Paraterraforming vs. terraforming the Moon and Mars

I would agree that the early settlers would be in caves, covered habitats, or domes but 'if' modest terraforming can yield large results why not try for the big one? If it is shown that a half dozen mirrors in polar orbit (perpindicular to the sun) and toward the dark side (due to balancing light pressure), modest CFC production, a few volatile rich asteroids, and black carbon coating of the polar ice caps can add useful amounts of atmosphere, temperature, pressure, radiation protection, even precipitation. Why not go for it?

It could bring us to the point of pressureless domed greenhouse agriculture, lower radiation shielding requirements, lower temperature requirements and just shy of flight pressure suits with radiation shielding for humans out on the surface instead of Moon/ISS space suits requirements.

Of course this depends on how effective the above terraforming processes would be, how much they would cost, how much the difference in costs would be to the settlers on the surface. But I would think it would be worth a look into the benefits because it might produce many with relatively low costs.

Brooks

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "William" wrote: