Now we are away from the cold war era. Is it reasonable to admit that Russia won the space race, having put the first satelite in orbit, and having put the first man into space?
Are those achievements not more fundamental to space exploration than the moon landing?
The USA has obviously progressed far beyonde what the USSR could do, with luna landing, mars missions, voyager etc. but did this all occur after the race into space had allready ended?
I think you’re right on, Bippy. They won the space race.
If the race had ended before the lunar landing, the Russians would not have still comped as fiercely as they did.
Saying the Russians won the space race with what they did is like declaring the winner of a marathon after the first 100 yds.
No-one has ever defined what the eventual goal was, so there’s no definitive answer, but the original goeal was to launch something, and someone into space, and the Russians did that first, I agree they are more fundemental than landing on the moon. However, the first person to set foot on, and imprint mankind’s own identity onto another planet I think would be more significant, which means the race is still running. But to now, I think the more significant goals have been achieved by Russia, yes.
Joetimg I think you are bang on the point. I think the Moon landing is not as important as the first satellite and first manned space travel (though of course it was a far greater technical achievement). I believe the next landmark to pass in space exploration is humans setting foot on another planet. I do think that the idea of a ‘Space Race’ at all was a cold war construct, a tactic for getting Russia to spend beyond its capacity to do so.
Then what is the point of the space race? Are you arguing that the first satellite in orbit and first man in orbit are more effective propaganda tools than manned missions to the moon - I would think it would be the other way around, especially as the Russians played sour grapes after the moon landings - until Mir the Russians had no propoganda victories that were not quickly matched by the US.
If you are arguing that satellites and manned space travel are more important functional goals than the lunar landings, you may have a point although I would say that the US far outstripped the USSR in functional usage of satellites for commercial, communications, and intelligence gathering, with the Russians maintaining their edge in manned space time.
Well, yeah, we’d need to define what was the “race” about – the original IGY-related “race” was to get (a) to orbit at all and (b) a man in orbit. The second race was called by JFK as race to the moon by 1970 (and the Russians WERE running it. You don’t build N-1 boosters and send Zond capsules around the moon just for the fireworks display).
The third race, as far as I could tell, was to see which Space Program could be worst put balls-up by beancounters at the budget office and career-protecting bureaucrats at the Administration pointing fingers. On this one the USA got one spectacular early lead starting in the early 70s and essentially ran alone with it for almost 20 years while the Soviets pursued a modest but consistent program of long-duration orbital lab flights and failed Mars probes. But, a funny thing happened in 1991, one fine morning the USSR was just not there any more and the Russian Space programme suddenly was running on what loose change the staff could find under the sofa cushions, and the deposit on the vodka bottles. This coming-from-ahead upset caused a draw, resulting in the fourth race, a three-legged race with RPKEnergya and NASA jointly trying to stay barely ahead of extinction.
Essentially the direct-competitive “race” was abandoned in the early '70s, with each major spacefaring power setting off in its own direction and letting the other do its thing. The USA became very good at deep-space probing, remote sensing, planetary science, active orbital navigation, orbital maneouverability, electronics systems, power generators, simulations; Russia got very good at booster reliebility and capacity, automated flight controls and rendezvous-docking systems, biological and psychological effects of long-term human space presence.
The American moon landing was a valid demonstration of what it will take to reach other planets. The Soviets never even came close to such an outstanding achievement. While they technically gained greater insight into the physiological effects of living in low gravity for extended periods, their ability to assess that data was meager by comparison. Mir was a floating junk heap. The Soyuz capsule was made to accomodate three people by removing some critical life support systems.
Much of the Soviet aerospace technology was intensely flawed by departmental infighting that made NASA look like the Brady Bunch. American guidance, communication and telemetry systems were light years ahead of anything the Soviets dreamed of having. One simple factor stands out like a sore thumb. Buran, the Soviet space shuttle never took a single person into orbit. Its nearly picture perfect copy-catting of the American shuttle is telling indeed.
