In places.

There is a classic banger of a paper, "Dispelling the myth of robotic efficiency" [1], which assembles evidence that human space exploration, while expensive, is more cost-effective than robotic. So when i saw Maciej write:

> Today’s automated spacecraft are not only strictly more capable[7] than human astronauts, but cost about a hundred times less [8]

I jumped straight to reference 7, and found:

> [7] I know, no robot can reflect on the nature of the Sublime while looking at sunbeams dancing on the limb of Deimos or whatever. But when it comes to tasks like “look under this rock on Mars” or “fly through this plume and sample it”, robots are awesome.

This is not exactly what i would call a well-researched statement.

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.6250

Anybody that believes that we have the technology capable of setting up a self sufficient Mars base should be invited to demonstrate such on the Moon, where in case things inevitably go pear shaped at least there is a small chance of rescue, which in the case of Mars is impossible. Anybody that signs up for a Mars mission may well end up bringing life to Mars, but not in the way that they intend to. Either way it wouldn't be intelligent life.

Is this not exactly what we're doing with the Artemis Program? From its wiki page:

> The program's long-term goal is to establish a permanent base camp on the Moon and facilitate human missions to Mars.