Replying to Chris Vancil's comments:

>The general argument for the Moon as a source of resource
>is it proximity to Earth.

As I'm sure Chris knows, the proximity argument is mostly spurious. What matters in space is delta-V (change in vehicle velocity). The delta-V required to get something on the Martian surface is less than for the lunar surface. This is due to Mars having an atmosphere that can be used for vehicle decelleration.

>Let us pretend the EML-1 gas station concept is sensible
>for a minute. Generally the econo-moonbats want to extract
>Oxygen from Lunar regolith and ship it to a spacecraft in
>orbit which has the Hydrogen to burn...

I can't even pretend this is sensible. The energy required to extract the oxygen from the regoltih exceeds any benefit. The so called "lunar water" is almost certainly hydrated rock (a solid chunk of concrete is hydrated rock). Can you imagine putting concrete in a retort and cooking it to boil off the water?

>Mars has water in it's atmosphere (.003%) and that
>can be extracted using a stationary robotic lander with pumps
>and zeolite.

Forget the water in the Martian atmosphere. There's heaps of water on the ground in the form of ice.

>But the simplier and easier to implement system would be
>the Mars extraction process not the Lunar extraction process.

This is plain as day.

Gary