[elihu]

It's not just the gravity. On the moon, you have to deal with 2 weeks of day and 2 weeks of night, which means having to deal with wide temperature swings and if you rely on solar you need very large batteries.

Mars also has an atmosphere which contains CO2, which is useful for making methane. It also has a lot of water. (The moon has water too, though it may be less abundant/accessible.)

[redblacktree]

Could some of those downsides be mitigated by putting your base on a "pole"?

That is, are there locations on the Moon's surface where the sun is perpetually visible?

[m4rtink]

There are just a few crater rims where this happens, not the full pole - but those do indeed get sunn almost all the time & border areas in perpetual darkness, which is also pretty useful (cryogenics, temperature gradient, etc.).

[elihu]

Sort of; there are some spots that get sunlight almost all the time. (The moon has quite a bit of wobble, so it's hard to get to 100%.) That greatly restricts your choice of base locations, though. There may be other resources or geological features you might want to be close to that aren't convenient (lava tubes, water deposits, flat places to land, minerals that can be used as building materials, etc...).

[redblacktree]

I suppose if our base is extensive enough, we could use those locations primarily for power generation and then transmit that power to more desirable locations for other tasks. Though I do realize that I'm talking about a lot of effort/time/money/resources.

[hutzlibu]

Day and night cycle is an issue yes, and sure, for a long term self sustainable settlement, mars looks much better.

But in terms of setting up a base soon and building rockets for example ... the very short travel distance to the moon offsets any advantage the mars has