"Your side" won a political process akin to the vote that tried to make Pi legally 3. Having the votes does not constitute winning a technical debate. The technical debate is over and it takes more fuel per pound to land on the Moon than Mars. You haven't dealt with that issue and it certainly was not mentioned in Bush's plan.

You are obviously correct about solar power in LEO. I didn't think about the specific orbit. I mainly meant Earth orbit and just grabbed the abbreviation I most frequently use with regard to Earth orbit.

On the issue of lunar solar power it appears we agree this is a bogus justification.
(Mark 1, Lunies 0 by Larry's statements)

On the issue of using lunar materials on Earth it appears we agree this is a bogus justification.
(Mark 2, Lunies 0 by Larry's statements)

On the issue of lunar industry you avoided the issue that none of these exist. I'm well aware you can use lunar materials for lunar industry. You can't however do what you can on Mars. The Moon has no atmospheric CO2 , nitrogen, or water because it has virtually no atmosphere. Mars also has far more frozen water. Mars has the resources to be independent of Earth. The Moon does not. The Moon has to have a high value trade with Earth to have a viable colony that can buy what it needs fromEarth. There is no evidence as yet it will ever have that. If a calamity on Earth halts lunar resupply a lunar colony would be doomed unless there were other viable colonies off of Earth. It's not really clear where you stand on my point here since you avoided it.
(Mark 2, Lunies 0, 1 point? by Larry's statements)

On the issue of CATS you say it's not the governments responsibility yet you seem to be supporting a government program based on the assumption it will happen. It doesn't make sense to be talking about colonizing the Moon when a prerequisite is nowhere on the horizon and you seem doubtful it will happen. Do you actually think lunar colonization is a justification or not?
(Mark 2, Lunies 0, 2 points? by Larry's statements)

On the issue of optical lunar telescopes you seem to agree with me that these aren't practical. The radios telescope option was one I was willing to conceded, but wanted your input before doing so. Your folding telescope comment is somewhat irrelevant however because the most advanced space scopes invisoned are supposed to be interferometers.
(Mark 3, Lunies 0, 2 points? by Larry's statements)

So of all the points the MSNBC article mentioned in favor of returning to the Moon if I interpret your replies correctly, you agreed 3 were wrong, 1 was right, and 2 were questionable yet you think they've won the debate on technical merits?

I'm not necessarily for going straight for Mars as I have said many times Larry. I am for clearly focusing on Mars as the goal and not getting bogged down in side steps of marginal value. A lunar colony is clearly an expensive proposition not needed to go on to Mars. If the government is going to pay for a space colony (which I don't agree with) it at least should be where it can support itself. I think the government should just blaze the trail like it did with the Lewis and Clark expidition. Technological development of CATS like WW1 did for airplanes would also be a good thing IMO.

Regards,
Mark