PDA

View Full Version : Moon Colonization


revan7189
12-12-2007, 10:59 PM
Hmmm... I recently read an article stating that in the future moon bases and such would be possible. Do you think it could be a success or a complete failure?

SilentScope001
12-12-2007, 11:49 PM
We discussed this long...long ago.

I know USA is planning on a moon base in the 2020's, and Russia is thinking of a moon base in 2030's. I'll try to dig up the links.

I think most people are for it. But of course, only for their nation to claim the Moon bases. :) After all, the Moon is international territory, but the bases, totally can be claimed.

JediAthos
12-12-2007, 11:56 PM
I think that in order for colonization of the moon to ever work there would have to be international cooperation of some sort otherwise there would be squabbles over territory, and boundaries just like we have here on earth.

Those squabbles would lead to the development of weapons that could work on the moon, and that would lead to who the hell knows what, probably world war III if we haven't started it by then.

Tommycat
12-13-2007, 12:17 AM
It's nothing new. I'll believe it when I see it. I guess I'm a little skeptical of it happening considering I was supposed to have a flying car, a jetpack, and an apartment on the moon by 2000. It would be nice, but the problem is viability. What would be the point of having a base on the moon? We still have large sections under our oceans that would be better for colonization than on the moon. And even better reasons. Underwater mining, drilling, wave current power generation, underwater military applications, testing, marine biology experiments, nuclear power generation, food, and a number of things I'm forgetting, are all things they could do underwater.

There are a few advantages of a moon base though:
Deep space craft launching point: The lower gravity could make it ideal for launching a heavier craft built for deep space exploration.

Experimental microchip manufacture: The vacuum of space can be used to make truly clean clean rooms. With virtually no particulates there is less chance of a contaminant ruining substrates...

Metal purification: Kinda same reason.

Refuel depot: Not sure about this one.

Scientific experiments: obvious reasons

Space Craft building: Lower gravity means less energy is used to build it...

man I wish I could remember the rest of the advantages, but lets just say it doesn't seem logical.

Achilles
12-13-2007, 12:24 AM
Possible? Of course it's possible.

The larger question is will we. Many within NASA feel that modern society lacks the will to live with the same risks that were required for the Apollo missions. Having a base on the moon would make deeper space exploration easier, but if the future of space exploration is going to be conducted by robots, then...

As for the politics: I'd love to see it happen. The colonization of "the new world" allowed for a break with the past and a paradigm shift in liberty, human rights, etc. If a similar paradigm shift is possible/probable with a similarly significant form of colonization, then that alone might be worth it.

Darth InSidious
12-13-2007, 07:41 AM
I fear that moon bases = international reaction of "zOMFG, u r t3h universal monarchying!", or something along those lines. And that, my friends, might well equal world war three. An international base, maybe, might be possible. But still, those countries left out would throw their toys out of the pram in a big way.

We should also think about the cost, and who will shoulder it. Also, imagine when, not if, something goes wrong. The worldwide tabloids will have a field-month.

Achilles, I'd have to disagree over what caused this 'paradigm shift'. If anything, the spread and rapid fracturing of Protestantism, and the large number of its adherents in the New World was part of the cause, but the resultant Enlightenment would probably be a more viable root, I think. :)

Pho3nix
12-13-2007, 02:58 PM
It would definitely be one of the biggest accomplishments in human history.

I'm all for it.

PoiuyWired
12-13-2007, 03:24 PM
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US.

I mean, use there can be a base, but what for? If its about utilizing the moon resources and as a test bed for planetary mases then sure. But really, while no doubt there will be Moon bases in the future, "when" would be the problem. I don't think it is likely that we would get it done by 2020.

Oh yeah, go to the dark side of the moon and dig out that big black monolith... :)

Ctrl Alt Del
12-13-2007, 04:09 PM
As JediAthos stated, the advantages would have to be clear. I'm all for it, but the governments will think otherwise nless they have something tangible.

Corinthian
12-13-2007, 04:19 PM
Moon Mine. 'nuff said, Ctrl. Who knows what kind of crazy metals we could find up there. Maybe even some alien artifacts. Wooo, Protheans!

Achilles
12-13-2007, 04:24 PM
Iron and nickel for sure. I'm willing to bet that helium-3 would be the real draw though.

