>>267
Too much of a risk at least rekatively to mars, though as I say we should colonize soace but we still have yet to colonise the fringes of this planet, the artic/antartic, fucking australia if that's even possible, and if we used the proper technology we could build giant buildings able to house more people because of its fucking height. We could also have floating habitats or something on the ocean. But it would be nice to get a foothold on other celestial bodies first.
The problem with the Moon is radiation, no atmosphere, low gravity, the dust, we can combat all of these with relative ease however there's one other problem that would be very difficult, its day for a month and night for a month, plants could not take it and using UV lamps is very energy intensive. This also causes the problem of no solar energy during the night, batteries can fail and we would have to resort to nuclear at some point.
Mars has a few problems of its own, but if terraforming were to happen they would all be less and less of a problem as time passes on, these problems are: the dust, radiation (less than the moon), air pressure, the cold, dust storms, and the like, however like I said long term in the case of terraforminv these problems will go away, though even if some faggot UN treaty saying no terraforming allowed it would still be better than the moon in terms of cities and the like.
Well to put it simply I veiw space colonization like this:
Moon= greenland
Mars= America
Asteroid Belt= the caribbean
Venus= Africa
I for one advocate sending space station parts to the area between earth and mars so a ships going back and forth can restock on air and food.