Mark says:
"As for comparing apples to oranges the subject was extended stays."
Oh was it? You said:
"The Mars Direct plan total mass is 53.8 tonnes. Of that 10.4 is consumables. The consumables during transit would be actually be about two thirds because the plan also makes use of in-situ resources for O2 and water. So roughly 7 tonnes of a 53.8 tonne mission is required due to the long trip time to Mars. That's less than 15% of the total. Since the delta v to land on Mars is actually smaller with aerobraking than landing on the Moon, the energy requirements to land the same amount of mass at either destination would be close enough that one launch vehicle design could work for either destination and the same amount of mass. You could probably cut corners and get one to work for the moon that would be marginally too small for Mars delivery. Pretty stupid planning if you chose that approach."

It's hard for me to follow through when I don't know what your subject is. Perhaps next time you will mention this subject that you wish to talk about.

Anyhow, as far as extended stays:
I have in the past explained why I don't favor a permanent NASA lunar base. I don't see why NASA should be mining- whether it's on Earth, Moon, Mars, or some unknown planet in a distant solar system. I also don't think it's NASA job to operate the Shuttle, or run ISS, nor do I think it's NASA's job to colonize Mars, or terraform it. NASA job is exploration of space. The only reason that NASA finds itself in the position of operating the Shuttle & ISS is because it *was thought* that it would encourage the development of space- commerical development.
Obviously this idea didn't work the way it was advertised- private companies aren't building "next generation shuttles", nor did the Shuttle lower costs so that things like SPSs could economically built. The *actual result* was pretty much the opposite of the ad. [Also we don't need to wait another decade or two to know the result of NASA running ISS- the future result should be plain to see. As would *any* NASA lunar mining, or attempts to colonize the Moon or Mars.]
Now, as far as NASA exploring the Moon. The reason NASA would explore the Moon is to see if there are any minable resources (resources which would be extracted at a total cost which would be significantly lower than the cost of getting resources *elsewhere* [yes, including Earth). For a list of a resources which *aren't* minable, just look at just about any NASA publication regarding lunar mining- things like mining oxygen, He3, sinstered bricks, etc. These AREN'T minable- it doesn't matter how rich the "ore" was.
Whereas lunar water *could* be minable. PMG could also perhaps be minable. If there was minable lunar water, other things including things which could on the NASA lists of lunar resources, might be minable.
I believe the key to the Moon (and the rest of solar system) could be minable lunar water. If there isn't minable lunar water, the next possible "key" would be NEO with minable water or PMG. The Moon is simply the easier destination, as compared to some yet to be discovered resource in a NEO.
Now, if surveyed with robotic/landers/orbitor/probe sufficently prior to crew going to the Moon, THEN it wouldn't require much time on the surface for the crew. Two days would probably NOT be enough time; Two weeks might be; two months is tons of time.
Mars on the other hand is different. You have a huge time investment getting crew there and back again. In terms of mission risk, you might go the first time to Mars and spend a relatively short time. But otherwise you want the crew to stay on Mars for as long as is "reasonable" as far as human *endurance* allows. The tax payer would get more value & the crew would get more value with longer stay durations.
Plus what they are doing on Mars will probably require a long time to do, e.g. find life. Even if they find life the first day, then there will be the possiblity of other life to find. What is this life, how would it interact with any human activity, and how would human activity interact with it, etc, etc? Another importance issue is the groundwork needed for possible future colonization- this will also take a fair amount of time.
Now, if you don't *have* CATS you aren't going to get colonization of Mars. And the whole reason for manned mars mission occurring within the near term instead waiting for some indefinite future time, largely would depend on CATS. NASA doing Manned Mars will not give CATS any more then the Shuttle or ISS gave Cheaper Access To Space.
Commerical Lunar mining would give CATS. And/or so, would NEO mining.