Author Topic: When was the earliest Lunar colony?  (Read 5470 times)

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9170
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 332
When was the earliest Lunar colony?
« on: 04/12/2009 03:21 PM »
Sometimes I get sidetracked.   Who doesnít?  While in a different thread, I checked out the Wiki entry on Osborne Reynolds, who came up with the Reynolds number in 1883.  Then I turned to William Froude, who discovered what is called, ahem, Froudeís number.  These guys also had some really excellent portraits, but my sidetrack involved more a speculation on the history of technology as a reflection of human design and intelligence within an existing milieu of technology.  Around a hundred years ago, I think mankind had the math, materials, and manufacturing to successfully launch and return humans to the Moon.  A minuteís exhaustive research and contemplation allowed me to speculate that maybe mankind had what it took back in 1799.  Having thrown off the shackles of history, I then asked:

When could the earliest lunar colony have been built?

And I think that by today, our schoolchildren might be learning about the crowning achievement of the ancients:  The first successful moonwalk by Greco-Roman cooperation on Easter Sunday, 0.  (I know, that predates the date by 33 years, and 0 may not be an actual date, but having given up so much reality, why not charitably give up some more?)

Acknowledging that I usually donít stay at the shallow end of the pool, I have this emerging theory that sometime between the Egyptian civilization of 5000 BC and the Greek of 500 BC, we could have gotten to the Moon if events had transpired differently.  Some will immediately start saying, ďBut technology...Ē  And I respond: ďSchmectologyĒ.

My theory insists that technology is subordinate to mankindís mental abilities.  It also rests on the supposition that back then, humanity not only had the mental capacity to understand every scientific and mathematical concept regarding lunar colonization as of 1969, but also had the manual dexterity to accomplish the necessary construction.  Further, that there was sufficient social structure, to have been organized in such a fashion that the populace at large could have been sufficiently educated and skillful to have accomplished this task, despite the low population density.

Consider a possible SF outcome of an Apocalyptic WWIII, where a skilled surviving subset of the population manages to build a lunar colony while Earth cools off for a while.  (Soon to be a major motion picture.)  The major difference would be not the population, but that there would be a verdant Earth, not a smoldering ruin.  Isnít the water nice?  Donít be afraid if your feet donít touch the bottom, itís just a post.

Reviewing the scientific thinking and manufacturing skills of 1899, Iím thinking that with a marginal acceleration of the current historical timeline of technology, we had the theory and the technical prowess to build a LOX rocket.  We could build structures which would withstand a vacuum, and we knew where the Moon was, close enough.  A good part of the marginal acceleration would be widespread education, an heretical supposition to many, but I preach tolerance in these matters of speculation.

If we accelerate the education timeline a bit more, by 1799, can we suppose that watchmakers had very nearly the requisite manufacturing precision to build such machines, granting the ability to scale up their operations?  The astronomical math was very nearly in position by then as well.

Remembering the postulate that technology follows education, let us push back the clock to Shakespeareís time, 1599.  We understand every bit of his work today.  In a different milieu, could not mankind at that time built a lunar colony?

But letís go back further, to Euripides, very nearly 500 BC.  What of his writings do we not understand?  Who is to say that mankind could not learn then, what we knew in 1969, because of some innate mental incapacity?  (The force of the Connecticut Yankee is strong in this one, my lord.)

My argument is obviously based on the idea that a literary analysis of the past can be used as a model of human intelligence in general, suggesting that there might not be as large a gap between a human of 1969 and one of 500 BC as some might otherwise postulate.

Now letís jump back to Egyptian times, maybe 5000 BC.  Here, the literary analysis falls apart, at least in my limited reading.  I read the ďEgyptian Book of the DeadĒ in the 1970ís, and it just doesnít have the literary appeal of our pal, Euripides.  Iím going to suggest that human civilization at that time may not have had the right mental stuff to build rockets.  Sometime between then and 500 BC, mankind learned to learn.  Somewhere in that 4500 year period, there was an evolutionary discontinuity in human thought.  Any ideas?

I already sense the terse one sentence refutation of the above speculation, and my invisible friend is suggesting that I mention the Illuminati again, but I wonít do it.

So when could have mankind built the first lunar colony?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11187
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: When was the earliest Lunar colony?
« Reply #1 on: 04/12/2009 04:40 PM »
Around a hundred years ago, I think mankind had the math, materials, and manufacturing to successfully launch and return humans to the Moon. 

