Why not have a mission to live on the moon rather then the red planet mars?

There are pros and cons for both bodies. For the Moon, it's closer, so a rescue mission wouldn't take as long and be less risky. Essential materials could be mined from its surface. Earth would be within sight, don't knock it. Mars however has a more substantial size, gravity and atmosphere, and the possibility of much more water and useful minerals. Terraforming Mars, although a mighty undertaking is not impossible.

Why not do both? Flatly put - we've been to the moon; I, personally, would like to see a permanently manned base there; but for a return on investment, there probably isn't much reason to return. I would also like to see us push back our envelope and go to Mars. While a habitat may be further into the future from what I can see, I think one will be necessary in order to truly study Mars. The moon is easier to get to (and to run from, if anything should go wrong); Mars will provide particular challenges to exploration that *should* be met - the experience on Mars will likely provide data for future explorations - perhaps beyond our solar system.

The moon is harder to live on than Mars....the main reason being the temperature changes on the moon compared to Mars.. that there is enough... That being said both of them will probably come hand in hand because the technology will require the same...underground for protection..

Neither is realistic for humans to live on long-term. Bases with rotating personnel is a potential for both, the Moon being a more livable and reachable option. Since neither is capable of a self-sustaining biosphere, colonies where people live their entire lives is impossible for both destinations. Basically, you would need to create a magnetosphere and increase the gravity of each, or find a suitable method for replacing bone density loss and muscle mass loss... two of the known long term effects of existing in diminished gravity long term... and some sort of protection from harmful solar radiation.

Either one has its unique advantages and disadvantages. The moon's smaller gravity would make it easier to land and take off again, but it's uncertain what effect this would have on the human body with long-term exposure. Pregnancy might even be fatal to the fetus. Also the moon has very little water except near the poles, and its night lasts for 2 weeks.

The moon is much closer. It can be reached in a little over 3 days, provided a launch vehicle is ready. Mars takes about 7 months. Both have problems from solar radiation. Violent dust storms occur on Mars. There is no air on the moon so no dust storms. There are problems with the sharp dust on the surface of the Moon, which will destroy equipment just as the sand in Iraq attacked moving parts of US tanks and trucks At this stage, a manned mission to the surface of Mars is a suicide mission. Robots can do it so much better. Within 10 years we will have android style robots with the possibility of loading a human's intelligence into them. This will solve the radio signal delay problem

Mars is the most simmilar planet that can replicate the Earth, because of its temperature and because of its resources such as water and because the people want to move and explore in a very simmilar manner that they've done in the past. We SHOULDN'T live in the moon because outside the Earth's protective atmosphere, solar radiation is too great for humans to survive. On the moon, people would also need to be protected from lunar dust storms as well as the extremes of temperature. Both planets need a source of energy to provide power for heating, light, equipment and other requirements, but the conclusion is the Moon has to many flaws and is recourseless so Mars is better to live on.