[gambiting]

No I totally get that. My point is if we want to get to that lofty goal of space exploration and colonisation, then our own Moon really is the obvious choice. The supply chains, the technology, the achievement is no smaller than it would be on Mars. For some reason people threat it as almost "too easy" which is obviously completely nonsense. We should built and maintain a permanently inhibited base(colony?) on the Moon before venturing out all the way to Mars. Surely having a visible colony so close to us would be a huge uplifting achievement to all of mankind.

The bottom of the ocean is perhaps less glamorous, but it's no less technically challenging - the risks of having a permanent base on the bottom of the Mariana Trench would be huge, but we could try living there permanently, growing our own food, conduct research etc - it many ways it's more similar to space exploration than many people think.

[Retric]

The Moon is very difficult as the long days result in extreme temperatures. Daytime temperatures can reach 253.4 degrees Fahrenheit (123° C). Covering a large area in a reflective surface can dramatically lower that, but the Apollo missions only worked because they stayed for a few days near lunar dawn.

There are ways around this, but the moon is a harsh mistress.

[Kye]

Make the first colony one thin, long pipe across the entire surface. The difference in temperature would provide a steady flow of air at the average temperature.

This is probably completely ridiculous for reasons obvious to someone who knows what they're talking about.

[vagrantJin]

You raise a good point. Start with the low hanging fruit before leaping to the apex. Walk before sprinting.