Though it lacks in the headlines, my preference is to send the robots first to bootstrap local production. Unless we really screw up the worst case would be some extra garbage to clean up for future missions, and the best case is any sort of increase in local production capacity.

Why though? That’s the interesting part. Pioneers want to be there to experience the challenge of bootstrapping. It’s the whole point.

It’s like saying “why climb Everest? We can send a drone up instead.”

If you're climbing Everest, sure. If you're settling a new world, building a place to live with an economy, then the easier the better.

Right, and now that "climb Everest" is past the "pioneer" stage, what does it look like?

Trash, exploitation and littered with corpses.

So? People still want to climb, and if they want to risk their lives, they can.

Yeah, unlike you I'm not a fan of trash, exploitation and corpses littering the ground.

Fine as long as I don't have to pay for it in taxes.

Nobody is asking you to.

People are asking my elected representatives to, and if those reps say yes, then I have to help pay for it or risk going to jail.

The current Mars movement is NASA-independent. We only need FAA authorization to launch, that is all. It's 100% privately funded.

Then I'm fine with it. Thanks for your patience with my ignorance.

Yeah that makes sense, especially these days. Even Zubrin's original Mars Direct plan sent a methane factory ahead of the people.

Most future space exploration will probably be robotic, just as it is now.