I’m unsure what you’re saying with this. The only place to get “perpetual” light and dark would be the poles of the moon, although I suspect it’s similar to our own poles where they don’t line up properly for such. The moon is tidally locked to the earth, so it puts the same side towards earth at all times. This means as it revolves around the earth, the day/night cycle is as long as its orbit, which is to say 27 days. With no atmosphere to refract the light, you’re looking at 13.5 days of day, and 13.5 days of night. The only way to avoid this is to migrate around the moon.
I imagine it will be “dirty” water, as you’d have to melt the ice in the soil, unless you have access to the polar craters which might have ice. This means needing to filtrate and then reintroduce salts and minerals, which I imagine is the same on Mars.
I disagree with this sentiment. If anything, the diversity of types of locations actually improves the ability to settle on Mars, because you can choose between soft sand, hard rock, etc. A uniform surface only gives you one choice to work with.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. The fine particulate on Mars is probably the most problematic of environmental hazards, as it is incredibly fine and will slip into joints on machinery easily and clog filters rapidly. Anything of greater substance should not pose much of a problem beyond what we are accustomed to on earth.
Regarding the creation of bricks using Martian soil, I don’t know that it would be of much value outside of creating artificial barriers, like a windbreak. You’re unlikely to get such a structure airtight.
The gravity on Mars is greater than the Moon, while less than earth. I don’t expect it to pose any problems you wouldn’t already have with a Lunar base. Regarding the soil types, this is only a problem if your structure is reliant on the soil as an anchor. If you don’t need it as an anchor, you don’t need to worry about anything other than what you’re coming in contact with.
As discussed previously, the Lunar habitat requirements and the Martian habitat requirements are not all that similar. Something designed for the moon does not have to contend with an atmosphere (and the associated winds), but does have to deal with more extreme temperature fluctuations, two week long days and two week long nights. I was going to say pressure differentials, but after looking up the numbers Mars doesn’t offer much more than a vacuum does, so I guess that’s not terribly relevant.
Basically, you would not design the two habitats to be identical. A Lunar habitat would be designed for the requirements of living on the Moon, and the Martian one would be designed for Mars.
As for commercial viability of hotels and such, I think we are still some time away from having prices low enough to make it a serious consideration. If it’s going to cost just as much to put someone in Low Moon Orbit and back as it does to land on Mars, it’s not going to be something for the masses anytime soon for recreational purposes.
This entire section, and much of what follows, confuses me, as 99% of it is equally relevant between Moon and Mars, but little of it is relevant to a debate between them. Unless you’re just attempting to portray why either is economically viable, but I don’t even require economic viability to want to go: I want to go because I want to go.
You do know there is no such thing as a “dark” side of the moon, right? The entire lunar surface gets bathed in the day/night cycle of two weeks on, two weeks off. What you’re looking for here is the Earth-Sun L2 point, where a satellite can have the sun permanently blocked by earth’s shadow. There are actually several satellites already out there, for this exact reason.