Again, "those that understand the significance of the rocket equation and experience with cost benefit analysis do have more insight than those who look solely at distance and travel time." - "the rest of your post was a digression"

Not really, just a legitimate questioning of your remark regarding "cost benefit analysis". I wanted to know what the benefits were and how they were valued. As with any sort of hypothetical situation, such as space development, the assumptions that are made are crucial to the analysis. Additionally, you state "Mars has the resources we need to establish a permanent presence off Earth not the Moon." How do you value that for your cost-benefit analysis? How do you propose to make those resources of benefit to those stuck here on Earth?

"Apparently you exercises didn't include looking at the delta v to reach the Moon and Mars."

Not the rocket equation staging exercises specifically, however I was team leader on the launch and TMI group for our PISCES project. I am not unfamiliar with the delta-V requirements for both cislunar space and the trip to Mars. However, I also feel that dismissing an argument strictly on delta-V aspects is inaccurate and short-sighted.

"keep promoting returning to the Moon as our next step and building a base there to support a mission to Mars." - "Using it as a staging ground for Mars is not one of them."

Use of a Moon base strictly to support a mission to Mars is a ridiculously stupid idea, and I've never argued for that to be the case. However, as part of a larger cislunar architecture that covers a number of functions, including resources for near-space development and even supply support for a Mars mission (such as oxygen, radiation shielding, and so forth) it does offer benefits. I'm looking at larger scale space-development, not just the means to get to Mars as quickly as possible.

I am in agreement that NEOs do likely offer our best bet for short-term resource development. That's why I'm actually an EML-1 "First" proponent, as it not only offers a platform for the identification of near-space NEOs (especially the blindsiders coming out from the Sun) but also a platform for a broad spectral analysis of those NEOs to better identify the resorces they offer. I also feel that that broad spectral capability could be applied to identifying LP comets (did you see the recent article in Harpers Bazaar? quite alarmist) and possible perturbers in the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud). It also offers a great staging area for missions to Mars, including competitive delta-V requirements.

While Mr. Grondine may feel that a stable lunar platform is the way to go (and would benefit from the lack of lunar atmosphere for spectral analysis, certainly trumping Mars in that regard), I see it as a second-best option. Does that mean he's wrong and I'm right? Not necessarily. I'm broad minded enough to recognize that once near-Earth development begins in earnest it may work out that the method he supports works out to be the best one, but I don't currently see that as being the case.

"Perhaps you should study what makes the difference between kadets, ensigns, commanders, and captains, and admirals."

Ha, ha, ha! You're not the first to make fun of the "kadet" moniker. FYI, I'm a military brat. Assumptions and presumptions are dangerous things.

Cheers,
ken murphy