Let's spend 5 to 10 % of the cost of a Mars mission to go to NE asteroids when even 2 mile diameter ones have < 0.1 ppb (.00000001 %) of the mass of Mars, < 0.3 ppm (0.00003%) the surface area, no useful atmosphere, can not possibly sustain a colony due to limted resources, has no near term hope of avoiding the effects of low gravity, has virtually no chance of harboring life, garners little public attention JUST because it is cheaper. All of space is a hard sell to the average Joe having trouble meeting his credit card payments. It's too bad some people use this as an excuse to bash the best candidate in a lame attempt to somehow elevate even less attractive candidates.

Mars garners avid support from many space advocates (including the largest plurality of the NSS) because it is the best candidate for a sustainable off-Earth colony. The Moon would be a far better business opportunity as a tourist attraction (LEO possibly even better) if launch costs were low enough for many people to afford it. Unfortunately this appears to be a long way off. It is a big barrier for colonizing Mars as well, but in a self sustaining environment it is a much lower barrier. The asteroids only make sense as a resource for the Moon, Mars, or space infrastructure for which there is currently no demand.

Regards,
Mark

PS The US space program costs far less per person than the cost of attending the Mars Society.

PPS How many people are attending conferences dedicated solely to exploring asteroids?