Do you believe a Luna Colony is more viable in the next 10-20 years than a man on Mars?

@PikachuTrainer what percentage?

@xSharp not even 0.01%. Most of the unwanted rock would stay behind and only the valuable material would be taken, some of it being used to create infrastructure on Luna itself.

@PikachuTrainer i guess that wouldnt be too bad

@SW-User resources, including rare metals and near infinite supply of He3 (Luna), a colony of humans that will help alleviate overpopulation here on Earth, and Scientific advancement, with potential of reaching and mining the near infinite rare metals from the inner Asteroid belt.

@PikachuTrainer It's way, way cheaper to just dig those resources out of the ground on Earth than trying to mine the Moon and ship stuff back. There is nothing valuable enough for it to be economical. I'll consider the He3 argument when someone shows me a working design for a fusion reactor to burn it.

It would be way easier, cheaper and safer to colonize Antarctica than the Moon (never mind Mars), and you could actually go outside.

@SW-User You are correct where expense is concerned, however there is a much higher quantity of Rare Metals on Luna than there is on Earth, and it isn't as simple as digging it up from Earth since you have to take into account the time it will take to prospect the area, and the environmental impact of such a mine. As for He3, part of the Luna colony would be the design of the a Fusion reactor capable of burning it, part of R&D, and there are international laws regarding the colonisation of Antarctica (as in, we aren't actually allowed to).