We've already been to the moon, and have the technology to return if we so choose. The importance of going to Mars is that it's a far greater
technological challenge - and the technology we develop to overcome these difficulties will be of as great a benefit to humanity as the technologies
we developed to travel to the moon.
Further, setting up a permanent colony on the moon makes little sense except in the context of an observatory (due to the absence of a substantial
atmosphere and light sources) - which we can operate unmanned and remotely. Due to the lack of resources, the colony would be utterly dependent upon
the Earth for all resources - which will put a large strain on NASA's budget. Shipping rocket fuel up to the Moon and storing it there would be
highly inefficient as well. It'd be like spending a gallon of gas to transport a bucket of fuel to a destination. By going to Mars, we can mine the
planet for resources. We can create rocket fuel from the atmosphere, building materials from the surface and underground, not to mention Mars still
has at least some reserves of water. Mars is also a very stable planet, not being geologically active - and it's weather is negligible - providing a
greatly reduced risk to personnel and equipment. Even Mars's infamous dust storms are not much of a threat, since the atmospheric density of Mars is
far less that what is on Earth. Even 50-70mph winds would feel like no more than a gentle breeze here on Earth. After all, our light-weight Mars
rovers have survived these dust storms unharmed (aside from the dust itself getting within the machinery). The possibility of future transformation is
another key feature. It will take quite a long time to accomplish this, and although Mars cannot sustain such a state - it would take far longer to
wear off than our species can realistically expect to be around.
The trip wouldn't necessarily be one way either. I've read proposals from the Mars Society which indicate that unmanned pre-fab outposts could be
sent which would construct themselves and begin the process of sequestering rocket fuel for a return trip to Earth before the crew even arrives -
allowing for immediate abort upon arrival. To save on rocket fuel, the capsule carrying crew and equipment would be put into a spin as it flings
towards Mars - which also has the added benefit of at least some form of artificial gravity that can combat muscle atrophy.
Besides, if you want to talk about "order to exploration" - then it would make far more sense to explore our oceans before ever going into space.
75% of our planet is covered in water. 50% of the territory the US owns is covered by water. We have better maps of Venus than we do of our own
oceans. This means that we are ignoring 75% of the resources on our own planet. The oceans represent one of the largest gold mines (literally) on our
planet, and we simply ignore it. For example, one year of NASA's budget would fund NOAA for 1,000 years. Why? People talk of ignoring the Moon, but
what of our own planet? Want to find ways to set up colonies on alien planets or our moon, but why not start a project to colonize our own planet?
[edit on 18-11-2008 by Lasheic]