[huthuthike]

Doing something we've never done before is a lot more exciting to people than repeating our previous success.

Think about it this way: who were the astronauts on the first lunar landing mission? Who were the astronauts on the last? Why do you think that we remember the first ones to do it better?

[robg]

Who were the astronauts that died with Challenger? Notoriety is hardly an index worth investing in.

A colony on the moon is technically possible, albeit very expensive. Many nations could create one today. People are choosing to spend their limited resources on better forms of progress.

[huthuthike]

To your first point, I think success at doing something that no human has done before is going to be more memorable to the masses than failure to do something that many people have done before. Hence we remember the first people to land on the moon but we don't remember the 200th astronaut that didn't make it into space cause they died. Regardless, referring back to my original point, it's not the fame of a specific individual that should be the goal in a human mission to Mars. Instead it's a combination of the scientific yields as well as the increased public enthusiasm for science that could make a human mission more valuable than robotic ones. It's very hard to measure the latter but it should not be discounted when considering the value of a human mission.

Regarding your second point, you were the one that said we should spend the same resources of a manned mission on robotic missions. So if it is going to cost $2 trillion dollars for a manned mission we should spend $2 trillion instead on robotic missions. Now it seems you are arguing that we should spend the money elsewhere. If that's your point it is a different discussion.