Ctrl Alt Del
12-13-2007, 04:34 PM
Right, bet on a month the private companies (History has shown that whenever a unsafe daring operation is announced, governments tend to turn on those companies for help) are demanding results.

Moon Mine. 'nuff said, Ctrl. Who knows what kind of crazy metals we could find up there. Maybe even some alien artifacts. Wooo, Protheans!
Iron and nickel for sure. I'm willing to bet that helium-3 would be the real draw though.
Poor Mass Effect addicts and Bioware pawns. The ruins are on Mars! :p

Web Rider
12-13-2007, 04:44 PM
I'm all for moon bases and colonies. It'd give us a perfect place to be humans. We could be wanton, wasteful, and destructive, and save for blowing off a big chunk in the direction of Earth, we wouldn't be harming a darn thing. Space, or the moon in particular, is the perfect place to dispose of all our toxic and nuclear waste. Or from there we could shoot it into the sun.

Anyway, I think moon bases are a good idea for their various uses, so I definatly think we should look into building them. I don't know how people would deal with 2 weeks of night though.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-13-2007, 04:53 PM
Iron and nickel for sure. I'm willing to bet that helium-3 would be the real draw though.Enough to warrant the high cost of a lunar base though? There's not exactly a shortage of iron or nickel.

Ctrl Alt Del
12-13-2007, 04:58 PM
I'm all for moon bases and colonies. It'd give us a perfect place to be humans. We could be wanton, wasteful, and destructive, and save for blowing off a big chunk in the direction of Earth
And then accelerate the flood of coastal cities? The moon controls the ocean, you know.

I don't know how people would deal with 2 weeks of night though.
14 days of endlessy parties? Where do I sign?

Achilles
12-13-2007, 05:18 PM
Enough to warrant the high cost of a lunar base though? There's not exactly a shortage of iron or nickel.Helium-3 fusion would more than justify the cost (based on my limited understanding of the subject).

Web Rider
12-13-2007, 05:47 PM
And then accelerate the flood of coastal cities? The moon controls the ocean, you know.

the moon controls the tides, if there's less moon there isn't more ocean. There's still a finite amount of water.

John Galt
12-13-2007, 06:03 PM
Personally, I'd like to see space exploration made open to private companies, even if it means drastically reducing the scope of NASA. I think private enterprise will prove a more viable long-term alternative to government-controlled space exploration and colonization, considering that the private sector is only just getting into the space industry.

But in the long run, I think if moon colonies are established they should be treated as autonomous nations eventually.

Ctrl Alt Del
12-13-2007, 06:14 PM
the moon controls the tides, if there's less moon there isn't more ocean. There's still a finite amount of water.

Okay, I confess I was shooting on the dark there. But Moon's influence over Earth is too big to be disconsidered. We can't just damage it.

But in the long run, I think if moon colonies are established they should be treated as autonomous nations eventually.
Autonomous? You mean, separated from Earth nations? I can't see that happening. Why would they want that? Because they would have this "Local governs locals" philosophy? Even if they traded minerals for the food they can't crop on the Moon, I don't think this would happen.

Achilles
12-13-2007, 06:18 PM
the moon controls the tides, if there's less moon there isn't more ocean. There's still a finite amount of water. ...and we'd probably still have tides, however they'd be much less frequent (twice per year?)

Personally, I'd like to see space exploration made open to private companies, even if it means drastically reducing the scope of NASA. Wasn't NASA originally private (before it was NASA)?

But in the long run, I think if moon colonies are established they should be treated as autonomous nations eventually.Cue last paragraph of post #5 :D

Okay, I confess I was shooting on the dark there. But Moon's influence over Earth is too big to be disconsidered. We can't just damage it. Think of all the meteor strikes the moon has taken that would have seriously ruined our day (prehistorically speaking).

Autonomous? You mean, separated from Earth nations? I can't see that happening. Why would they want that? Because they would have this "Local governs locals" philosophy? Even if they traded minerals for the food they can't crop on the Moon, I don't think this would happen.I'm sure the British didn't foresee the colonist eventually breaking away because they didn't want to be governed by people that lived an ocean away either.

PS: Artificial biosphere.

MJ-W4
12-13-2007, 06:18 PM
All the moon really needs is an evil overlord (http://www.eviloverlord.com). :D

Web Rider
12-13-2007, 06:18 PM
Personally, I'd like to see space exploration made open to private companies, even if it means drastically reducing the scope of NASA. I think private enterprise will prove a more viable long-term alternative to government-controlled space exploration and colonization, considering that the private sector is only just getting into the space industry.

