In yesterday's NYT, NASA-affiliated scientist William S. Marshall, wondered why no one seems to care about NASA's discovery of water on the moon.

Almost as surprising as NASA’s announcement is the lack of attention it has received. Thirty years ago, a development like this would have been heralded as one of humanity’s greatest discoveries.

Marshall hypothesized that astronomers were disappointed because they couldn't see the impact plume and that the rest of us were too distracted by problems on Earth.

Marshall should stick to astrophysics.

Mr. Marshall, I was raised on science fiction. Nothing could get me more excited than the idea of real space colonization, even without galactic empires, robot wars, or cute furry aliens. But you and your folks really need to make a better case for a lunar base if you want me to get behind it.

First you tell us that the moon will become "a high-speed transportation hub for the solar system." That's fantastic. A high-speed transportation hub will help clear the congestion on the popular Earth-Jupiter space route. Unfortunately, you haven't made clear why we need so many trips to the solar system, which has frankly turned out to be a pretty boring place. The most happening planet other than earth is a cold sandy virtually airless desert. We should keep exploring the solar system to be sure, but it's pretty hard to get excited about.

Next, you tell us that a lunar habitat is important "for our species' survival":

Humanity needs more than one home because, with all our eggs in one basket, we are at risk of low-probability but high-consequence catastrophes like asteroid strikes, nuclear war or bioterrorism.

It's nice to imagine astronauts chilling in the comfort of their swank moon base while Earth goes up in flames, but let's be serious. A lunar base would not survive a NASA management shuffle let alone a 2012-style apocalypse back home. Yet if we were to somehow build a self-sufficient base that survives on water and moon rock while avoiding solar radiation, we could surely build terrestrial shelters that would survive any bio-nuclear-asteroid catastrophes.

Finally, you tell us about all the "technological and other advancements" a lunar base will bring:

Consider the side-effects of the Apollo program: it drove the development of small computers, doubled the number of doctoral students in science and math in about a decade and marked a new stage in relations between the Americans and Soviets.

So a lunar base will mark a new stage in our relations with who, the North Koreans? Spell this one out for me. As for the technology, sure, developing a lunar base would require us to develop new technology. But if spending money on moon research will indirectly foster new technology, couldn't we just skip the moon part and invest directly in technology research?

No Mr. Marshall, the important difference between 30 years ago and today is not the visibility of any plumes or the number of terrestrial problems on our minds. The difference is that we've been to the moon already, and it's just not that interesting. So if you want to get us excited about space colonization, you need to move beyond gray rock and red sand, beyond doomsday scenarios, and beyond indirect technological advances. You have to give us something to dream about again.