Ah, there's nothing wrong with the human spirit of exploration. This is natural. But we are less gung-ho now about such risks as we were a hundred years ago when the poles were first conquered.
Exploring the unknown and the dangerous was considered part of the Edwardian nobleness (when the poles were discovered). But, then again, so was volunteering to get machine-gunned in Flanders. Whole continents were explored (and annexed) during a relatively small time and usually at a much greater expense (in human terms as well as monetary) than the space race. A hundred years later we are still reconsidering what is worthwhile and what is not when we endeavour to conquer the unconquerable.
At the moment the average stay in space for an ISS crew is four months. The confined space is ample for the crew to work well together without a feeling of claustrophobia and they have the added assurance that earth is just below ina case their is anything wrong. The same went for the moon shots. The earth was but a blot but it was still reachable by the three astronauts.
Not so Mars. Halfway on their journey the earth will disappear and blend into the masses of other heavenly objects like just another star. The feeling that this could be a one-way journey with no chance of rescue would phase even the hardiest of astronauts. Imagine being stuck in a telephone booth for five years only to be let out into a cold environment for a few hours (wearing a spacesuit) and then having to do the return journey. Just the thought makes me claustrophobic.
The only hope for space exploration is to develop our endurance in such conditions while engineering larger and more habitable spacecraft which can only be feasibly constructed in space. Barring the setbacks of the recent disaster that could take another 50 years - if NASA and the other administrations get full funding which, in the current climate, isn't forthcoming or likely.