But in the long run, I think if moon colonies are established they should be treated as autonomous nations eventually.

To the first, space travel and exploration ARE open to private corporations, aside from requiring a business permit and an "astronaut" liscense, just like a driver does, there are no laws restricting space to government orginizations only.

To the second part, I do, and don't agree. They will be autonomous, but they don't have to be. Given that space travel to the moon is almost as simple as flying half way across the country, I think a moon colony can function fine under the State model, IE: it can be part of the US just like Alaska or Hawaii can, it's just further away. Remember it used to take a LONG LONG time to get to hawaii.

John Galt
12-13-2007, 06:21 PM
To the first, space travel and exploration ARE open to private corporations, aside from requiring a business permit and an "astronaut" liscense, just like a driver does, there are no laws restricting space to government orginizations only.

To the second part, I do, and don't agree. They will be autonomous, but they don't have to be. Given that space travel to the moon is almost as simple as flying half way across the country, I think a moon colony can function fine under the State model, IE: it can be part of the US just like Alaska or Hawaii can, it's just further away. Remember it used to take a LONG LONG time to get to hawaii.

I think a better way to state my point is something to the tune of:
They should be allowed to form sovereign and autonomous nations, should they so desire.

but my idea with the NASA reference is that I think NASA itself should be downsized, so that experts that are in that organization could have a freer hand under private employment.

Ctrl Alt Del
12-13-2007, 06:49 PM
Think of all the meteor strikes the moon has taken that would have seriously ruined our day (prehistorically speaking).

What Web Rider said was:
We could be wanton, wasteful, and destructive[...]
Now, I just can't agree. Using it as a gigantic trash disposal facility would be okay, but as a place to fight our nuclear wars or similar stuff wouldn't just do it. I think I've read somewhere about the effects Earth would suffer without our balancing moon. They weren't really positive.

I'm sure the British didn't foresee the colonist eventually breaking away because they didn't want to be governed by people that lived an ocean away either.

PS: Artificial biosphere.
That's what I meant by "Local governs locals". Still, they would be heavily depandant on everything they can't find on the moon, and I'm not just talking about food. Oxygen, non-mineral resources, beaches (Insert smilie here). The American colonies had the same (vital) resources the Old World had, even more. Luna isn't as same.

To the second part, I do, and don't agree. They will be autonomous, but they don't have to be. Given that space travel to the moon is almost as simple as flying half way across the country, I think a moon colony can function fine under the State model, IE: it can be part of the US just like Alaska or Hawaii can, it's just further away. Remember it used to take a LONG LONG time to get to hawaii.
I think a better definition of what would happen on those supposed Extra-Terretrial colonies, is something similar to what happens to the South Pole of today: Officially international, but many nations claim their territory via scientific bases.

Personally, I'd like to see space exploration made open to private companies, even if it means drastically reducing the scope of NASA. I think private enterprise will prove a more viable long-term alternative to government-controlled space exploration and colonization, considering that the private sector is only just getting into the space industry.

It's a venture just too similar to the new world discoveries to ignore the private companies indeed. Read my second post on this thread.

Web Rider
12-13-2007, 06:55 PM
I think a better way to state my point is something to the tune of:
They should be allowed to form sovereign and autonomous nations, should they so desire.
personally, I would love to see the Moon just be one big nation.

but my idea with the NASA reference is that I think NASA itself should be downsized, so that experts that are in that organization could have a freer hand under private employment.
People aren't hiring, and downsizing NASA(right now), is only going to make people lose their jobs. When a private company wants to take up space stuff, they'll make some Nasa scientists better offers, and then the Nasa scientists can decide for themselves.

SilentScope001
12-14-2007, 02:09 AM
If WWIII is going to be fought over some stupid terrian, it would be far better to fight it over the Moon.

The alternative, fighting World War III over the North Pole and the South Pole...doesn't have the same ring to it.

Web Rider
12-14-2007, 03:47 PM
If WWIII is going to be fought over some stupid terrian, it would be far better to fight it over the Moon.

The alternative, fighting World War III over the North Pole and the South Pole...doesn't have the same ring to it.

especially if the world was devastated over it. If we fought over the moon(but kept it on earth), then the moon would still be in tact. Not that it's the greatest place to end up.

