All things in sending 100 tons won't cost us 100x as much as one ton. Of course if we can bust out the nuclear thermal rockets we might be able to cut fuel costs a lot, but IIRC the mass fraction to LEO is like 1600 tons of fuel for 80 tons of shuttle, mass ratio of 20:1 but a payload of only about 25 tons, Earth surface to Mars is like is like 70:1 optimistically, and probably even a 25% payload would be nice even for a disposable vehicle. 70 tons of fuel for 1 ton of spaceship isn't too ideal, especially when its probably at best 250 tons of fuel for each ton landed on Mars, one-way trip. Of course the distance doesn't matter for the fuel directly, it matters for all the damn supplies and extra spare equipment you need adding more mass needing more fuel.

I doubt their motives are particularly impure, and there is a strong feeling that NASA is too cautious and spends more than is needed, there's some truth to that. We've been talking about commercializing space travel for a while, looking at the marketing/TV angle as part of the budget makes sense. Personally I think that small a crew on such an inherently stressful mission already runs a high enough risk of going ax crazy without adding the damn fish bowl aspect turned up to eleven by the change in audience and crew composition. We won't be sending 40-year old career military and science sorts with wives/husbands and kids who they can chat with on the phone. We won't send kids, they won't be able to have kids there, and they will never see a spouse again except by time delayed video. We can send couples, who can't have kids, but then it better be two couples, or three, I forget if its 4 or 6 people, but that's not too likely to be wonderfully stable either. The whole thing is a ball full of crazy waiting to happen.