Leave aside what an utter failure the technology development without a destination path has been and consider why we should build a ship if there's no where we want to go. You have to make a case for some destination to justify the expense of going there. It's fine to justify with more than one destination, but 0 is not an option.
There are several reasons Mars first people get so irritated with the Moon first people and none of them are that we object to people going back to the Moon.
They are:
1) The public lost interest in manned moon missions long ago.
2) The public is more interested in astrobiology than geology.
3) Getting bogged down on the Moon with low public interest greatly increases the chance of never getting to Mars or permanently establishing a presence in space.
4) Ridiculously exagerated benefits of returning to the Moon like NEO detection that can be done better elsewhere, He3 fuel for 2nd or third generation fusion, fuel station for further exploration.
I think the vast majority of those that want Mars set as a clear goal because of it's public interest, relevance to astrobiology, and supremacy as a colonization target within the solar system; also want to see commercialization of the Moon and LEO, as well as NEO missions and PHA detection. A multidestination path would be fine as long as it has public support.
Regards,
Mark
Flame » in reply to Focusing on a place is silly.
You Don't Need A Space Ship To Go Nowhere