>>Is going to Mars cheaper than going to the Moon?

I seriously doubt it for several reasons.

Radiation. The trip to the moon is four days, the trip to mars is at least seven months. The radiation problem means that the craft will have to be lined with much more radiation blocking materials. This will add hugely to the launch cost.

Planning - A trip to Mars will mean many more probes and landers. This is going to be extremely expensive.

Danger - The odds of a disaster are statistically much higher for any vehicle going to mars. This will mean much more research and time, hence much more money)

We could go to the moon now, with the current technology. Going to Mars will need many more technologies to be completed.

I think the real reason for going to the moon should be to mine Helium-3. If they can get Helium3 fission to work, it could solve all the Earths power problems. Helium 3 is extremely rare on Earth, but it is (apparantley) in huge quantities on the Moon.

[edit]
I missed the point in your question first time, the title confused me. I'm not sure of the actual answer, other than the moon has fuel and water, it could be cheaper in the long run to use this rather than lift this up from the earth.
[/edit]



[Edited on 20-1-2004 by Zzub]

I heard about that. Taking off from the moon uses less fuel. The moon dosent have an atmosphere and gravity like earth does.

jup and the developement of newkinds of energy and propulsions systems is better to been done on the moon caus some physics are to extreem to be tested on earth.

In the long run it would be cheaper to have a moon base, , but to start off with , it is more expensive, ou have to send the building materials to the moon then consturuct the base, where as if you constructed a earth based Mars only base, it would be cheaper on Earth, but then again if you were worried about the security of the base, the moon would be best, at least you wont get people breaking through the fences.