RE: "Well Mark, 2 examples isn't bad, though I disagree with your cavalier dismaissal of both. After all, the example of He3 is largely seen as one of the marginal additional products of soil processing, not the sole reason to do so."

Bull. A former Apollo astronaut uses his credibility both as an astronaut and the only scientist to visit the Moon to push this material as justification for returning to the Moon. It is usually one of the primary quotes from his comments. Furthermore it doesn't matter whether it's a byproduct or not. If you can't use it now and are unlikely to be able to use it for decades it's BS to use it as a justification for returning to the Moon. Martian water is probably enriched in Deuterium and it could be generated as a byproduct of Hydrogen recovery on Mars and it is actually under study as a fusion fuel source yet you don't see it constantly brought up as justification for Mars.

RE: "And an interesting analogy might be thus: A boy is looking to get cozy with a girl. There's lots and lots of guys around, but very, very few girls to experiment with. It is going to be very difficult for him to succeed or gain significant experience, especially when some of those other boys are competing for those girls (as there are other industries that can use He3 besides clean fusion). So yeah, it's going to be very difficult for him to make progress. Now, if we could add some more girls to the mix, things start to look better."

Huh? I prefer more technically based analogies but perhaps these are hard to come by in your profession.

RE: "For your second example, please don't confuse water with hydrogen. We don't know that there is water at the Lunar poles, though it is "likely", and..."

Most scientists thinks it is water and moon firsters certainly are quick to grab onto that, but you are correct all we know is that the LP readings matched hydrogen. Now of course as a banker you may not know this, but hydrogen as an element and hydrogen as a molecule are 1/18 and 1/9 the mass of a water molecule respectively. Which do you think is more likley to stick around in the low gravity of the Moon?

RE: "Interestingly, while Lunar advocates are able to at least cite examples of specific opportunities, the best we can get from Mars is vague responses like "but I do believe a self supporting Martian colony would eventually find an industry of value to Earth." Care to cite any of those potential industries so that they can be compared with potential industries on the Moon? It is, after all, awfully easy to dismiss specific examples with an "economics of mining and recovering it are likely to be poor" when you don't have anything concrete to compare it with. I.e. Are folks going to be mining and recovering on Mars? Would the economics be less poor? And what specific factors would support that assertion?"

Asserting economic justifications which are bogus is hardly superior to admitting you have none except of course in the world of business scams and mergers and acquisitions meant to artificially inflate stock prices.

To give you some more fodder for dismissal, here are a few of my ideas for Lunar business:

1) Construction firm building solar power towers at the South Lunar pole (impossible on Mars)

And the market is? The cost is? the prospective ROI is? It is impossible on Mars why?

2) Servicing operations for Lunar assets (robots, scopes, whatever)

Good one. Assume an industry that doesn't exist than convince investors to put up the money for supporting infrastructure. It's called a house of cards even in business.

3) Anhydrous glass for optics and construction (impossible on Mars)

And the market is? The cost is? the prospective ROI is? It is impossible on Mars why?

4) Vacuum-pure raw material production for the nano-tech industry (impossible on Mars)

The nanotech industry make show much annually? Exactly what fraction of zero has to be reinvested on the Moon to support these high profit levels?

5) Transport logistics and freight forwarding services

See 2 above

6) Structural elements for GEO SPSes

WOW impress us with little used space acronyms that ought to be worth 450 million. Now what exactly were you refgerring to? Space power satellites? once again: And the market is? The cost is? the prospective ROI is?

7) Solar cells for GEO SPSes

As above

8) Archive of humanity (if there's not one already up there)

Gee I'd think a spare branch of humanity would be more valuable than an archive.

9) Unique agricultural products grown in regolith like spices, lunajuana (c) and moonrooms (c)

Sounds like an idea formed under the influenc eof mushrooms. What rational basis could you possibly have for even claiming this is a realistic possibility?

10) Biohazard research

You honestly think this is a cost effective way to conduct such research? We do research on the deadliest diseases known to man on Earth without issue.

RE: "That's enough for the moment. Now, care to share some of the Martian industries?"

Martian industries are likely to be similar to those on Earth because it is a planet with many natural resources capable of a self supporting society. The difference is the supply chain from Earth will be long and the manufacturing environment more demanding. It is likely these circumstances will favor innovation just as it did in the America's. Such innovations are likely to be of value on Earth just as Apollo derived innovations were. The same can be said of the Moon, but since it has a much lower human carrying capacity and potential variety of industry you can expect a proportionate reduction in spinoffs. Drifting away from historical analogies which are dubious yet more grounded in reality than the possibilities you mentioned above we come to the unique attributes of Mars. As a potential source of a second form of life Mars is invaluable. Major advances in medical science and biology could resort, but of course the possibility of life is uncertain. Mars has the potential for terraforming. The process of terraforming would result in the kind of ecological knowledge you only gain from large scale experimentation and building something which should not be conducted on Earth. Weather control and ecological renewal technologies could be a major boon to Earth. Both of these possibilities are worth far more than the minor contributions to Earth based industries you postulate. In addition Mars is close to the asteroid belt and far more capable than the Moon of supporting an asteroid mining industry if that is really viable as so many asteroid enthusiasts believe. I don't consider these economic justifications because unlike you I think anything worthy of the term should carry hard nosed numbers and there are simply too many unknowns to provide those at this time. NASA's purpose is to explore and since it has limited funds it should explore where the greatest possibility economic or scientific rewards exists. Mars has more to offer in terms of comparative planetology and the study of astrobiology (whether life exists on Mars or not) than the Moon. It also has more resources for potential future use.

Regards,
Mark