Those weren't enough and materials is incorrect. 
I have seen this discussion before and the outcome is the same.  Man didn't have the control systems and materials to do it, so 1960's or so
« Last Edit: 04/12/2009 04:46 PM by Jim »

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8652
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1124
  • Likes Given: 243
Re: When was the earliest Lunar colony?
« Reply #2 on: 04/12/2009 04:47 PM »
Lets play with this a little, the first industrial scale LOX production was when? I think that would be the earliest possible date.

Large scale solids did not become possible until the 1940's, with the first large scale solid ICBM programs starting in the late 1950's. 
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Bob the Avenger

  • Member
  • Posts: 22
  • Cambridge, MA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When was the earliest Lunar colony?
« Reply #3 on: 04/12/2009 05:28 PM »
Given the way history has played out, I agree with Jim that around the 60s is the earliest 'we' had the technology to be able to get to the moon. For example, the progression in 4stroke engines in the last 150 or so years, you couldn't make an engine that did 4500rpm 150years ago, but now they're common-place

Looking at it a different way; the Romans had steam engines from the early first century, almost purely as a curiosity. Due to the availability of slaves, it was never seriously concidered as a means of automation. Yet this could have sparked an industrial revolution 1800years before James Watt's steam engine caused The Industrial Revolution. This could have allowed all the necessary technologies to be developed hundreds of years early. So if you took our timeline from The Industrial Revolution as universal, manned moon landings could have occured as early as the third century AD.

Of course that doesn't account for the fact that alot of the mathematical leg work was done by Newton (a lot of the observations required were done Kepler), but its not impossible that their work could not have occured earlier (according to whats left of Archemedes works some of the stuff he was doing was withing spitting distace of calculus).
« Last Edit: 04/12/2009 05:30 PM by Bob the Avenger »

Offline kfsorensen

  • aerospace and nuclear engineer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1550
  • Huntsville, AL
    • Flibe Energy
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When was the earliest Lunar colony?
« Reply #4 on: 04/12/2009 06:13 PM »
One thing the Romans truly lacked was a decent number system.  The invention of higher mathematics, and especially calculus, had to wait for the Western world to adopt Arabic numerals.  If Arabic numeration could have been adopted in the 1st or 2nd century BC, then the invention of higher mathematics could have proceeded, which would have laid the foundations for a 1st century Kepler or Newton to derive the laws of motion.

Unfortunately the Western world languished in darkness for centuries.

Consider the corollary to all this speculation--might our world be on the brink of another Dark Age that would set us all back hundreds of years?  There are many people in the world who seem to think a primitive agrarian lifestyle is the only lifestyle "ecologically" compatible with the earth.

Offline glanmor05

  • BWFC Fan
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 434
  • It's not all tea and medals!
  • Blackpool, England
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When was the earliest Lunar colony?
« Reply #5 on: 04/12/2009 07:01 PM »
The free sharing of ideas earlier seems to be the key here.  There were obviously a couple of important forces working against this (know I'm going to get in trouble for this, but...), as always, religion and politics.
« Last Edit: 04/12/2009 07:06 PM by glanmor05 »
"Through struggles, to the stars."

Online Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6181
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When was the earliest Lunar colony?
« Reply #6 on: 04/12/2009 07:13 PM »
Around a hundred years ago, I think mankind had the math, materials, and manufacturing to successfully launch and return humans to the Moon. 

Those weren't enough and materials is incorrect. 
I have seen this discussion before and the outcome is the same.  Man didn't have the control systems and materials to do it, so 1960's or so

I generally agree but will broaden "control systems" to include all of GNC (i.e. guidance and navigation). The Polaris missile had the first practical inertial guidance system (indeed, it was the basis of the Apollo system), and there was no practical means of onboard navigation prior to the development of the Kalman filter.

With a big enough crash program these probably could have been developed a little earlier, but not by much. People tend to forget that ballistic missile development was the real driver for the development of all this and for all intents and purposes, it *was already* an expensive crash program for most of the 1950s.
JRF

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3338
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 826
Re: When was the earliest Lunar colony?
« Reply #7 on: 04/12/2009 10:59 PM »
Somewhere in that 4500 year period, there was an evolutionary discontinuity in human thought.  Any ideas?
AFAIK most people in people who study human evolution would put this much further back. If you could clone Otzi the Iceman, and raised the clone with modern humans, it would be a great surprise if his mental abilities weren't similar to his classmates. What would happen if you did the same with early Homo Sapiens is open to debate.

