So Mars is basically a lifeboat for humanity, a second outpost for if something goes wrong as you stated at the start. This is what makes it worth a trillion dollars.

Also it sounds like you basically agree with the thesis of Tom Matula's that Chris posted further up this string. I quote from it.

"Basically Mars is a great goal for personal glory in science or for high adventure, but will not be of much value in meeting the challenges facing the Earth in the 21st Century. It?s the perfect illustration of the saying from Robert Heinlien's "This Planet is about used up, time to go find another." It is a therefore a good goal for those that dream of running away from the Earth's problems rather then helping solving them. The old west and manifest destiny is actually a good illustration for Mars as many pioneers headed for the frontier as a means of escape."

Although the personal glory/high adventure might not make a good reason, finding a new planet to "use up" is what you seem to imply makes Mars different then the Earth, a second world to call home. This sounds good and would be a good long range goal.

Whereas if you are interested in solving the Earth problems directly then the Moon is a better goal. Again quoting from Tom Matula.

''The Moon is just the opposite. It has the potential to play a key role in helping overcome the challenges facing the Earth in the 21st Century. What the moon offers is the opportunity to create new industries that will help human civilization meet the challenges of a sustainable civilization for the future. Energy from the Moon, regardless if its He3, SSP, PGMS or a combination of all three will help replace fossil fuel. The cumulative economic impact of OPEC since 1973 has been a 7 Trillion dollars premium on energy costs to the west so the economics will work out once the basic research is funded.''

Saving 7 trillion makes it sound like the Moon will indeed recover America's investment in space and provide the funds needed to go to Mars.

So it sounds like the strategy of Moon, Mars, Beyond NASA has adopted is sound. First develop the resources of the Moon, then establish a colony on Mars and then go out into the solar system.

So do you also agree with Tom Matula's reason for going to the Moon first? It sounds like making America more competitive and secure is a goal we could all agree on.

''Because I am not interested in space for the glory or science or a place to escape to, but because of its potential to make America more competitive and secure. The Moon will contribute to those goals, Mars will not. Its that simple."