Very simple. Because we’ve never sent humans to Mars. We’ve sent them to the Moon. To the extent that going to a rocky destination in space is a measure of national accomplishment, the Moon doesn’t count anymore. That’s an expectation that should be easy to understand.

“Difference in cost between manned Moon and mannned Mars will be way, way larger than robotic Moon vs robotic Mars.”

Of course. But the difference in cost between manned Moon and manned Bermuda is huge as well. Let’s just skip the Moon and send everyone to Bermuda, no? The ultimate decision about strategy can be informed by cost, but cost isn’t rationale.

… “if you think USA will use Moon base only occassionally, you can forget about Mars. You completely missed point.”

No, I didn’t miss the point, but you didn’t really make one. You’re saying that we have to have a permanently (as in, not occasionally) occupied outpost on the Moon before we head to Mars? But now you’re talking about doing “something manned on the Moon”. Make up your mind. We’ve done “something manned” on the Moon already.

I meant by that level of interest in space. If USA can’t be arsed to do something manned on Moon, why I would expect it doing anything manned on Mars? No, talking does not count. Talk is cheap.

Only counterargument I see is level of robotic ops on Moon and Mars – significantly higher on Mars, despite Moon being easier to reach. For me, it shows sufficiently high interest in unmanned exploration of Mars to overweight easier Moon.

Difference in cost between manned Moon and mannned Mars will be way, way larger than robotic Moon vs robotic Mars. Like orders of magnitude larger (with current and near future tech). For me, it makes manned Moon earlier (so-called “Moon first”) inevitable, despite Mars being more interesting target.

“Colonization and settlement is an entirely different ball of wax.”
Arctic station is occupied premanently, yet it is not settlement nor colonization.

Careful here. Telerobotic technology is advancing rapidly, and that technology development isn’t limited by being driven by space. It’s being driven by commercial and military applications with HUGE budgets. We’re talking about mobility, dexterity, and vision. Yep, dexterity as in swapping out mother boards, batteries, etc. For goodness sake, telerobotic hands have more dexterity right now than EVA-gloved humans, and they’re just going to get better. A LOT better.

The premise that the purpose of humans on-site is to fix the robots on-site is getting long-in-the-tooth. But the premise that humans on-site are there to wave flags and leave footprints is still kinda hard to argue with … to the extent that’s important.

Once we hit a point where a NASA lunar researcher can just lease a winnebago for exploration from commercial firms.. that is when we should worry about the type of bases Marcel dreams of.