Back to the Moon or on to Mars?

On my research lines the space program is an extremely hot topic these days.

I am so immersed in the controversial aspects of this issue that when I see a question posed in the terms above, I think: How could anyone be so naive?

But I guess, officially, it is supposed to be the case that the moon and Mars are still unexplored territories. On my lines, however, this is not considered true in any way, shape, or form.

First, we face a fact that should be obvious to everybody by this time: Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex" DOES exist. If this is not obvious to the man in the street it is only that someone - and I hesitate to point fingers - would rather we not know what is actually going on. But, on my lines, based on reports from insiders, there are already humans on the moon and Mars, and already bases there. This work is being done primarily by elements of the various military-industrial alliances.

Both the moon and Mars are strategic locations for anyone interested in what goes on on earth. The question is not whether they should be utilized, but how and under who's control? If some insider information is to be taken seriously, our ability to explore and exploit any locations or resources beyond earth is limited by the control (or competition) of other civilizations who have had bases at those locations for many thousands of years.

According to what I have found, we are not talking about a simple business or even military proposition in the same way that we treat strategic locations on earth. When we move beyond earth we move into the realm of exopolitics. These areas are not ours to explore, invade, and claim as we wish. If we are to take advantage of the resources that off-planet locations offer, it will be according to some sort of treaty agreement based on negotiations with off-earth groups.