"Then you compared to having humans building an airport vs robots. But with robots you probably didn't need the airport in the first place. You have to figure out what your ultimate aim is. For the forseeable future when the aim is sheer access of information (prospecting, etc), then infrastructure required for robotic exploration is tremendously less than that for human exploration. Actual colonization and tourism are the only endeavors I can really think of right now that require the human presence. And colonization and tourism will probably be most cost effective if teleoperated robots "set up camp" before humans ever leave earth."

Well, robots don't need care packages and whores either. My point was that if you wanted to do anything complicated- and some mobile platform that takes pictures and has other sensors that humans lack isn't something very complicated. For instance, one probably could replace news reporters with robots that go with with troops into a war zone.

But returning to the issue, yes you have to figure of what your ultimate aim is, and I don't support the idea of NASA building bases on the Moon as a goal in itself. Nor do I think NASA should be shipping tourists to the Moon.

NASA's job should be to open up the space frontier. NASA should act like Lewis and Clark- explore, find out information which could be useful. For instance in regard to the Moon we need to know if there is minable water on the Moon. We don't know this yet and we been doing this space exploration for decades and have spent hundreds of billions of dollar. It should a huge embarrassment that NASA hasn't already done this like say, 20 years ago.
Doesn't this beg the question, what the hell have NASA been doing all this time?
So, we don't know if there is minable water on the Moon, that is something NASA has neglected to do, so let's have NASA do that now.
Does anyone need this explained as to the importance of determining this?

Now, I don't want NASA to get into the lunar water mining business, nor did Jefferson want Lewis and Clark to build railroad or any kind of road. Look, for possible places that one can travel through the region, yes. Look for resources and determine the nature of Indian tribes in the region, etc, etc, etc. but don't get distracted by becoming a fur trader.
It's not that there is anything wrong with being fur trader but Lewis and Clark are agents of the govt who have given a task. NASA is an agent of the government which has been given a task. If Lewis and Clark had done what NASA does, instead exploring America's west, they would gotten into the boat building business- and then maybe future US presidents might think just sending robots was the best way to explore the West.

"What NASA can't seem to get though their heads right now, is that when planning for human missions 20 years in the future, they should also factor in not just current capabilities of robots, but projected capabilities. If you can't even justify manned exploration now with the current technology, in 20 years the equations will be even more out of whack. It is the beginning of the golden age of intelligent machines. As processing memory and speeds start to approach that of the human brain (in approx 20 yrs), we better start thinking about evolving ourselves or getting out of the way of the machines."

The reason NASA is planning for human missions 20 year into the future, is largely to do with managing a job program, rather than anything to do with the task of getting to the Moon or Mars. With about 5 billion dollars, and 5-6 years you could send crew to the Moon and do fine job of exploration. With NASA it will cost ten times this amount- if NASA was on the ball. Look, with NASA it has "mission creep" and lack the discipline to stay focused- not to mention the Congress and political leaders who would fight tooth and nail against NASA if it had this discipline.
Trying to explore the Moon with only robots, just simply makes the problem worse. Not to mention the fact that it's completely unrealistic.

"If we don't lower launch costs to orbit by orders of magnitude (e.g. space elevator), I'm afraid all but a few us will remain earthbound. But even if costs remain very high, I do see us planting colonial seeds (with robots doing the heavy lifting) and dreams of humans in space and extrateresterial bodies will inevitably come to pass."

Now you want NASA building Space Elevators? NASA should get out of the boat building business, and not be planning on making aircraft carriers. NASA has spent tens of billions to hundred of billions "lowering launch cost". NASA can't lower launch cost, it hasn't lowered launch cost, all it does is increase launch costs.