Marilyn vos Savant, opinion on Lunar Colonization

"Space Cadet" wrote in message
...
For those of you who may not know, Marilyn vos Savant, runs a
syndicate column
it appears in the Parade Magazine supplement in my weekend paper, she
is listed in the "Guinness Book of World Records" Hall of fame for
"highest IQ".
On her 11/3/02 column, she gave this opinion on Lunar Colonization

The question came from From Bob Schumacher's classes at
Woodbury(Minn)Jr High
"Is it possible to start a colony on the Moon yet?"

Her answer:
Probably, but I see no compelling reason to do it. Such a project
would be
dangerous,extremely expensive and unlikely to accomplish much. Man
evolved on Earth, which is why we were able to populate it widely.
But the enviroment on the Moon is hostile to us and will remain that
way. It would be easier to colonize our deserts and oceans.

Comments anyone?

She's right.

There isn't any compelling reason to go to the moon or Mars for that matter.
I've heard lots of reasons for going to the moon but al of these can be
refuted.

1) mining nuclear fuel
2) astronomy
3) extinction by comet
4) millitary base
5) tourism
6) commercial space
7) mining ore and precious metals

And colonizing the deserts and oceans will be a lot more cost effective and
be able to sustain a much larger number of people.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 15:04:02 +0100, in a place far, far away, "Dr. O"
dr.o@xxxxx made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to
indicate that:

There isn't any compelling reason to go to the moon or Mars for that matter.
I've heard lots of reasons for going to the moon but al of these can be
refuted.

Not always convincingly.

5) tourism

And colonizing the deserts and oceans will be a lot more cost effective and
be able to sustain a much larger number of people.

Obviously, since many have expressed an interest in going to the moon,
tourism is a compelling reason, at least to them. It has nothing to
do with colonization.

And of course, you missed the most important one.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:
[...]

Obviously, since many have expressed an interest in going to the moon,
tourism is a compelling reason, at least to them. It has nothing to
do with colonization.


Uh, careful, Rand -- this isn't nearly terse enough for your style.
And it actually has content, as opposed to just snorting at the other
party (your first reply in this thread is a classic).

Soem of the other posters did indeed give evidence of why MvS's
comment could be viewed as stupid, but I'm still left to guess what
*your* reasons for saying so are.

I suspect that people will refute the reasons for going to the moon
sufficiently convincingly, until a *package of reasons* is important
enough -- no single reason now known or reasonably anticipated is
enough by itself, so we just have to keep *bundling* the reasons.

(As long as "bundling" doesn't mean installing Windows Lunar Edition
to get there :-P)

/dps

/dps

Dr. O (dr.o@xxxxx) wrote:

: "Space Cadet" wrote in message
: ...
: For those of you who may not know, Marilyn vos Savant, runs a
: syndicate column
: it appears in the Parade Magazine supplement in my weekend paper, she
: is listed in the "Guinness Book of World Records" Hall of fame for
: "highest IQ".
: On her 11/3/02 column, she gave this opinion on Lunar Colonization
:
: The question came from From Bob Schumacher's classes at
: Woodbury(Minn)Jr High
: "Is it possible to start a colony on the Moon yet?"
:
: Her answer:
: Probably, but I see no compelling reason to do it. Such a project
: would be
: dangerous,extremely expensive and unlikely to accomplish much. Man
: evolved on Earth, which is why we were able to populate it widely.
: But the enviroment on the Moon is hostile to us and will remain that
: way. It would be easier to colonize our deserts and oceans.
:
: Comments anyone?

: She's right.

: There isn't any compelling reason to go to the moon or Mars for that matter.
: I've heard lots of reasons for going to the moon but al of these can be
: refuted.

: 1) mining nuclear fuel
: 2) astronomy
: 3) extinction by comet
: 4) millitary base
: 5) tourism
: 6) commercial space
: 7) mining ore and precious metals

You forgot debunking the "no lunar landing" hoax.

: And colonizing the deserts and oceans will be a lot more cost effective and
: be able to sustain a much larger number of people.

Well the same argument could have been made about why we went to the New
World. "Just develop Europe, Asia and Africa." Could have worked for
several more centuries.

