Right now - that certainly is the case. But I'm not so sure for two reasons you're leaving out. The first is, there was huge pay-offs from the Apollo program which were not foreseen (certainly not by the many, many naysayers who tried so very hard to prevent it happening). In fact, despite it's massive cost it was one of the most profitable investments the US ever made. The "beat the communists" was the foreseen one. The scientific and engineering advances made to do it - those made money, lots of money, lots more than the project cost.
The first difference then is, if you're trying to sell such a project a hundred or two hundred years from now, you have that learned lesson. You may not know what values will come out, but you can say with reasonable certainty that in the process of developing it there will huge advances which will directly benefit the people back home who get to use them for other purposes.
The second factor is - if these nearer, easier, colonies were done - a lot of lessons will have been learned, a lot of problems solved. Much of this will overlap - so you can reduce the total cost because some of it's already spent.
The third factor is - we have absolutely no idea what the world will look like in a hundred years. If you had asked anybody in the 15th century what they thought the 16th century would be like they would predict "pretty much the same, a few minor new technologies, a couple of governments changed, some countries destroyed and new ones formed"... and they would be right.
Ask anybody born after the 19th the same question and they predict vast changes - because they've all seen vast changes in living memory and can reasonably expect that to keep happening. The world now changes rapidly and 200 years is a very, very long time.
We don't know what politics or economics will look like. Which powers will have the money, whether the concept of money itself will have been replaced by something better. What problems there will be to solve. For all we know we'll have built a world where all labour is done by automation and humans spend their lives in leisure - relying on the unquenchable thirst of creative people to create to provide their advances (this is not so far-fetched - we are right now not far from being technologically capable of such a world, even if politically it seems unlikely in the short term). There's no reason to assume the economic question would ever even be asked, we don't know if it will be a world where that question is still relevant.