/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10247960
That assumes the wind is constant and consistent across the entire structure. Weather tends to be more complex than a simple homogenous wall of wind going around the planet in the same direction at the same speed forever.
>>10247985
For the record I'm not against Lunar or Venereal (or Cytherean if you're embarassed) colonisation but Mars is a contender too.
>conveniently located for import
Doesn't really matter. Moon requires a pure propulsive injection and landing and Mars can aerobrake. dV ends up comparable. It does take more time, but dead matter doesn't care. Nothing is going to be that urgent - anything vital to the population that could kill them in the time difference is going to be redundant for a habitat on any celestial body, anything that isn't can wait. People are more expensive, but they make up a tiny fraction of the total mass of cargo shipped.
>no obstacles to massive-scale mining
Applies to both Mars and the Moon doesn't it? And arguably the Moon Treaty and the PR issues are obstacles.
>incredibly rich in deuterium, as acquiring hydrogen is easy and 1% of that hydrogen is deuterium as opposed to Earth's 0.01% (important for fusion reactors)
You might notice we don't have fusion reactors.
And reasons to colonize Mars is basically because its a nice combination of them both. Relatively liveable with good access to materials.
>Doesn't have a fortnight long night
>no obstacles to massive-scale mining
>signficanty less radiation than the Moon
>more water
>more gravity than the Moon (if it matters)
>less extreme temperatures
>easy and more effective fuel production than the Moon
>hydrological and magmatic processes for ore unlike the Moon
>more types and amounts of resources than the Moon
>no Moondust
>Easier to terraform than both (but still basically impossible in the forseeable future)
If you had to pick only place to go in the Solar System, you'd pick Mars. If you don't, then pick all of them.