[toolbox]

While "as safe as possible" is certainly the goal, most of the research is centered around first clearing the low bar of "safe enough to even make it there and then do some science". "Earlier death" might mean "on the way to mars", which would end up being a much bigger waste of money and effort (to say nothing of the political capital). Those are the questions we're trying to answer right now.

The other side of these things is that the research being done is not single-purpose. The lunar missions were an amazing human achievement, but their lasting legacy can be seen much more clearly on earth. Our radiation work has homeworld implications for understanding radiotherapy. Heavy ion therapy is a rapidly emerging technology that has the potential to make some previously-mortal cancers tractable, and understanding its full biological effects is critical. By exploring new worlds, we hope to be able to improve the lives on our own as well.

[the_duke]

While thinking about it:

My claim was really totally unsubstantiated, because I have no idea how much is spent on human safety. I just assumed because I read about that regularily.

It might very well be that the actual investment is miniscule when compared to the technology spending.

Your other points are definitely valid as well.

[toolbox]

Your point is still important, whether or not it is valid, because it represents a not-uncommon sentiment in the public. It's up to many researchers to try to make the results and potential of their work accessible to the public. The best mentors I've seen are always able to transfer their own excitement for their work to others.