What the ancients were missing was not intelligence, it was accumulated, culturally transmitted knowledge. As vanilla points out, things like Arabic numerals are hard won cultural innovations. Exactly when they appeared and took hold in civilization is historical accident.

You can easily imagine an alternate history where these innovations took hold earlier, with the Enlightenment proceeding directly from, say, the ancient Greeks... but so what ? All that does is move the industrial revolution forward by a corresponding amount. There's an infinite number of such histories, and you still need technological capabilities equivalent to the 50s-60s to get to the moon at all.

Even if you say a crash program in 30s-40s could get you to the moon in the early 50s, the result would most likely be accelerating the development of 60s level technology, not somehow doing it with 40s tech.

Offline agman25

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: When was the earliest Lunar colony?
« Reply #8 on: 04/13/2009 12:05 AM »
One thing the Romans truly lacked was a decent number system.  The invention of higher mathematics, and especially calculus, had to wait for the Western world to adopt Arabic numerals.  If Arabic numeration could have been adopted in the 1st or 2nd century BC, then the invention of higher mathematics could have proceeded, which would have laid the foundations for a 1st century Kepler or Newton to derive the laws of motion.

Unfortunately the Western world languished in darkness for centuries.

Consider the corollary to all this speculation--might our world be on the brink of another Dark Age that would set us all back hundreds of years?  There are many people in the world who seem to think a primitive agrarian lifestyle is the only lifestyle "ecologically" compatible with the earth.
Indian not Arabic. Even then the earliest possible date would be AD.

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3028
  • Liked: 537
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: When was the earliest Lunar colony?
« Reply #9 on: 04/13/2009 01:37 AM »
My theory insists that technology is subordinate to mankindís mental abilities.  It also rests on the supposition that back then, humanity not only had the mental capacity to understand every scientific and mathematical concept regarding lunar colonization as of 1969, but also had the manual dexterity to accomplish the necessary construction.

So what? There is no laws of physics which prevent us from building spacecraft using 25 century technology today. Steel, titanium, carbon nanorods etc have the same properties today as they had 2000, or 2 billion years ago, and will have in 25 century.

Maybe even warp drives and wormholes can be created.

We simply don't know how. That's the barrier.

Romans also had a lot of social development not yet done, in addition to science and technology. Even today, social (i.e. organizational on the level of millions of people) inefficiency is the main problem preventing us from becoming spacefaring civilization.

Offline kfsorensen

  • aerospace and nuclear engineer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1550
  • Huntsville, AL
    • Flibe Energy
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When was the earliest Lunar colony?
« Reply #10 on: 04/13/2009 02:08 AM »
That's a thought along the same lines as I was wondering...

If a skilled mechanical/metallurgical engineer could go back in time 2000 years with a mission to advance technology more quickly, he (since a she wouldn't even be listened to) could potentially introduce numeration and mathematics, atomic theory, extraction and fabrication of metals, thermodynamics, and machine mechanics.  Assuming he could get someone to listen, things could be sped up considerably.

If someone came from the 25th century to right now, it makes you wonder what kinds of technologies he or she would try to get us to develop.  Would they be rocket-based or would this person point us to something else, something far better that would shave centuries off our technological development.

I have a feeling that the current NASA lunar architecture would seem a joke to this person, a complete dead-end in the history of technological development.

Offline mduncan36

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When was the earliest Lunar colony?
« Reply #11 on: 04/13/2009 02:18 AM »
What if the acceleration of technology had an opposite affect? What if the technology for ballistic missiles and as a result similar advanced weapons had been in the hands of Nero, the Spanish Empire, Napolean, the Nazis? Had all of these things been mastered in an age without a relatively peaceful, democratic, leadership, mankind may have only brought on its demise centuries earlier. Possibly even now we are not laying the groundwork for lunar colonies but for our extinction in only a hundred years. Just as important as the ability to work metal and mathematics are the human institutions to guide their use.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When was the earliest Lunar colony?
« Reply #12 on: 04/13/2009 07:55 AM »
One thing the Romans truly lacked was a decent number system.  The invention of higher mathematics, and especially calculus, had to wait for the Western world to adopt Arabic numerals.  If Arabic numeration could have been adopted in the 1st or 2nd century BC, then the invention of higher mathematics could have proceeded, which would have laid the foundations for a 1st century Kepler or Newton to derive the laws of motion.

