

The first reason Mars is cheaper is because it has an atmosphere. Thin thought it is, it is enough to require less fuel than Luna. The trick is you can use aerobraking to reduce your speed at Mars but for Lina you have to take fuel for reverse thrust.

Second, getting to orbit is pretty much 90-95% of the fuel to get anywhere in the solar system. Climbing out of the gravity well is the main hurdle.

Third, Mars' atmosphere again helps once there. With hydrogen feedstock we can make all the air and water we want, and do it before we even arrive. Also, the difference between a near-absolute vacuum on the moon and op the thin one on Mars means less read shielding required adpnd your suits are much, much thinner, lighter and more maneuverable.
Fourth, look at the moon footage. That hop they do isn't just for show. It happens to be the way to move around in the very small amount of gravity on the moon. On Mars your gait would be much easier and less ungainly - virtually normal compared to Luna. As CircuitGuy and DriveTrain refeenced, Zubrin's book goes into great detail on the specifics. It even includes a deeper explanation with tables on the delta-v for cruising various points in our solar system. Mars is the gateway to the stars for mankind barring some miracle breakthrough that cuts through known laws of physics or technology.

Frontiers are what happen when occupied areas reach saturation. And on the way to that point, organization gets more complex and tightened, as well, with rules and regulations introduced to the totalitarian choking point. Then those with guts look for ways to break through the frontiers, which the overcrowded culture needs for survival. Either spread to virgin territories, or clean up the mess at home.

Our planet has few areas left to spread to: polar regions, deserts, ocean bottoms, mountaintops. Not the most hospitable places, though still easier to get to than Mars. Terra-forming Earth to be fit for human life will, of course, find objection from climate crazies and gaia gurus.

Governments tend to be lenient with pioneers into new frontiers at first, until enough work and progress has been done for looters to be attracted. Even building the internet followed that formula. Just watch the current attempts to milk it.

"First steps down new roads"...and the herd soon follows. In today's world, the frontiers are internal, intellectual, psycho-epistemological. Winning individual liberty in action, not just lip service, is that frontier. Let's hope to achieve it by persuasion, not violence.

I'll get him a club like the astronaut (Alan Shepard?) used on the moon if that's all it takes.

Martian oxygen will be generated by mining oxide minerals, plus a couple of chemical engineering processes. I will be glad to talk to someone about this offline.

I'm working on this issue, but this IS the reason why NASA's program got delayed indefinitely.

"The quickest way to not go to Mars is to go to the moon first." You are correct here, but the real problem is that we have to get a commercial venture like SpaceX out there, rather than a government-subsidized one. Commercial ventures will make their own decisions as to the correct plan of attack.

We've been running the Mars Analogue are search Station for years. It isn't something you'd want to vacation in. Unless you're wierd in the ways we Mars-bound non-m1 people are. ;)

Here is the thing most don't realize: oxygen isn't a scarce resource on a properly done Mars colony.

Yes, low tech is the way to go. We use gas-lifht era technology and chemical reactions to extract O2 from Mars' atmosphere. We take a feedstock of hydrogen and produce water and oxygen from the CO2 laden atmosphere. If we aren't needing water as much we can recycle nearly all of the hydrogen used to extract oxygen from the atmo.

Enough so that we really won't be concerned with venting some oxygen. It will be cheaper and easier to extract more than to compress and store any excess.

Add bacteria.
Easy to feed, can control their growth, and they'll transform oxygen to carbon dioxide.
In addition - you don't want to VENT the oxygen - that's oxygen you need in the system and the plants aren't creating NEW oxygen - they're transforming CO2 into carbon and oxygen - so getting rid of it is just silly - you need to trap excess oxygen - not toss it out of the system. Same for excess CO2 (consider shellfish as a way).

Regardless, there are low tech ways to solve these problems, aren't there?

Or as counter-mass in a tethered rotation system to provide in-transit gravitational acceleration. ;)

I know many. This shouldn't be a surprise as this is how we've settled this planet. Indeed exploring the how's and whys of history gives the needed insight to how we will settle off-Earth.

Entirely. There is a significant advantage to easily harvested resources (Martian Air for example) and building what you need in a way to provide maximal utilization.

I know one.

How many productive people with valuable skills would be willing to move there with all the inconveniences if the goal was to build that earth colony as an incubator for an off-earth colony?

Eject them enroute. Perhaps during liftoff as semi-solid fuel.

Interesting, but I guess I'm dense. I don't see why the costs would be greater, and in both cases lack of oxygen would hinder freedom of movement. However, I am merely an onlooker, and sci-fi reader, with a little knowledge of physics. I strive to be illuminated. Also, the trip to Mars would be a much greater challenge than the trip to Luna.

Now this is an interesting thread. How sustainable is an inhospitable place on earth?

Exactly. Zubrin hashed out a viable plan not only for going to Mars but for establishing a continuous, permanent and failsafe presence there, in his book "The Case for Mars." His price tag for it was orders of magnitude less than the government's cost projection at the time, and Zubrin showed how it could be done almost entirely with COTS hardware (a big part of why it could be so cheap.)

Getting sidetracked on building a Moon base as an intermediary step (instead of a completely separate endeavor,) would be a waste for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that it's a more harsh place even than Mars. The Moon's only advantage is proximity - but the inexpensive craft Zubrin details for his Mars transit would render radiation shielding over long time periods the single biggest obstacle. Everything else would be more difficult to do on the Moon than on Mars.

Not that it wouldn't be cool to have a Moon base - and we almost certainly will at some point - just that it's unnecessary for going to Mars. And as in every case of new exploration in human history, the drive to space exploration will not truly take off (pun if you want one,) until private enterprises a.) see a ton of money to be made in space and b.) governments have sufficiently unshackled private enterprises to allow them to go after it.

Incidentally, nothing in Shadows Live Under Seashells isn't based on actual science.Every aspect of Mars, like every other projection made throughout the book, is entirely grounded in fact. :)

try the Andy Weir book, its very impressive and relies heavily on the sole human on Mars and what he scrounged from resources left on the Red Planet. In this book you don't have to suspend belief at all, its very informative, very scientific, and has a lot of humor (as you;d expect from some who knows hes literally alone on a planet).

http://www.amazon.com/Martian-Andy-Weir-...