I don't know shit about science, can some smart people explain something to me?

Instead of low-T the soy boys of Mars are gonna have low-G

what’s the point of making a moon base? The only real reason to ever establish a permanent living arrangement on another planet is having the goal in mind of making the entire planet eventually liveable. Otherwise, there’s really no difference between just living in space stations vs living in bubbles on uninhabitable planets. The moon is worthless.

It's possible for moon dust to damage equipment and shelters

In mid-to-long term we should certainly do both. Moon as a (mostly automated) industrial facility and a stepladder to the Solar System colonization, and Mars as the first actual home for humanity after Earth, with possible hopes of either terraforming or genemodding our Martian descendants.

However, if forced to choose one, Mars is an obvious choice. The expenses on life support will be lower, even if only slightly so; the chance of being whacked by a rouge asteroid are lower, the chances of getting fucked over by some Earth terrorists or rogue government are lower as well. Mars might become second home for humanity, but not a space exploration foothold - even if escape velocity there is lower than on Earth, it's much higher than on the Moon.
But, last but not least, there's a nifty bit of maths summarized on the picrelated. Basically, it takes almost 50% less fuel to get to the surface of Deimos, Mars's larger moon, than to our own Moon, and with well-placed aerobraking maneuver, getting to Mars from there costs next to nothing.

So, Moon first if you want some of that asteroid belt platinum and gold and whatnot; if you want generation ships, O'Neil cylinders, Starshot laser grids. But Mars first if you want to split your eggs-humans between two baskets - one failing and one barely habitable.

Attached: image.png (319x143, 8K)

>Solar System colonization

What can you even colonize other than Mars? Venus is toxic as fuck, Mercury would melt you, the gas giants are fucking gas, and the outer planets are too cold.

First of all, colonizing doesn't necessarily mean humans living there. A swarm of drones disassembling asteroids and sending stuff to the Inner System is colonization already, by proxy, but still.
Second, upper layers of Venus atmo are as decent an environment as it gets.
Third, Titan will either be your ultimate fuel depot (if we don't get anything better than chemical rockets) or a Moon+ sized supercomputer (see Isaac Arthur's video on Colonizing Titan, but tl;dw is that Titan being a cold as fuck makes it a perfect place for both conventional and quantum computational arrays)
Forth, back to asteroids - maybe spun-up inner shell habs are not viable, but if you get fusion - you can set a small family microG farm on every 1km-wide piece of rock flying in both Inner Belt, Kuiper Belt and even Oort Cloud. The amount of power it takes to heat up a few acres of space needed to sustain a human in perfect conditions is negligible compared to what it would take to get to there in the first place.
Finally, plopping an O'Neil cylinder or another habitat type of your choice on any semi-stable orbit is as already colonization-y as it gets.
Also, Europa, Ganimede, and Enceladus would be easiest to terra?form. I'd rather say Oceanform.

Shame we won't get to see any of it

telomere repair bruh

To get as far away as possible while we nuke the brainlets back into the stone age so we may descend upon them like gods in a couple of thousand years in our chariots of fire and castles in the sky to rule over them, except maybe not screw up as bad as last time along with our QT monster girl waifus.

Attached: memphite2.jpg (356x237, 31K)

Even if that hapens, probably only really rich people will be able to afford it. Guess it's time to steal Ivanka from Jared

In terms of viable targets for colonization, the order of best to shittest goes Mars, Moon, Ceres/asteroids, Mercury, Callisto, Ganymede, Titan, Rhea, Iapetus, Europa, Tethys, Dione, Titania, Oberon, Umbriel, Ariel, Triton, Pluto/major Kuiper belt objects, Io, Venus, and the Gas Giants. Everything else is either too small to bother listing here or is lumped into group categories like the asteroids. This list considers surface resources and conditions, similarity to Earth, distance, and radiation environment. Moon is closer to Mars but much harder to live on so it comes second. Mercury is surprisingly easy to manage, because there are permanently shadowed craters to set up on initially and you can just live underground with unlimited, high power density solar energy. Io is near the bottom of the list because it has a thin and unstable crust with thousands of active volcanoes and is bombarded with enough radiation by Jupiter's magnetic field to destroy your DNA in seconds. Venus is garbage because of the extreme heat and pressure at the surface, cloud cities are a total meme, but it does beat the gas giants because at least Venus has any surface at all, even if it is nearly unreachable, and Venus also gets significant solar power.

where does your moms arse rank lmao

floating c olonies on Venus is up there with Mercury

The moon would be a great place to manufacture spaceships. The low gravity and no atmosphere makes getting into orbit much easier than getting stuff off of earth. Plus it's got more or less the same composition as earth's crust so you can mine for raw materials.

Once you truly open your ass to the potential of space habitats build near asteroids, they clearly emerge as the best way of doing things.

the moon is by far the better choice for developing strategies before mars colonization, especially when it comes to robotics. it's a lot cheaper and faster to make missions to the moon than to mars. but then the question is, can't we just use earth for most of that anyway? plus a big part of it is simply getting humans to a new frontier and not dicking around on a mostly uninteresting rock.

Not him. There's no advantage of floating colonies as opposed to space habitats. None at all. Quite on the contrary. It's a meme.

Venus is the only place where you can conveniently find a location that has Earth normal termperatures & pressures

The moon has a lot of water ice, less gravity is no disadvantage, because this means launching things from it is easier, and the atmosphere of Mars is so thin it is almost useless anyways.

>Venus is the only place where you can conveniently find a location that has Earth normal termperatures & pressures
Which can also be found inside a spacecraft.

Having a colony on Venus would be like living in a never-ending Hindenberg floating above a misty void, constant bumps and storms.

>Having a colony on Venus would be like living in a never-ending Hindenberg floating above a misty void, constant bumps and storms.

Don't forget the literal acid rain!