Unfortunately the Western world languished in darkness for centuries.

Consider the corollary to all this speculation--might our world be on the brink of another Dark Age that would set us all back hundreds of years?  There are many people in the world who seem to think a primitive agrarian lifestyle is the only lifestyle "ecologically" compatible with the earth.

Well Archimedes wasn't Roman, he was Greek. What was the greek numbering system? They used their alphabet to serve dual use as numbers and did have a system somewhat like the arabic syste. The main issue was the lack of the concept of zero. This system was shared with Egypt.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9170
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 332
Re: When was the earliest Lunar colony?
« Reply #13 on: 04/16/2009 05:18 PM »
I just cannot stand the old saw that because a subject was poorly discussed in some other time or place, we should be done with it.

The control systems counter-argument against the notion of the earliest possible lunar colony is specious.  It's not the only issue;  if not control systems, surely another.  Guidance, navigation and control could have been solved in a different fashion and earlier in time.

The control systems counter-argument is a subset of what I'd call the Objection of Strategic Systems (OSS).  One of the problems of OSS is the tendency to believe that nothing could have happened other than what already has happened; one should not speculate about the past, as it is obviously immutable.

It's like saying that we literally could no more have landed on the Moon on July 4th, 1969 than on Easter Sunday, 0.  Engineers who cannot predict the cost or delivery date of any system, control or otherwise, frequently object to the idea of anything happening in any other way than what actually happened.

Certain negligible concepts may be selectively ignored, realizing that this is only a temporary expedient.  The biggest of these concepts is that ever pesky detail of political realities which seem to thwart humanityís desire to rise above the pre-biotic ooze.  I'd call this dismissal the Political Utopian Principle (PUP)  It is easily invoked; we dismiss certain kinds of objections with, well, a wave of the hand.

The idea of a three hundred year technology timeline based roughly on the period 1669-1969 is a good notion  to refine.  By invoking PUP, I suggest that the three hundred year timeline could be reduced to one hundred years because of all the wars and such which get in the way of the mission.

Also, from 0 to 1669 features a number of crucial inventions necessary to get to the Moon.  The invention of 0.  The first middle class.  The idea of personal freedom as sketched out in the Magna Carta, ultimately resulting in our republic. Plenty of wars and such, and hundreds of years of dark ages where nothing much happened.  As has been pointed out, there is a very real chance of revisiting the dark ages too, even in current times.  By invoking PUP, however, let us say that this period from 0-1669 can be reduced to two hundred years.

So, three hundred years from the Bronze Age to landing on the Moon?

As mentioned, Archimedes was within spitting distance of calculus.  I submit that Maxwell was within spitting distance of relativity about the time of the Civil War.  He could have put Babbageís engine to good use, but a better health system would have kept him alive longer.  The remark about how our cultural victories have been hard won is pertinent.

The invention of zero is crucial to the development of math.  And when was LOX first created?  But better yet, was the refrigeration and seal technology, metallurgy, and general technical skill available in 1669?  For example, you donít need computers with Pentium, or even 286 processors to liquefy oxygen.  Invoke NC to get to the core of what is needed for LOX production.  Do you really need the theory of relativity to get to the Moon?

Consider the antithesis of PUP: that is, what if Nero was Hitler, as pointed out above.  If the legends I read were correct, Rome went thru the streets of Carthage, leaving no stone atop another, and salting the earth for good measure.  Almost as good as the bomb.

This is not to say that black powder rockets will get you to the Moon, but it is to say that guidance, navigation and control date back to the first reins on a horse.  Human ingenuity would have found a way to guide the rocket of Spartacus.  It was a known problem.
 
This speculative historical exercise considers our present course of action in light of the past, in order to better predict where that course might be leading and to encourage the conscious evolution of a new course of action.

Another point was made regarding that group of people who really want to devolve back to a more primitive time.  This, in an effort to live on this planet in what they consider to be a more sustainable fashion.  Itís not the correct course of action IMO.

