>>11573280Correct, and in that respect, every object in our solar system is a stepping stone, which we will need to use in one way or another to escape the solar system as a whole and begin to use alien stars as stepping stones to colonizing the galaxy. Once enough of the galaxy is colonized, specifically along very long 'lanes' of systems, we can use those lanes as accelerator tracks (via laser propulsion) to launch huge fleets of huge spacecraft with huge populations at huge velocity to other galaxies.
The end goal is to colonize everything. The argument about Mars vs Moon, and more recently Mars vs Moon vs Venus, has NEVER been about which one to colonize and which ones not to. It's always been about which one is the best FIRST colonization target. It's about which one will allow us to do the most in terms of expanding into space, faster, cheaper, and in a more robust manner. Venus is totally not on the table for those purposes, because it's basically Earth Launch Economy 2.0, with worse resources and worse atmosphere and worse regional space weather and no moon. Moon is obviously a moon already, but it's also got very low gravity and is obviously very close. Mars on the other hand, apart from the proximity, has all the best qualities. It's got more gravity than Moon, but the atmosphere means that a round trip to orbit and back from Mars is actually less difficult than the same on the Moon, in terms of delta V. The atmosphere and ground volatiles make fuel production straightforward, whereas Moon is ultra dry (the lunar poles have only a very exhaustible supply of water and maybe some CO2). Mars is closer to the asteroid belt, and even has two tiny asteroid like moons to exploit.
Mars is clearly the best option, but really Moon is so close we should just start doing both at once, especially since any rocket that can do Mars can get to the Moon anyway. Venus is for faggots.
