/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11849599
>Unlimited nitrogen
Not particularly hard to find, assuming we need that much at once
Only economical if it stay on Mars, it's not the easiest sources

>unlimited CO2
Not particularly hard to find, assuming we need that much at once
Only economical if it stay on Mars, it's not the easiest sources

>most plentiful source of water side side of the asteroid belt
Not really, the Moon will be more accessible, the asteroid would be more economical sources for space exploration and if "this side of the belt" don't make sense as mechanic goes.

>PHOSPHOROUS
It's a self-repeating meme, asteroids are a much better sources of it.

>>11849633
>No, I was just thinking about the moon while I meant to type earth.
Then you do the childish error of believing Mars is "almost Earth" when you'll actually be living in worse environment than whatever you blame on orbital colony (or any other place really, a colony on the Moon make more sense)
Should I bet you believe in childish-level terraforming?

>Enjoy living in a tin can in space with no environment to explore
I don't, that's why I want space station, Mars is worse in those aspect. Gravity keep you from leaving or building too big or getting easily rid of old structure.

> and being forced to import most resources.
Ever lived in a city? Economical law will make import to (any other) colony more economical than importing what Mars will inevitably lack.

>>11849644
Learn to read, Mars resources are only good to live there, that why it a poor first choice when you need to develop the tech, and once you learned those Mars don't have good quality to be worth more investment.
Your argument is like saying Antarctica is best place to live on because it have the most water when you could have America instead.

>>11849655
Say the anon who probably got his "astrogeology" from decade of Far West Mars false equivalence.
I hope you at least know of this channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZFipeZtQM5CKUjx6grh54g