Could lunar shadowed craters realistically host quantum computers, or do radiation and logistics overwhelm the cooling advantage?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen presses Rick Rosner on whether the Moon’s far side could host quantum computers. Rosner corrects the “dark side” myth, noting all lunar regions see sunlight, while shadowed craters offer cold but not radiation protection. He argues decoherence risks demand heavy shielding or subterranean installation, and lunar logistics likely dwarf terrestrial cryogenic costs. The discussion widens to Musk-style space utopianism: optimism drives progress, but physics, budgets, biology, and jagged regolith impose friction. They pivot to Gen Z nihilism amid AI media, plus NATO reassurance, immigration enforcement, and polling, stressing institutional change emerges gradually over years, not weekly headlines.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What about placing quantum computers on the far side of the Moon, perhaps in craters where conditions are cold and undisturbed? The premise sounds attractive because quantum computers require extreme isolation and cryogenic temperatures. 

Rick Rosner: However, the “dark side” of the Moon is a misnomer. The Moon is tidally locked to Earth, meaning we always see the same hemisphere, but every part of the lunar surface experiences sunlight over a lunar month. There is no permanently dark hemisphere.

Some craters near the lunar poles contain regions of near-permanent shadow and extremely low temperatures, which could help with passive cooling. However, radiation remains a major issue. Earth benefits from its magnetic field and thick atmosphere, which shield against cosmic rays and solar radiation. The Moon lacks both. Sensitive quantum hardware would require substantial shielding, possibly underground placement, to reduce decoherence from radiation events.

The logistical cost is enormous. Launching, constructing, and maintaining advanced computing infrastructure on the Moon would likely exceed the cost of terrestrial cryogenic facilities by orders of magnitude. Unless there is a compelling strategic or scientific advantage, the economics are questionable.

Jacobsen: Elon Musk has floated ambitious extraterrestrial projects before. Ambition in space technology oscillates between engineering feasibility and cultural mythmaking. Mars colonization rhetoric, for example, often reflects technological optimism more than demographic necessity. The United States represents a small fraction of the global population, yet its tech sector frequently frames expansion as destiny. That can drift into utopian thinking.

There is a psychological pattern sometimes called “Pollyannaish” optimism—an assumption that technical progress automatically resolves structural constraints. Space exploration is valuable, but scaling human settlement beyond Earth remains constrained by biology, radiation, cost, and governance.

The deeper pattern is this: technological visionaries often extend current exponential curves into the future without friction. Reality introduces friction—physics, budgets, human limits. The downgrade from hyper-optimism to measured pragmatism usually happens when those constraints assert themselves.

This extends to the feasibility of lunar or Martian settlements.

Rosner: Long-duration habitation on Mars faces severe constraints. Radiation exposure during transit alone is substantial. Mars lacks a global magnetic field and has a thin atmosphere, so surface radiation levels are significantly higher than on Earth. Long-term settlers would likely need to live underground or under heavy shielding to reduce cancer and acute radiation risks.

There are also material challenges. Martian regolith and lunar dust are sharp and abrasive because there is no weathering process like wind and water rounding grains over time. On Earth, sand is smoothed by erosion and ocean movement. On Mars and the Moon, dust particles remain jagged. That creates mechanical and health hazards. Apollo astronauts reported that lunar dust infiltrated seals and equipment and was highly irritating. Scaling that problem to a permanent settlement would require major engineering mitigation.

So replacing Mars with a lunar base does not eliminate difficulty. It reduces transit time but not radiation, dust, temperature extremes, or cost barriers.

The term comes from Pollyanna, a 1913 novel by Eleanor H. Porter about a girl who maintains relentless optimism despite adversity. Over time, “Pollyannaish” came to mean excessive or naïve optimism. In technology culture, it describes the assumption that engineering momentum overrides structural constraints.

Optimism drives innovation. Unrealistic optimism ignores thermodynamics, economics, and biology. The balance between aspiration and feasibility is the difference between exploration and fantasy.

Before we close, there was an article discussing Gen Z, AI-generated media, and nihilism. Younger cohorts have grown up amid political polarization, economic instability, climate anxiety, and now algorithmically generated content. Some cultural critics argue that constant exposure to AI-generated “slop” and unstable institutions fosters disengagement. If institutions feel brittle and media feels synthetic, meaning can erode.

Yet long-term indicators show mixed trends. Global literacy, extreme poverty reduction over decades, technological capability, and medical survival rates have generally improved historically. At the same time, affordability of housing, education, and healthcare in certain countries has worsened relative to wages.

The psychological tension arises when macro-level progress coexists with individual precarity. If living standards improve technologically while access becomes uneven, cynicism can grow. The challenge for the next generation is not whether things are objectively worse or better in aggregate, but whether systems distribute gains in ways that feel stable and fair.

