Placing an emphasis on life then not focusing on getting results is a mistake. Geology is a great science and very interesting to those with a scientific bent. It does not however interest most of the public. The potential for life elsewhere does. Despite descriptions of Apollo as flags and footprints by many it did answer the question of how the Moon formed with a surprising none of the above. All the theories predating Apollo were invalidated and we now have an asnwer to a big question - "Where did the Moon come from". Not as big as life elsewhere? - but on the very next level down. When I think of this it bother's me that I've tolerated descriptions of Apollo as FF when trying to draw the distinction between it and prolonged research missions to Mars. Apollo was a technological and scientific success. Where the Moon came from is a detail I think most curious people would find of interest. Refining the details of how the solar system formed from dust and gas probably not so much. I'm interested, but think NEOs and comets are the place to answer that not the Moon. I'd rather see us progress by going on to NEOs rather than returning and stagnating on the Moon both for the science and the practical matter of gaining knowledge to help with diversion schemes. I also think Mars as an active evolved planet has a lot more of interest to geologists than the Moon.

Regardless of those issues Mars should be of paramount importance because it is the one place we can live for extended periods of time without huge leaps in technology including super-efficient recycle systems. Extracting water from Mars will be far easier than pursuing the diminishing returns of droping to the next order of magnitude in water loss. Same goes for fresh carbon and nitrogen.

In case people don't get it (since there is seldom response on similar comments) the reason recycle systems matter so much in space is the cost of resupplying from Earth and the potential lag in getting resupplies. Neither matter when you can get your resources easilly locally. This is the huge difference between Mars and the Moon from a practical standpoint. It gripes me everytime I hear a Moon firster bring this up because it matters for their destination choice far more than Mars. This is yet another example of misleading justifications for returning to the Moon. The perceived increase in safety from being 3 days away is very misleading given that most space accidents would kill in far less time including the fatal ones we have already experienced. The cosmic ray issue is like choosing a round reactor design that works poorly over an angular one that works well because you might get an infection from cutting your hand on the efficient one while there is a 1% chance either will blow up due to the flammable chemicals inside (ie launch and return).

Regards,
Mark