Though as pointless as manned spaceflight seems to be it still makes a
heck of lot more sense and is more economical than war.

Eric

Man
evolved on Earth, which is why we were able to populate it widely.
But the enviroment on the Moon is hostile to us and will remain that
way. It would be easier to colonize our deserts and oceans.

Comments anyone?

Many more humans have died in the desert and on the sea than likely ever will
on the moon, so it is surprising she uses "hostile environment" as an argument.

Deserts and ocean floors are not very attractive places to be (well, excepting
places like Arizona). And in the ocean, colonisation will be just as
technically difficult and likely as expensive.

"G EddieA95" wrote in message
...

Deserts and ocean floors are not very attractive places to be (well,
excepting
places like Arizona). And in the ocean, colonisation will be just as
technically difficult and likely as expensive.

yep, keeping 5psi inside the spacecraft is easier to do than keeping several
thousand psi of water *out of* a submersible structure.

Which is why submarines have inches-thick double hulls, while the LM could
get by with a hull that in some places was only as thick as a couple pieces
of aluminum foil.

--
Terrell Miller


"Very often, a 'free' feestock will still lead to a very expensive system.
One that is quite likely noncompetitive"
- Don Lancaster

Terrell Miller ) wrote:
: "G EddieA95" wrote in message
: ...

: Deserts and ocean floors are not very attractive places to be (well,
: excepting
: places like Arizona). And in the ocean, colonisation will be just as
: technically difficult and likely as expensive.

: yep, keeping 5psi inside the spacecraft is easier to do than keeping several
: thousand psi of water *out of* a submersible structure.

: Which is why submarines have inches-thick double hulls, while the LM could
: get by with a hull that in some places was only as thick as a couple pieces
: of aluminum foil.

: --
: Terrell Miller
:

: "Very often, a 'free' feestock will still lead to a very expensive system.
: One that is quite likely noncompetitive"
: - Don Lancaster


Which Don Lancaster is this? From TTL and CMOS fame?

Eric

"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in message
...

And colonizing the deserts and oceans will be a lot more cost effective
and
be able to sustain a much larger number of people.

I hear this argument again and again, but it misses an important point. We
don't want to build settlements beyond the Earth because Earth is becoming
standing-room-only and we need a new place to put all the excess people. We
want to build settlements beyond the Earth because we want to have a destiny
that lies beyond this one tiny little world.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should ask, critically and with appeal to the numbers, whether the
best site for a growing advancing industrial society is Earth, the
Moon, Mars, some other planet, or somewhere else entirely.
Surprisingly, the answer will be inescapable - the best site is
"somewhere else entirely."

Gerard O'Neill - "The High Frontier"

"Mike Combs" wrote in message ...
"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in message
...

And colonizing the deserts and oceans will be a lot more cost effective
and
be able to sustain a much larger number of people.

I hear this argument again and again, but it misses an important point. We
don't want to build settlements beyond the Earth because Earth is becoming
standing-room-only and we need a new place to put all the excess people. We
want to build settlements beyond the Earth because we want to have a destiny
that lies beyond this one tiny little world.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We should ask, critically and with appeal to the numbers, whether the
best site for a growing advancing industrial society is Earth, the
Moon, Mars, some other planet, or somewhere else entirely.
Surprisingly, the answer will be inescapable - the best site is
"somewhere else entirely."

Gerard O'Neill - "The High Frontier"
Ms Savant:

Perhaps to use the resources of the moon. The upper atmosphere is
hostile to us and will remain that way. Looking up from Kitty Hawk, NC
in 1903, someone could have said: I see no compelling reason to
develop aircraft that might fly 7 miles high, where the temperature is
-65F, and there is very little air; such a project would dangerous,
extremely expensive and unlikely to accomplish much.

Gary Heidenreich
Rockford, Il

In article ,
Dr. O dr.o@xxxxx wrote:
And colonizing the deserts and oceans will be a lot more cost effective and
be able to sustain a much larger number of people.

The purpose of colonizing space is not to seek difficulty and danger, or
to create low-cost housing.
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |