Sure it is, but going to Mars at this point in time is not the best option. How are we going to have a self sufficient colony on Mars without having a viable en

Sure it is, but going to Mars at this point in time is not the best option. How are we going to have a self sufficient colony on Mars without having a viable energy source, for example? We aren't realistically going to set up a Mars colony without first sending lots of robots to prepare for our weak bodies. Bringing each one from Earth is not feasibly either, so you'd want to have a self sufficient (and replicating) robot colony on Mars first. Once we have these and more issues sorted out, it will be worth investing significantly in actually getting the stuff to Mars, but doing it at this point we'd be investing a of of effort in getting there without actually being able to accomplish something once we're there. The same applies to the moon: what have we done on the moon? Not much. What have we gained out of the moon missions? Plenty of stuff like better rocket engines, heat shields, etc. Was it the technology project that would have gotten us the best return on investment? I don't think so. Was it better than spending the money on e.g fighter planes? Yes (the cost of the JSF project is $1.1 trillion [1], the cost of the Apollo program is about $0.13 trillion in today's dollars [2] [3]). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Strike_Fighter_Program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Strike_Fighter_Program [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Program_cost http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Program_cost [3] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=+%2425.4+%281973+US+dollars%29+in+2012 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=+%2425.4+%281973+US+dol...