About Otzi.  I had based my original idea not on genetics, but on my ability to understand ancient literature.  But consider Otzi in light of the Pan-spermic theory alluded to in the opening chapters of ď2001Ē.  BTW, in the film, it was Otzi who threw the bone.  Hardy har har.
« Last Edit: 04/17/2009 09:54 AM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1871
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 311
Re: When was the earliest Lunar colony?
« Reply #14 on: 04/16/2009 06:33 PM »
the subjugation of the Amerind AND the Negro
(rest of silly rant, snipped)

Speaking of anachronisms..
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When was the earliest Lunar colony?
« Reply #15 on: 04/18/2009 07:06 PM »
What if the acceleration of technology had an opposite affect? What if the technology for ballistic missiles and as a result similar advanced weapons had been in the hands of Nero, the Spanish Empire, Napolean, the Nazis? Had all of these things been mastered in an age without a relatively peaceful, democratic, leadership, mankind may have only brought on its demise centuries earlier. Possibly even now we are not laying the groundwork for lunar colonies but for our extinction in only a hundred years. Just as important as the ability to work metal and mathematics are the human institutions to guide their use.

Well I agree that unless these advances were accompanied by advances in medical science, including understanding of heavy metal and radiation poisoning, as well as hydrogeological understanding of water table leaching, meteorological understanding of fallout affecting climate via albedo shifts, then there is a risk of some ignoramuses causing some serious damage.

However, lets say you had a team of a half dozen scientists and engineers who have broad liberal arts undergrad educations, go back to Greece prior to the Persian invasions, joining the academies and attracting the brightest from the hellenistic world. Alternatively, to meet Aristotle at the time he was educating Alexander and help him educate the macedonian and greek leadership of the era. With a greater technological edge and advanced medicine, Alexander could have conquered even more of the world and brought more of the leading families of the world into the Academy's tutelage.

With Alexander living a full life and a sustainable and stable greek world empire resulting, the more bloody appetites of Rome and Carthage would have been contained and muted.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When was the earliest Lunar colony?
« Reply #16 on: 04/18/2009 07:55 PM »
There are two entire and very large branches of literature devoted to these particular subject, a "nonfiction" branch written by professional and amateur historians, called Counterfactuals, and a species of science fiction called Alternatory (which has generated hundreds of novels and thousands of stories over that past 150 years). It's all been very well discussed, in quite elaborate detail. Probably the best of the novels is "The Man in the High Castle," by Philip K. Dick. Many of the counterfactual compendia are at least very interesting, if you know enough about the period of history under discussion. As far as the moon colony goes (and ignoring obvious fantasies like, "What if Archimedes had figured out a use for the aelopile?", I think it's possible that, under only slightly (but very importantly!) different historical circumstances, the members of the VfR might have got to the Moon as early as 1950. Absent WW2 and the Nazis, though, it's hard to imagine where all the necessary Reichsmarks would have come from.

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2508
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: When was the earliest Lunar colony?
« Reply #17 on: 04/19/2009 08:42 AM »
...
With Alexander living a full life and a sustainable and stable greek world empire resulting, the more bloody appetites of Rome and Carthage would have been contained and muted.

Yeah, right.  Because Alexander was such a peace loving hippy. Who conquered most of his known world before he was 30 with flowers and love-ins.

Ever hear of the Pax Romana? Citizens could walk from one end of the empire to the other without fear for their safety.  The Romans were brutal in putting down competitors and rebellion because they interfered with business, and it was best to get it over and done with as fast as possible.

IMHO, the reason the Roman Empire never had an industrial revolution was: Greed.

The Roman political system, (in both the republican & imperial eras), required large amounts of money to participate.  Yet political leader were forbidden to engage in 'business'. Bribery was not considered unethical. This left the rulers beholden to the non-political wealthy businessmen, who were naturally opposed to innovation that might alter a status quo where they were at the top.

Couple that to a tax system that gradually eliminated the small farmers & businessmen.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9170
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 332
Re: When was the earliest Lunar colony?
« Reply #18 on: 04/19/2009 02:39 PM »
I think the fundamental way that any of this speculation could work is to invoke PUP.  It a flight of wishful thinking, but otherwise you can't posit enough technical progress because of all the tyrants.  My main point is that mankind had the requisite brainpower and reasoning power to get to the Moon 2K years ago.