Tommycat
12-15-2007, 09:20 PM
More likely we would end up with supermax prisons on the moon. Not much chance of escape. Nowhere to escape to.

I could see also medical research being done up there. It would be easier to create a clean environment from a vacuum and brought in environment.

I still say it wold be better to go under ocean. Perhaps even before we go to the moon.

Ctrl Alt Del
12-16-2007, 08:35 PM
I still say it wold be better to go under ocean. Perhaps even before we go to the moon.
You know, I've once heard that (hypotetically) the technology required to build a base underwater - on deep waters - needs to be more advanced than the one on the construction of a moonbase. Besides, it's a risk damaging the oceans.

Tommycat
12-16-2007, 08:52 PM
You know, I've once heard that (hypotetically) the technology required to build a base underwater - on deep waters - needs to be more advanced than the one on the construction of a moonbase. Besides, it's a risk damaging the oceans.
I don't know how that could be. We've been sinking neutrally buoyant ships for a long time(aka submarines). Unless you're talking about the large sci-fi style cities underwater. Building a large structure, and basically dropping it to the ocean floor to anchor it, then pumping out the water doesn't sound like it needs too much new tech.

And considering the number of nuclear reactors we already have punching holes in the ocean, I don't think a base will cause that much more damage.

PoiuyWired
12-16-2007, 11:32 PM
I think the problem with underwater bases comes about only in deep see where water preasure is quite a problem, along with the extreme coldness and anger of the old ones...

And I wouldn't suggest whacking on the underground volcanos destroying the ecology there either.

So when will we build loads of bases on the moon... we can leave out signatures on it like that. Or just make the surface for all limited war on this planet, with giant robots like gundam fight. We can all watch that on HBO.

Corinthian
12-16-2007, 11:40 PM
Yeah. Stay out of the water. Especially the Pacific, we do NOT want to disturb R'lyeh. Remember the Golden Rule. Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

Tommycat
12-17-2007, 12:20 AM
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
I'd like to buy a vowel please....

Well to an extent the depth and pressure are a concern, but up to about 4000 feet is pretty managable. The Russians already built a sub that goes that deep(Typhoon Class). Greater depths are possible with similar materials only thicker as the thing doesn't have to return to the surface. A docking ring can be made at a higher depth to allow personnel transfers. I could go on, but it is a bit off topic.

My concern about the moon bases is the lack of any place to escape to. You go from an emergency situation to..... I guess they could have an emergency escape vehicle. But considering the nature of the moon as a meteor magnet, I might be more concerned about that being the cause of the emergency. which could make escape or survival impossible...

Then again I guess Kraken and giant squid attacks could be a problem:D

Ray Jones
12-17-2007, 04:37 AM
Well to an extent the depth and pressure are a concern, but up to about 4000 feet is pretty managable. The Russians already built a sub that goes that deep(Typhoon Class). Greater depths are possible with similar materials only thicker as the thing doesn't have to return to the surface.Apropos surface - a sub has a much smaller surface than that ocean ground base would have, and according to the physics I know, that means that base would have to withstand much higher forces. Also, subs are more or less cylindrical, what, according to the physics I know, means the pressure is distributed evenly over the ship, thus leveling itself out, and not just coming from above like it would be for a building on the ocean grounds. Except you want to build them like large super tubes.


My concern about the moon bases is the lack of any place to escape to. You go from an emergency situation to..... I guess they could have an emergency escape vehicle. But considering the nature of the moon as a meteor magnet, I might be more concerned about that being the cause of the emergency. which could make escape or survival impossible...And just because a meteor comes down noone could use an escape ship or something? Also, what about emergencies on the ocean ground. Using rescue boats or whatever is not exactly what I would call without any risk either.

Ctrl Alt Del
12-17-2007, 07:41 PM
And just because a meteor comes down noone could use an escape ship or something? Also, what about emergencies on the ocean ground. Using rescue boats or whatever is not exactly what I would call without any risk either.
God, if we start thinking like that, this will be the end to human ventures. Why, even on an Earth level disaster we don't have where to run, do we?

JoeDoe 2.0
12-17-2007, 07:47 PM
First get the act together here on Earth then colonize new worlds. Or do they think that Global Warming is really going to kill our planet so they want another one to screw up???

