Bold statement, I'd be impressed if it holds up by mid-century.
SpaceX cans are woefully inadequate even to maintain a Mars outpost.
The usual term is "outpost", or for a larger operation, "base".
There are no undersea outposts, even. Construction crews sometimes encamp for a few weeks for big hazard pay. There are two (count 'em!) low-orbital outposts that get literally all supplies except energy from the ground.
The word colony in the sense of space exploration and other extreme habitats means permanent occupation and exploitation of the resources there.
>4. Sabatier reactor
>Inside this machine, a blast of roughly 750°F heat breaks the bonds inside CO₂, forcing it into its constituent elements. The carbon and oxygen combine with hydrogen from the station’s oxygen generating system to make H₂O and methane (CH₄), the latter of which vents into space.
Even if this pessimistic prediction comes true, the same nutrient-recycling solution could support human life in resource-poor regions on Earth, such as Antarctica or Detroit!
The bigger question is how the liar benefits from the lie. Pumping stock value is the usual guess: (Tesla stock is only now starting to correct, and that largely because of the Twitter debacle.) The fusion-energy startup business runs this way.
Electric power to run the LEDs, if obtained from renewables, is protected from cost shocks, but such power might be more profitably sold at such times than used to drive LEDs and sell the produce.