From the Wiki article on Newton's Laws of Motion, there is mention that the law of inertia may have been considered in 300 BC (edited from 200 BC) by the Chinese philosopher Mo Tzu.  Again, in the 1100ís by Arab (Muslim?) scientists Alhazen and Avicenna.

The De Laval nozzle was invented in 1897.  Hertz and Marconi also operated around the turn of the century which you need for telemetry and control.  Havenít found out when LOX was first made.  With minimal change to political events, we might have gotten to the moon by 1900.

Iím more with the Counterfactual group, but I keep saying that we could get a lot more done by working on the problems rather than depending on war and oppression as a motive for advancement.

Also, things could have been even more different.  The Meso-Americans never even invented the wheel.
« Last Edit: 04/20/2009 12:17 AM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: When was the earliest Lunar colony?
« Reply #19 on: 04/19/2009 07:49 PM »
...
With Alexander living a full life and a sustainable and stable greek world empire resulting, the more bloody appetites of Rome and Carthage would have been contained and muted.

Yeah, right.  Because Alexander was such a peace loving hippy. Who conquered most of his known world before he was 30 with flowers and love-ins.

Ever hear of the Pax Romana? Citizens could walk from one end of the empire to the other without fear for their safety.  The Romans were brutal in putting down competitors and rebellion because they interfered with business, and it was best to get it over and done with as fast as possible.

The greeks had a far greater appreciation for scholarship, note under the ptolemys the flowering of libraries across the world. They also did not have human sacrifice as a central part of their state religion as the Romans did. The best parts of Roman civilization were actually Greek, primarily. Sure Alexander was hell on the battlefield, his empire was far more tolerant of local leadership and culture, all he lacked was hydraulic concrete and the arch, really.

The point of a team of time travellers would be to interject at a point that would be amenable to their influence but not so powerful as to just cherry pick the technology and run with it.

Rome had a relatively easy time invading east because the way had already been Hellenized by Alexander.

Quote

IMHO, the reason the Roman Empire never had an industrial revolution was: Greed.

Actually it has been posited that they had an early attempt at an industrial civilization with which they poisoned themselves with lead and mercury, stunting their childrens mental development. Core sample studies bear this out. It wasn't just the fact that their plumbing was made of lead, all their pottery was lead glazed, and their smelting operations put huge amounts of lead and mercury into the atmosphere.

There was also a cooling period in the late empire period akin to the Little Ice Age that drove a lot of nomads off the eurasian steppes and into central and southern europe. This dessicated northern africa, which had been the breadbasket of the empire, and put agricultural areas of europe into the hands of vandals, goths, franks, and other nomadic tribes invading from asia.

I agree about the political corruption issues, then again, we really havent eliminated that problem from our own system either, we just renamed bribes "campaign donations" and "donations for constituent services" (note that McCain-Feingold legalized non-campaign direct donations to politicians for office operations expenses).

Crassus began as a businessman, a contractor, in fact. He built a lot of buildings in and around Rome. Given a contractor needed his own fire company to protect his projects against saboteurs and accidents, he also provided fire protection services to other Romans. Those who did not hold policies with his insurance company had to negotiate on site before his crews would fight a fire. He wound up owning much of Rome's real estate as a result. Hence his name coined the term "crass commercialism". This was before he got into politics and joined the triumvirate with Caesar and Pompey.

Quote

The Roman political system, (in both the republican & imperial eras), required large amounts of money to participate.  Yet political leader were forbidden to engage in 'business'. Bribery was not considered unethical. This left the rulers beholden to the non-political wealthy businessmen, who were naturally opposed to innovation that might alter a status quo where they were at the top.

Couple that to a tax system that gradually eliminated the small farmers & businessmen.

The main problem actually was a law that prohibited the formation of limited liability corporations except for public purposes. This stymied a LOT of capital investment and technology development and wound up directing most capital into public ventures.

Contracting regulations for state projects were also a PITA. Builders for public projects got paid half on completion of a project, and half if the building was still standing 40 years later (generally necessary to ensure contractors did not use shoddy materials). Hence overbuilding and why roman concrete builds remain all over the former empire 2000 years later.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9170
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 332
Re: When was the earliest Lunar colony?
« Reply #20 on: 04/20/2009 12:21 AM »
If they got paid half on completion, I be that meant the other half was pure profit.  You can't wait forty years to get paid for the pozzola.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Tags: