Why are we still exploring Mars with like the 20th US 'rover'?

I agree totally.

It is hard to fathom the mentality of going again and again to a frozen wasteland of dry, toxic sterile dust when there are so many other destinations in our solar system  that are far more interesting to explore.

The billions of dollars squandered on the idiotic fantasy about "ancient life" would be far better spent on dog food, lipstick and false eyelashes.

Unfortunately the baby boom generation, along with the hipsters of later generations have been brainwashed into thinking that all that matters is finding frigging life up in outer space, and so the spirit of exploration to find "strange new worlds" has been booted into history. 

There is plenty of life to discover on Earth for those who are truly, honestly interested in "life". No need to waste good funding going up into outer space to find it. Money directed to space would be far better spent on exploring truly amazing worlds like Titan, Triton, Io, Neptune and the myriad of asteroids and comets out there. Just think of those seas of ethane on Titan for example. There is absolutely nothing like them on Earth. That is where we need to go instead of grovelling about in dust to hopelessly try to satisfy a stale fantasy.

>>Why are we still exploring Mars with like the 20th US 'rover'?

We're on the 5th rover; the others have been static probes. 

>>Ok, 12th Rover.

No... 5th.   Sojourner, Spirit, Opportunity, Curiosity, and now Perseverance.

>>I mean like since 1979 for over 40 years our 

>>robots have been all over a 3 billion year old dead 

>>frozen waste planet with no atmosphere. 

Viking 1 landed on July 20, 1976; an earlier landing occurred by USSR, but the probe stopped broadcasting almost immediately.  Mars *does* have an atmosphere, and more importantly - in the past, it was much thicker than what we see today.  

>>This has been proven fact since at least year 2000 (21 years ago).

Mmmmmaybe you should review the facts as you know them... 

>>Wasn't NASA's mission by JFK and Gemini to 'pass a torch and 

>>turn their eyes to the stars'...not to a cinder ash moon and a 

>>dead red planet?

JFK wanted to participate in space, and challenged the Russians to be first to the moon... (that was done.)  Then, people began to realize how expensive space is. $20 billion to get to the moon, $5 billion for probes to Jupiter & Saturn... with no return except for knowledge, science, and engineering knowhow... The realization is, there's more spent on makeup every year in the US than on NASA. While there are people asking, suggesting, and demanding that NASA's budget be slashed or eliminated, they're not willing to forego lipstick & false eyelashes... 

>>Are the baby boom generation and now their kids bilking 

>>all of us for their careers and money to 'pretend' to study 

>>outer space when in reality they're doing 'zero' and not 

>>even as much as July 20, 1969?

You'll have to take that question to the voters... many of whom are Gen X, Y, Millennials, etc., because they're the ones voting in members of congress.  It's the US Congress that dictates NASA's budget, what projects they pursue, and what has to be cancelled or shelved... it's a shame that a prestigious organization like NASA is at the mercy of deadbeat blowhards who couldn't care less about science & are simply focused on being reelected so they don't have to ever work for a living... If you want to consider an organization that is 'bilking all of us for their careers and money'.... I present to you the members of the United States Congress. 

They *desperately* need to institute term limits on them...

Human civilization has existed for 10,000-15,000 years, and we haven't managed to explore all that this world has to offer.  Mars is an entire planet, 200 million miles from here. 

Forgive me if I find the it laughable that you think a dozen rovers have explored the entire thing in 40 years.

It has been recently said that the USA spends more money on dog treats than on NASA. I agree with this. If we ever expect to raise the third world peoples up to a first world level of prosperity, then we are going to need lots and lots of energy. Windmills and solar panels simply will not cut it.

I personally believe that the movie, "Elysium", starring Matt Damon and Jodie Foster, is a good representation of Earth's near future. Except that there won't be any huge orbiting habitat. Instead, a high IQ, high tech, high prosperity human society will arise on Mars, while the Earth wallows in squalor. In 100-200 years, humans on Mars will be sending fusion powered Mars built spacecraft to other star systems for the purpose of setting up new colonies of Earth life. By that time, humans will have colonized our entire solar system to a limited degree, and the atmospheres of the gas giant planets will be routinely harvested for obtaining Helium3 by the metric tonne to power our world wide fusion reactors and spacecraft. And Martian water is five times richer in Deuterium, the other necessary fusion fuel.

I believe that in ~500-1,000 years from now, all humans will be required to leave Earth, and we will then allow Earth to return to its previously wild state. Bison will again roam the plains of North America, and Aurochs will once again graze the grasslands of Eurasia. I can't wait. Please read the excellent book, "The Case for Mars", by Dr. Robert Zubrin, PhD, available on amazon and other places. Check out the ITER, under construction in the south of France: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

A terraformed Mars:

Well, I am not sure but in the news, I saw that Nasa said there could be life on Mars and they are trying to explore more.

And why they still use parachutes to land on a planet with no atmosphere, as proven 21 years ago?

(Mars HAS an atmosphere. Just a detail, but a detail that emphasizes the fact that you don't know what you are talking about).

Mars is a pretty big place and science/exploration should be pursued.

NASA gives us the best return on our tax dollars of any government agency in the history of government agencies.