Are seeing people interested in space:

Fail to see a difference between missions lasting a few days with one lasting almost 2 years and labeling real long term science missions as flags and footprints.

Dismissing space base camps capable of supporting people for almost 2 years on Mars as insignificant steps towards permanent living facilities. They could even be be permanent facilities from the start.

Thinking it makes sense to spend more fuel to go somewhere to refuel than to just go to the destination desired.

Mistake physical closeness as the over riding factor in determining practicality rather than the engineering standard of cost effectiveness. Space is hard and expensive. Failure to spend money wisely increases the odds of failure due to cancellation or cost scrimping ala ISS.

Expect a moonbase to Mars scheme that has failed twice to somehow miraculously succeed when its main flaw (huge cost) is still there.

Regards,
Mark