(Replying to PARENT post)
You're actually underestimating. Mars has an atmosphere, so spacecraft can use aerobraking to significantly reduce the delta-v required to get there. The moon has no such benefit โ propulsion is required all the way to the surface.
The advantage of the moon, of course, is that it's not limited to transfer windows every two years. If there's an emergency or resupply is needed (or you just want to expand the mission), another lander can be sent at any time. (With some restrictions, like hitting your desired landing spot and making sure the sun wasn't in the Apollo crews' eyes at landing. But regardless, no longer than 28 days between windows.)
(Replying to PARENT post)
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/2046/delta-v-chart...
(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
Note that you could use Spectra/Kevlar or other common high strength materials with a taper ratio of only 4:1 with a lunar elevator. It might take "only" ~50 tons of spectra to hang the weight and allow lifts of a 1000kg or so... its much more doable than earth or mars.
(Replying to PARENT post)
In terms of delta-v, the budget for the moon is upwards of 50% that for Mars.
EDIT: The 50% figure is from memory, and upon further reflection is probably not quite right, so take it with a grain of salt. I just wanted to point out that distance is not the only relevant metric.