Web Rider
12-17-2007, 08:01 PM
First get the act together here on Earth then colonize new worlds. Or do they think that Global Warming is really going to kill our planet so they want another one to screw up???

Is it even possible to pollute the moon? There's no natural life, so you can't kill anything there. The gravity is so low most "pollution" would float away.

JoeDoe 2.0
12-17-2007, 08:08 PM
Is it even possible to pollute the moon? There's no natural life, so you can't kill anything there. The gravity is so low most "pollution" would float away.

Therefore contaminating space, making the problem bigger :p

I was saying that we have to solve our problems here on Earth first the move on to other things

Ctrl Alt Del
12-17-2007, 08:08 PM
Is it even possible to pollute the moon? There's no natural life, so you can't kill anything there. The gravity is so low most "pollution" would float away.

It's not even about pollution. There's no atmosphere to pollute.

Web Rider
12-17-2007, 08:15 PM
Therefore contaminating space, making the problem bigger :p

I was saying that we have to solve our problems here on Earth first the move on to other things

perhaps that would solve our problems here though. If say, we did all our nasty polluting things on the moon, where it just drifted off into space somewhere, and didn't do any of it down here on Earth, then our Earthly pollution problems would be solved right?

JoeDoe 2.0
12-17-2007, 08:17 PM
But at the cost of having space debris flying around who knows where? no, lets just reuse, reduce, recycle our way out of this one.

Corinthian
12-17-2007, 08:21 PM
Screw that. We've got the sun. If we're gonna dump garbage anywhere, just fire it in there.

JoeDoe 2.0
12-17-2007, 08:28 PM
Screw that. We've got the sun. If we're gonna dump garbage anywhere, just fire it in there.

Let's hope it just doesn't go nova from all that trash

Web Rider
12-17-2007, 08:30 PM
Let's hope it just doesn't go nova from all that trash
Scientifically speaking, that's be like your body spontaneously combusting after getting hit with a molecule of sand.

Ray Jones
12-18-2007, 02:59 AM
God, if we start thinking like that, this will be the end to human ventures. Why, even on an Earth level disaster we don't have where to run, do we?Hey, I wasn't the one coming up with the "no escape" idea. :p


Or do they think that Global Warming is really going to kill our planet so they want another one to screw up???While the Moon is not exactly a planet, global warming will kill our entire planet, yes. But not that global warming we're making the big fuzz about right now. In about a couple of million years, the sun will be grown so big, it will "shine" over the whole horizon, from left to right. We *have* to leave earth permanently, or else. In fact, we should be on the go in about 100.000 years.


Pollution, however, is not just about having an atmosphere. You can pollute the ground with toxic substances, or radiation, for instance. However, considering the level of radiation or amount of cosmic particles we find in space, I doubt we can pollute or contaminate there anything in the classical sense. However, I would be more than glad if we would see that fire'n'forgetting our crap into outer space is plain irresponsible and shortsighted behaviour, and we do not start with it from the begin with.

Corinthian
12-18-2007, 04:47 AM
Considering we made the jump from a bunch of warlike primitives three thousand years ago to being equally warlike, but better about it, plus we can go into space, 100,000 years SHOULD be enough time to construct Marathon.

Darth InSidious
12-18-2007, 08:59 AM
Actually, 3000 BC is towards the end of the Protodynastic period in Egypt, in which we see the first writing, tombs, and effectively the most coherent signs of nationhood.

Ray Jones
12-18-2007, 10:25 AM
But 3000 years ago is 1000 BC???

Darth InSidious
12-18-2007, 11:04 AM
Whoops, misread Corinthian's post.

Corinthian: 1000 BC was around the time of the Trojan War (if it occurred).

Ctrl Alt Del
12-18-2007, 07:05 PM
But 3000 years ago is 1000 BC???
Ancient Greece saved our asses from barbarism on that time.

Darth InSidious
12-18-2007, 07:39 PM
Ancient Greece saved our asses from barbarism on that time.
Oh, please. Can we stop the obsession with Hellenism? It's just barbarism with delusions of grandeur.

Pharaonic civilisation is infinitely superior in almost every regard, and influenced us far more through Judaeism, and into Christianity.

I'm sorry, but I find this ubiquitous Greece-worship irritating in the extreme.

Corinthian
12-18-2007, 08:15 PM
Do you really have to nitpick at my post? I talked about us constructing Marathon. The Marathon Colony was constructed by turning Deimos into a spaceship. I wasn't serious.

