First would say that O'Keefe is asking the right question.
Second I would argue that sending crew to the Moon in the sixties and sending crew to Mars today are different "animals".
Back in the sixties the answer to the question to "To what ends?" [going to Moon] was to beat the Soviets.
The Soviets were offering an alluring vision for the future [as was Hilter offering an alluring vision]. Basically they were saying we are the future, we are modern, we have the technology, etc. The arena of the future is quite obviously Space.
So going to the Moon was mostly a PR activity, and a secondary result would be advance your technology (mostly in regards to technology for warfare). We were very successful in achieving these goals.
But Space is still the arena of our future (that is not a PR illusion, rather it's a truth that PR used to hang everything on to). And the question is still how do we get to the point of using this environment more to our benefit.