We didn't know how to get to the Moon either and that cost wasn't infinite. That statement is one of the silliest I've ever heard. There have been many cost estimates for various projects out there and the hundreds of billions estimate is for going to the Moon first not straight to Mars. As for premature, do you think the commitment to Apollo was premature? We knew far less then about going to the Moon than going to Mars. Your statements indicate a massive prejusdice towards robotic exploration rather than a rational evaluation of the trade-offs between manned and unmanned flight. Your absolute refusal to do a reasonable cost comparison/effectiveness evaluation clearly indicates that.

You need to seriously read some Manned mission proposals before you throw out any more of your ridiculous cost estimates. A long term mission to Mars and the Moon are not that much different in cost if you use the simple conversion of Martian atmospheric CO2 to methane for return fuel. If we can afford one we can afford the other. Now I know you prefer neither, but that doesn't justify using imaginary numbers for Mars mission costs or picking gold plated missions.

- 90 day mission (same Lunar Delay as about to be abandoned program): 400+ billion in early 90s
- Mars Direct: 50 billion by same cost program
- Mars Reference Mission V1 (Mars Semidirect): 100 billion by same program.

Only the stupid 90 day plan with something for every contractor would come close to a trillion dollars in today's dollars. Robotic missions would be hugely expensive as well if they weren't mission designed, but rather inrastructure projects. The correct comparison is robots to Mars Direct, but robots to semi-direct is not unreasonable.

Regards,
Mark