I understand the fear of failure and why the Moon seems like a safe bet because it's familiar. What I see however is Columbia, Challenger, and Apollo 13. Closeness does not assure safety. Liftoff, re-entry and any mixing of reactive chemicals are life threatening disasters with far shorter possible reaction times than any trip to the Moon. Going to the Moon first is not necessarily a lot safer because the greatest risks are faced on every mission no matter how far. Multiple missions to the Moon certainly risk human life more than a single mission to Mars.

It's common sense versus mathematical and statistical analysis. The Moon seems like a good idea to everyone before they start thinking about the issues. Time and distance are far less relevant in space than they are on the ground. Most people don't think in terms of energy. I felt that way before reading "The Case for Mars" and thought a lot about Zubrin's arguements and came up with some of my own before buying into the idea we don't need the Moon first.

The thing that frustrates me is hearing all the bogus arguements for the Moon over and over. There are reasons for going back to the Moon, but it has marginal if any value for going on to Mars. The same is true IMO with regard to the Moon as a base for other exploration. Yeah its got resources, but they suck compared to Mars.

Regards,
Mark