AHC: men on the moon 1500 AD

So your challenge is to have human beings on the moon by 1500 AD.

POD: 10,000 BC.

Make it happen or explain why it can't happen.

To specify I don't mean aliens zip some humans off to their base.

Humanity must achieve the technology equivalent to 1969 technology and have a man on the moon.
 
That said, a given is an earlier Industrial Revolution. Maybe either the Chinese or Europeamn learn to use rockets for more peaceful purposes, or build them bigger.
 
Maybe if you could get Rome to expand so much that it just splinters into different countries, instead of it being conquered. Then these post Rome Latin states would have to be peaceful, and continue developing science. Maybe a POD like that could work.
 
Initially posted here:

So broad question -- if we have Europe starting to circumnavigate Africa and cross the Atlantic (or West Africa doing the same, plus trading with Europe) around the same time (like OTL, circa 1500), is the following century likely to see levels of globalization OTL saw by circa 1600? (We can handwave shipping technology for the time being, and assume that any civilization managing this has developed the equivalent of the caravel.)

So if, for example, if Phonecian sailors manage this circa 50 BCE or so, do we see the kind of complex global markets OTL had by 1600 CE by 50 CE TTL? What if some medieval Ruropean power manages this circa 1200 CE; do we see said growth by 1300 CE?

If this does work as a rule of thumb, can we infer even more? Is it reasonable to think the growth of maritime globalization is more than not likely to see the emergence of what OTL considers early modern capitalism? And depending on how likely that is, do we get an earlier industrial revolution, etc? Basically, it is reasonable to have OTL level social, economic, and tech development within five centuries of any earlier 1500 equivalent?[/QUOTE]
 
It is easier to make that with Greeks than Romans. Greeks were more scientist type persons. Romans even didn't invent much if anything themselves. And they were bit more spiritual than scientist persons. So avoid rise of Rome and let Greek culture survive. Perhaps even let Alexander the Great's empire survive much longer and successor states being stronger.
 
Development of agriculture is accelerated thousands of years by luck, luck, and more luck, and we have an industrial revolution in 1000 BC, and man on the Moon by 850 BC. By 2017 AD, mankind is in the process of terraforming not only Mars, but Venus too.

Maybe if you could get Rome to expand so much that it just splinters into different countries, instead of it being conquered. Then these post Rome Latin states would have to be peaceful, and continue developing science. Maybe a POD like that could work.

Why would they have to be peaceful?
 
A massive plague in Early rome, which kills off most of the slaves and possible enslaveable populations around the med. With this manpower shortage, Rome starts to mechanize. This leads to an early industrial revolution. Now you have an industrial revolution more than 1500 years earlier. Time enough for putting a man on the moon.
 
I'd vote for a Well-Organised Alexandrian Empire Survives PoD - whatever it takes to build a functioning basically federal Empire that has plans for rulers and heirs dying under unusual circumstances. Rather than the Empire fragmenting, it stays intact, but with the rise of a Roman Republic and Carthage in the West, the Chinese and Steppe in Central Asia, and the Indian Wars in the SE, the Empire needs a huge army to survive, even if they do win in many circumstances.

As a result, the increased demands for manpower, plus the increased needs for a strong resource base leads to the application of more and more mechanical-power rather than slaves. The sheer size of the Empire brings hugely different intellectuals to Babylon, making it easily the worlds great intellectual centre, merging Greek, Indian, Iranian and imported Chinese thought.

After that, its a repeated cycle of desperately maintaining stability and unity - alongside the cycle of population growth, food and resource extraction innovations - and eventually the exploration to see if there are lands in the West. (I imagine a great eccentric King at some point).
 
Another idea is the dodging of the Bronze Age collapse - at least by some. Maintaining the large cities, centralised government, etc of 1200BC would certainly bring forward space travel.
 
Another idea is the dodging of the Bronze Age collapse - at least by some. Maintaining the large cities, centralised government, etc of 1200BC would certainly bring forward space travel.

Bit difficult when it seems that major reason for Bronze Age Collapse was climate change. If then Mediterranean nations aren't better prepared.
 
Bit difficult when it seems that major reason for Bronze Age Collapse was climate change. If then Mediterranean nations aren't better prepared.

Perhaps this is a possible hook for PoDs - the residents of Romania and Bulgaria could become larger agricultural centres, alternatively, food stocks that aren't so vulnerable to climate change (say fish?) or any other region.

Most of the major Bronze Age civs could afford to import food - the Mycenaeans can export goods, the Hittites Tin, and Egypt gold. A genuine economic power could rise from food exports. It just needs to organise just early enough, for climate change to lead to a period of plenty. The Danube, Italy, or Illyria organising that little bit sooner and flourishing agriculturally could change everything.
 
The tantalizing extremely ancient departures require early societies to adapt to changing climates, geological catastrophes, manage barbarians momentums, and survive invasion. Gaining access to rare minerals, and the development of advanced technology seems dependent on the presence of other cultures to cooperate, compete, and regrettably compel.

Getting on into our historical epoch, the earliest candidate (and IMO the best) for European scientific advancement would have been Classical Greece. Greeks do not necessarily have to be the principle character of this alternate, but their contribution would be to the early development of scientific thinking. The prerequisites of international trade and competition are met in this period.
 
The tantalizing extremely ancient departures require early societies to adapt to changing climates, geological catastrophes, manage barbarians momentums, and survive invasion. Gaining access to rare minerals, and the development of advanced technology . . .
And a complex society is able to do all these things simultaneously. :)
 
I understand that Rome was very close to perfecting steam power during the heyday of the Roman Republic/Empire. The trouble is that they had no use for it and didn't bother going farther with it.

The first thing I would change, in order to get to that point, is to give the Romans a reason to perfect steam power. If they do that, then Rome likely goes from an agrarian society powered by muscle to about what we saw in the century before the Industrial Revolution - steamboats and steam engines start popping up everywhere and then the Republic/Empire can actually hold it together for longer.

From that point, Rome becomes the center of the world, not just that part of the world. If steam turns to other forms of energy, the Industrial Revolution kickstarts a couple of centuries later, and steel buildings and the internal combustion engine end up being removed from the time of Jesus by a couple of centuries. From there, Rome will explore the world and absorb much of it.

After that, there would need to be a reason to go to the moon. There's no reason a rocket couldn't be invented. Perhaps a need for space or resources, or just to spite those damn Byzantines, but in this scenario, mankind could beat that deadline by a thousand years.
 
I'd say we can do it with a POD from 80 or earlier. We need to give Rome a reason use steam power and make sure Rome (and not fake wanabee Romans in Byzantium who lost the tongue of the Romans) surives as a stem power.
 
Top