Nihilism tends to flourish in transitional eras. Historically, transitions eventually settle into new norms. The question is how turbulent the settling process becomes.

AI gives people reasons to panic, but it will also produce extraordinary advances. So the nihilism we see among younger cohorts may be exaggerated. The article mentioned “looksmaxxing.” Are you familiar with that?

Jacobsen: Yes. 

Rosner: “Looksmaxxing” refers to online subcultures focused on maximizing physical attractiveness through grooming, fitness, cosmetic procedures, or even more extreme interventions. It reflects a hyper-competitive digital environment in which identity and perceived value are mediated by algorithms and social comparison.

Jacobsen: The broader pattern is cognitive. Humans evolved as threat detectors. Our ancestors survived by overreacting to danger rather than underreacting. False positives were cheaper than false negatives. That bias persists. Even in environments of unprecedented technological convenience, we gravitate toward signals of instability, decline, or risk.

Media systems amplify that tendency. Negative news travels faster because it triggers attention and engagement. AI-generated content, misinformation, and cultural fragmentation increase the signal-to-noise ratio, making it easier for charlatans to exploit insecurity.

At the same time, material indicators of global welfare—life expectancy, medical capability, computational power—have improved over long time horizons. That does not negate localized economic strain or political dysfunction. It creates a psychological dissonance: aggregate progress coexists with perceived precarity.

Nihilism often emerges when rapid change outpaces institutional adaptation. Yet the very fact that we detect threat so readily is evidence of adaptive resilience. A species wired to scan for danger may feel anxious in transitional eras, but that vigilance also drives course correction.

The question is not whether anxiety exists. It is whether we allow anxiety to metastasize into paralysis, or channel it into structured adaptation. Technological epochs always look chaotic from the inside. History tends to smooth them in retrospect.

The U.S. ambassador to NATO recently signaled at the Munich Security Conference that the United States is not abandoning Europe. Some interpret that as a reframing after a period of strained rhetoric. What is your view?

Rosner: Diplomatic tone and strategic posture do not always align perfectly. Reassurance statements can serve multiple audiences simultaneously: European allies seeking stability, domestic constituencies attentive to sovereignty rhetoric, and partisan observers reading symbolic cues. A speech can be conciliatory in parts and combative in others. Without examining the full transcript in context, it is difficult to evaluate the balance.

Foreign policy messaging often oscillates. One official may emphasize continuity with NATO commitments, while other political voices stress burden-sharing or cultural themes that resonate differently with right-leaning constituencies. Those signals can coexist. Allies typically judge consistency over time rather than isolated applause lines.

Jacobsen: Domestic opinion also appears divided on immigration enforcement and ICE.

Rosner: Public opinion on immigration enforcement has historically fluctuated depending on framing. Some surveys show that majorities support border enforcement in principle, while also expressing concern about civil liberties and due process in specific cases. Partisan splits are common.

Presidential approval ratings reflect methodological variation. Aggregators weight polls differently; some survey firms lean slightly conservative or liberal in sampling assumptions. Even accounting for statistical noise, trends over time can indicate directional shifts. If approval declines steadily, that suggests real movement rather than sampling jitter.

However, the relationship between polling and executive behavior is indirect. Presidents rarely recalibrate dramatically unless electoral consequences become imminent or legislative coalitions shift. Midterm elections often function as a corrective mechanism, but structural factors—district boundaries, incumbency advantage, turnout differentials—shape outcomes.

Gallup began systematic presidential approval polling during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s era and maintained it for decades. The organization has stated that strategic business priorities motivated the shift away from routine approval polling. Critics speculate about political pressure, but without internal evidence, that remains conjecture.

Polling ecosystems adapt. Even if one firm exits, numerous other survey organizations continue to measure approval, making long-term trend analysis possible. Institutional continuity matters symbolically, yet the empirical signal persists as long as independent data streams remain active.

Jacobsen: Any final thoughts?

Rosner: Political cycles produce oscillations in tone, approval, and institutional trust. Structural change usually emerges gradually, even when rhetoric feels abrupt. The relevant question is less about weekly fluctuations and more about durable shifts in coalition behavior and institutional norms. Those shifts reveal themselves over years, not headlines.

Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Rick.

Rick Rosner is an accomplished television writer with credits on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Crank Yankers, and The Man Show. Over his career, he has earned multiple Writers Guild Award nominations—winning one—and an Emmy nomination. Rosner holds a broad academic background, graduating with the equivalent of eight majors. Based in Los Angeles, he continues to write and develop ideas while spending time with his wife, daughter, and two dogs.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.

Photo by NASA on Unsplash

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.