The Greece Worshiping is because everyone's so bloody excited about 300 that they STILL haven't flushed it out of their systems.

Ray Jones
12-19-2007, 04:29 AM
That reminds me that I totally forgot about this thread (http://lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=182333).


Eh.

Darth InSidious
12-19-2007, 07:36 PM
That reminds me that I totally forgot about this thread (http://lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=182333).


Eh.
No worries, I've done the same myself hundreds of times...

Ctrl Alt Del
12-19-2007, 07:49 PM
Oh, please. Can we stop the obsession with Hellenism? It's just barbarism with delusions of grandeur.
Then all western civilizations are barbaric with delusions of grandeur.

Pharaonic civilisation is infinitely superior in almost every regard, and influenced us far more through Judaeism, and into Christianity.
Then Crhistianity adapted itself to merge with Roman culture, in order to survive and spread.

Darth InSidious
12-19-2007, 07:55 PM
Then all western civilizations are barbaric with delusions of grandeur.
Certainly, Greco-Roman derivatives have that tendency. Nevertheless, your comment lacks...intellectual finesse. I'll admit, my own was somewhat hyperbolic, but my point remains that they are far removed from the "golden age" that many turn them into. They were just as, if not more cruel, short-sighted, nasty, selfish, superior, arrogant, xenophobic, smug, self-assured, hypocritical, nymphomaniacal and unnecessarily agressive than our own society.


Then Crhistianity adapted itself to merge with Roman culture, in order to survive and spread.
Up to a point, Lord Copper. The extent to which post-Constantine Christianity "absorbed" Roman culture is debatable, and debated. Of course, if you want to discuss the Renaissance, that's rather a different matter.

Ctrl Alt Del
12-19-2007, 08:09 PM
They were just as, if not more cruel, short-sighted, nasty, selfish, superior, arrogant, xenophobic, smug, self-assured, hypocritical, nymphomaniacal and unnecessarily agressive than our own society.
Right. I don't disagree, assuming you're talking about romans. Wether this was inherited from the Etruscans...

In fact, aside from the great territory under roman rule, there's very little remarkable technological advances, or significant literature from them.

Up to a point, Lord Copper. The extent to which post-Constantine Christianity "absorbed" Roman culture is debatable, and debated. Of course, if you want to discuss the Renaissance, that's rather a different matter.
Romans needed inspiration, something to believe into. Christianity needed a home to harbor it, a vessel. Constantine chosen the cross instead of the Sun God to illustrate his shield. Opportunity spoke louder.

Web Rider
12-19-2007, 08:24 PM
Opportunity spoke louder.

So we're not really barbaric or enlightened, we're just opportunists.

SilentScope001
12-19-2007, 08:36 PM
They were just as, if not more cruel, short-sighted, nasty, selfish, superior, arrogant, xenophobic, smug, self-assured, hypocritical, nymphomaniacal and unnecessarily agressive than our own society.

And why then should we not worship them?

Just because they are violent does not mean we should not worship them. The Greeks developed democracy, defended themselves from the Persians, and eventually spread their legacy in the form of the Roman Empire.

Romans needed inspiration, something to believe into.

What about the centuries when Rome had its own religion instead? It managed to take out Chartage and Egypt with ease. The eras of civil war really did mess society up, but Rome went through a previous wave of civil wars without needing to scummb to pressure.

I think it was really Constaine that saved Chrisitanity and made it a world religion. Had Constaine not converted, Christanty may have just still have been a minor religion, and the ramifications for the history of Islam...well, wow. The only question that I don't think I know the answer to was this: Why? And that why, you can easily explain as: Constaine needed something to believe in, Chrisitanty needed a protecter, they made an alliance.

Rev7
12-20-2007, 03:10 AM
I think that Moon Colonization is very plausible, but ,IMO, unlikely in the near future.

I honestly think that there are a lot more important things that that money should go to. In no way am I saying 'don't make a base on the moon', I just think that we should be focusing on more important things at the moment, such as making use/making new (of) alternative energy sources, cleaning up the environment (cut down on pollution which in turn stops/slows down the effects of 'global-warming')...ect...

Ray Jones
12-20-2007, 03:30 AM
there's very little remarkable technological advancesNot true. The Romans came up with some great stuff. They introduced hygienic standards like lavatories and some great technological/architectural advances.