Until the loss of Challenger and Columbia, our safety record made the Soviets look like a train wreck. As it is, they nearly lost Mir to a collision and onboard fire. It is almost preposterous to cede winning the space race to the Soviets. They routinely snuck in under the wire with marginal equipment and designs. Their institutional paranoia will forever obscure the true loss of life and human toll of their aerospace program. The Baikonur launching pad and other development locations are some of the most polluted areas on earth. Our superfund sites look like kiddie wading pools by comparison. The full repercussions of the USSR’s hasty entrance upon the aerospace stage have yet to be fully revealed.
Columbia broke up over my city… I won’t forget being woken up to that sound anytime soon.
Yes, it’s important to explore the universe - but, at what cost? What are we looking for? The USSR seems to have a “move forward, whatever it takes” stance. I guess we’ll have to wait and see if they’ll channel their resources towards…oh, what the hell, a cure for cancer?
You’re thinking of the Voshkod, which was based on the one-man Vostok. The Soyuz was designed as a 3-man spacecraft from the ground up.
And while on the topic, the Soyuz is arguably a better design than American spacecraft of that era. It’s a very modular and efficient design, as described in this article. And let’s not forget that the Soyuz is the only operational manned spacecraft in the world right now. It’s the regular Soyuz and Progress (unmanned version of the Soyuz) flights which are keeping the ISS crew alive while the Shuttle fleet remains grounded. As for Mir, we think of it as a piece of junk because it stayed in space long enough to turn into junk. NASA’s own space station, the Skylab, only stayed in space for a couple of years.
Well, at some point we’re going to have to get off this rock if we want the human race to survive. Be it through global warming, nuclear holocaust, asteroid impact or the inevitable swelling of the sun, at some point the earth will no longer be inhabitable. If we’re still confined to Earth when that happens, we’ll die with it.
I’d say we’re looking for an exit.
Actually it’s not fair to say that the Voshkod was made by removing “critical life support systems.” They did make certain compromises between safety and capacity, but that’s hardly unusual and did not result in any fatalities. NASA made very similar decisions with the Space Shuttle - IIRC, ejection seats were present for the first few flights but later removed to accomodate a larger crew. And the Space Shuttle is the only manned spacecraft system ever built with solid rocket motors[1] and without escape rockets[2].
[1] Solid rockets cannot be throttled or shut down once ignited.
[2] On the Apollo and Soyuz, in case of a malfunction a small rocket ejects the crew capsule away from the launcher.
Good point.
And good luck to all.
According to Terminator 3, it’s pretty clear that the end of the world as we know it will commence at precisely 3:18 PM on …kidding, sorry, I could not resist.
That will only buy humanity some time; humanity will come to an end sooner or later.
Definitely - everything dies, after all. Of course, even though we humans realize this, we seem to be obsessed with delaying our death as long as possible. I think that’s true for us as individuals and as a species.
Sorry, Blonde, I missed your post. How terribly rude of me not to say thank you.
:wally
There, I cursed at myself in Yiddish. All is right with the world.
Publius: and a very good night to you…
you guys stay up so late! enjoy those stars above for me.
Thanks for clarifying about Soyuz, scr4.
The only reason we lost Skylab was due to delays in the shuttle roll out. It was intended to go up and refuel the positioning thrusters.
MK, your pessimism is without merit. There is absolutely no limitation to the lifespan of the human race. Provided we learn to colonize other planets and systems, our species could survive until the end of the universe. Please provide backup for your outlandish notion, unless you want to pretend you were already thinking in such extended terms.
-
What’s wrong with trying to prolong our life and the existence of our species?
-
What’s wrong with taking some risks to explore space? It’s not as if the people doing it are being forced at gunpoint.
-
The U.S. won the space race. There was no misunderstanding at the time that the race was to reach the Moon.