About Pro-Mars and Pro-Space militants

www.solarviews.com/eng/mars.htm provided the following information:

"The interior of Mars is known only by inference from data about the surface
and the bulk statistics of the planet. The most likely scenario is a dense
core about 1700 km in radius, a molten rocky mantle somewhat denser than the
Earth's and a thin crust. Data from Mars Global Surveyor indicates that
Mars' crust is about 80 km thick in the southern hemisphere but only about
35 km thick in the north. Mars' relatively low density compared to the other
terrestrial planets indicates that its core probably contains a relatively
large fraction of sulfur in addition to iron (iron and iron sulfide)."

I also looked up the comparison of the densities of various planets (in
grams per cubic centimeters):

Earth 5.52
Mercury 5.43
Mars 3.91
Luna 3.34

If I were looking to establish an economically viable settlement, I'd look
to Mercury rather than Mars. Mercury has a density nearly the same as the
Earth's, but it is much smaller. This could mean a lot less rock to dig
thru to get to the ore.

But, if Luna can provide us with raw materials, then I see no reason why
Mars can't.

Looking over some of the posts (virulent and otherwise) regarding sending
people to Mars, all I can say is that if it takes a romantic notion like Man
Setting Foot On The Red Planet in order to get the public excited about
space travel, then it is well worth the money. And as someone else pointed
out, it is the Market which will decide where the settlements are
established.