Ctrl Alt Del
12-20-2007, 07:11 PM
I honestly think that there are a lot more important things that that money should go to. In no way am I saying 'don't make a base on the moon', I just think that we should be focusing on more important things at the moment, such as making use/making new (of) alternative energy sources, cleaning up the environment (cut down on pollution which in turn stops/slows down the effects of 'global-warming')...ect...
Of course solving our immediate problems on Earth are more than worth delaying any off-world programs we may have, but theorize about that, and eventualy, colonize, won't make us forget about those problems.

OFF TOPIC:

What about the centuries when Rome had its own religion instead? It managed to take out Chartage and Egypt with ease. The eras of civil war really did mess society up, but Rome went through a previous wave of civil wars without needing to scummb to pressure.
Roman religion was only so sucessful - and consequently made the Empire work - because it incorporated the deities of the conquered states into their pantheon. By the time of Constantine, the romans were being bashed by the unstoppable barbarians, and the Sun Seal, that was laid on roman shields of the time, had lost all the battles it was in.

After all, Constantine had to make his bet on some religious icon. He chosen the cross and eventually converted to christianity.

I think it was really Constaine that saved Chrisitanity and made it a world religion. Had Constaine not converted, Christanty may have just still have been a minor religion, and the ramifications for the history of Islam...well, wow.
Well, that didn't spared it from having it's ramifications.

The only question that I don't think I know the answer to was this: Why? And that why, you can easily explain as: Constaine needed something to believe in, Chrisitanty needed a protecter, they made an alliance.
So you do agree?

Not true. The Romans came up with some great stuff. They introduced hygienic standards like lavatories and some great technological/architectural advances.
As any Empire, or Republic with it's foundations on wars, or even under Monarchy, Roman technology developed around warfare. They placed great importance on body hygiene - that was eventually forgotten during the High Middle Ages and (barely) ressurected on the Renaissance - and they created the bathouses.

However, I take that by Achitetural advances you mean fort constructions techniques and the creation of cranes. But that isn't really remarkable. You see, the egyptians, that were equipped with copper tools only, accomplished far more than them on that ground. And even that image of magnificent collumns that we normally associate to the romans were copied of the Greek ones.

On the literacy field, they didn't matched the Greek philosophers nor writers, and consequently had culture that was poorly, though vast, due to their territory and the same mild nature of their religion.

SilentScope001
12-20-2007, 08:02 PM
So you do agree?

No, I said that it was Constaine's desicion, not the desicion of Rome that changed history. If Constaine choosen otherwise, Christianty would never had a chance.

But, I guess I was wrong. :) Will likely need to re-read the Roman history books to figure out more.

And maybe it might not really be 'off-topic'? In a thread about colonization, it's nice to read about the history of the Roman Empire and its attempts to turn entire nations into deserts for peace.

Rev7
12-21-2007, 12:24 AM
Of course solving our immediate problems on Earth are more than worth delaying any off-world programs we may have, but theorize about that, and eventualy, colonize, won't make us forget about those problems.
Eventually we will. There really is no doubt about that, there are way too many people that have spent their whole life on working to do so. I think it would be awesome if the moon was colonized, it would be a huge accomplishment.

Ray Jones
12-21-2007, 03:10 AM
As any Empire, or Republic with it's foundations on wars, or even under Monarchy, Roman technology developed around warfare. They placed great importance on body hygiene - that was eventually forgotten during the High Middle Ages and (barely) ressurected on the Renaissance - and they created the bathouses.

However, I take that by Achitetural advances you mean fort constructions techniques and the creation of cranes. But that isn't really remarkable. You see, the egyptians, that were equipped with copper tools only, accomplished far more than them on that ground. And even that image of magnificent collumns that we normally associate to the romans were copied of the Greek ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Roman_technology ;)


That one is pretty awesome. A complex of 16 watermills tied together.
http://www.waterhistory.org/histories/barbegal/

Ctrl Alt Del
12-21-2007, 06:20 PM
No, I said that it was Constaine's desicion, not the desicion of Rome that changed history. If Constaine choosen otherwise, Christianty would never had a chance.

Well, the Empire was Constantine on that time. And Rome played a great role on this. If he was a Goth, or a Vandal, I doubt Christianity would have the same impact of today.


Ray, wait a response whenever I have the time to. ;)