When all the planets are explored in the solar system

Logan Kearsley wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Wayne Throop wrote:
: Sea Wasp
: Well, since you'll have to be building everything on the Moon
: completely sealed, completely self contained, etc., barring a
: discovery of some hidden water stash or something, what's the real
: advantage of building it on the Moon rather than in orbit, where it's
: NOT at the bottom of that gravity well?

Mass to hide under wrt solar flares etc, and to supply some of the heavy
bits to construction projects.

However, yes, if it were me, I wouldn't go to either the moon or mars as
a *goal* in the near term, except insofar as the moon might have things
you could catapult to construction projects elsewhere instead of lugging
from earth. But that's just me.

What does mars, or the moon, have that you can't get on earth easier?

Land. According to reputable authorities, it isn't being made around
here any more. (Give or take sea reclamation projects. I think the
Star Trek movie novelisation established they drained the
Mediterranean.)

Well, maybe the people of the Trek universe are desperate enough, but I
certainly wouldn't want to live in the former Mediterranean. Hot, dry, high
pressure... although the salt might do wonders for my sinuses.
The view from a mansion on the edge of the Nile or Rhone gorges ought to be
quite spectacular, too.

So would you take it with 23rd century air conditioning?

I think they also have weather control, but I'm not sure. In movie
four it rains in San Francisco, is that feasible? :-)