BeartrapSandwich

Scumbag OP does an AMA, answers no questions.

Edit: Nevermind!

I'm thinking more along the line of what does this research into landing in that thin CO2 mean for the future of the species in this system.

Is Mars more valuable as the world's biggest fixer-upper of a second home planet, or as an iron mine at the bottom of a gravity well for a gradually expanding civilization of space colonies?

Setting up a permanent homestead under the surface of the Moon or Ceres would be only a little more technically challenging than doing it under what's left of the Martian atmosphere, and any extra air we add is only going to leak away from the planet's weak gravity unless we pour Zettagrams of crap into that hole just to hold it down.

Personally, I think spending two Gigagrams of Mass peer square meter just to have something to stand on like we do here on earth is just wasteful when a Gigagram in the shape of a space colony ought to house tens or hundreds.

It seems to me that a significant part of the problem landing from space (also permanent human settlement) on Mars can be fixed by raising the atmospheric pressure.

Would it be more efficient in terms of habitable cubic meters per gigabuck to dump in what comets and asteroids are needed to sufficiently thicken the atmosphere or should we make them into space colonies instead?