Even a Yucatan-sized hit would still leave the earth much more survivable than anywhere else.
Really? You know this... how?
It would be WAY more practical to design underground bunkers and habitats here on earth than to try to move colonies to the moon or Mars.
When the ground shocks from a large impact destroy your underground bunkers, then what? What happens if the impact destroys food production for so long that your bunker's stored food supplies run out? Who chooses who gets to stay in the bunker? What would the survivors do once their stored resources ran out, and they emerge into a world where civilizations infrastructure was completely or nearly completely demolished?
Is that all really easier to do than building a large enough space infrastructure to be able to detect and deal with a Yucatan sized asteroid before it even hits?
The whole point here is that if some sort of disaster occurs that makes it impossible or nearly so for civilization on earth to reboot itself from the ashes, at least there would be a working colony elsewhere, and the human race would survive, and perhaps recolonize earth after the climate had settled down.
What if it's not an asteroid, but our own stupidity? What if it's a virus that wipes us out? Bunkers aren't likely to help, there, but being isolated by some hundreds of thousands or millions of miles might.
This is the first time, EVER, in our history, that we have the technological potential to build such a colony. Yeah, it'll be difficult, and expensive, but aren't the potential benefits worth it?