The for or against opinions have only minimal experiences with regards to no atmosphere and conjecture for viable mining. We are not able to simulate either unless we build a domed vacuum filled environment to play out either of these scenarios. Until we do this we will not be able to answer these questions to which does it make sense to use for the proposed moon to mars plan and until we do we will not know if it does have any merit.

The moon is definitely the FIRST destination in outer space because there is such a demand for trips to the moon. It'll be a fast (one week) and cheap trip compared to a Mars trip (six months). No comparison.
Outer space will be developed by tourism. Not by mining. Let's all jump on the moon bandwagon and stop bickering and be patient for Mars trips.

"I regard this suggestion with deep scepticism because of the immense technical difficulty of mining steel-hard and highly abrasive permafrost under conditions of permanent darkness, at the bottom of steep and rugged craters, at temperatures so low that most metals in the mining equipment are as brittle as glass."

Awesome. Half of the exploration is in the methods and technology that needs to develop so that we can do what we need to do there in the first place. Although im sure it wasnt the authors inention, this reminded me alot of when Kennedy spoke about how we would make materials, some of which did not even exist yet, which would get us to the moon the first time around. Every new frontier is rugged, thats half the fun.

Though we can go to the moon in just a few days, we must also prepare for a long duration flight to simulate the conditions of a 6 month journey as near to reality that we can make it but also do it with backups for just incase something should go wrong along the way. Trying to simulate a first base on mars construction, lenghty stay as well and return trip home to study all effects of going to Mars some time in the future. This means probably designing a one of a kind mixed typology style ship and probably even assembling pieces together in orbit most likely. The design would lay down some but not all of the basic perameters for a Mars size craft and mission.

My wish is that someone comes up with a new homestead act, like the one they did back in the 1800's. Give us the tools and the way, we'll tame the frontier.

It most likely would have to come from the UN since most nations feel that they can not own the moon or other such property. Also with freeing up that gate as you will. You will then need a new style of property rights and clearing house to keep others from making or staking false claims to rights that are not theirs. The 1800's of old had other provisions that also made it harder in that you must live and utilize the property for a specific length of time before claim was completely validated as good.

All easily done, relatively speaking. Hardship helps ingenuity. If we wait to perfect a system to live either on the moon, mars or an asteroid, we wait to long. We become over reliant on technology and technology will, at some point, fail. Give me access to any of these places, a power supply, air to breath, food to eat and a shovel and I will make a home. (figuratively speaking)

As it stands the best that we can do for a ride is only to LEO for about 26 million if the Russians think they need the cash. I guess letting a civilian pilot the first flight back into space for the shuttle would be out of the question even if you bought it out right, of course blue book value. So unless the bake off idea is accelerated we wil still be waiting for a very long time to come.
From spacepolitics site:
Craig Steidle confirmed some earlier reports that NASA is planning to have a "flyoff" of two different Crew Exploration Vehicle concepts in 2011. The RFP to select those two teams will be issued in about a year.

For now, yes. I liked the way Stephen Fleming explained it at the public hearing in Atlanta.
Now he knows what needs to be done. Look at http://www.moontomars.org/docs/032504SlidesFleming.pdf

Hi Harold.....Just a bit of thinking here....Here is China..already flying a manned spacecraft with the probable potential of Apollo....They have used what the Russians and the US have gathered over 40 years of spaceflight and have the potential to do great things in space..Their spacecraft,from what I understand,is on the lines of " Star-Trek " tech.In the mean- time NASA is going around and around,not only in orbit,but here on Earth also !!The " Can-Do " of NASA I feel is lost...If you read the book by Gene Krantz," Failure Is Not an Option ",you'll know what I mean.....My suggestion is this..pull out everything we have learned from the past,research what we have lost,modernize and scrutinize;but not to the point of stopping and not pushing the envelope....This so called " Fly-off " I think is rediculous and " Grand-Standing "....Get the contracts signed,hire the right people,and start " Bending Metal ".....The longer we have this commission or that commission,the less chance Mr. Bush's goals will be realized...Work with what we have..use what works and trash the rest!!! What is so darned difficult with that ?.......The Shuttle C is a Saturn 5 class heavy lifter....it can be changed to fit any situation that is needed...Is NASA not listeneing again ?........If that is the case; then I feel sorry for them and the proud folks of this great space-faring nation......May-be we should all begin to learn to speak " Chinese ".???? Thanks ...and remember these words "FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION "

I agree that the can do spirit seems to be gone from NASA at least inpart from Mr. Okeefe since all he seems to be, is so wrapped up by the shuttle disaster and review board. For what It seems to me is an over exagerated safety concern of shuttle use.
It seems that no one wants to do anything that would be viewed as going against the Presidents mandate of the SEI vision and the use of the Commision until a report is filed.
IMO they do not have to wait but since we are unable to use the shuttle every one would it seems do nothing instead.

If Boeing and Lockheed want to be providers of comodities (space vehicles, Rockets), then they should build them and have them waiting for use. Just like anything else that is bought by the average joe for NASA to purchase and then use as each mission dictates due to application and needs. NASA should not design what they want and then turn around and say your the contractor.