I actually laughed out loud at this one.
So I justifiably use the phrase “lol”.
“As far as you’re concerned” meaning “you have no actual background in Soviet rocket history”? Let me introduce you to the worst space-related disaster in history: the Marshal Nedelin Incident, in which 91 people perished. Here’s a slightly-different retelling of the disaster.
Yes, Soviet rocket hardware was (is?) more reliable than US hardware, but their manufacturing capabilities were never on par with ours. Their designs were brilliant but the execution was flawed; we had the exact opposite problem of perfectly-built flawed designs. The trouble was that their centrally-planned economy was never going to be able to execute their designs to spec.
Sergey Korolev came up with some brilliant advances in rocketry, but he was only one man. Think of him as the Russian sequel to Wehrner von Braun. After his death in 1966, there were a very small number of disciples who were able to carry on his legacy, and most of them were hamstrung by the politics and bureaucracy of the aging USSR. A few other advances – road-mobile ICBMs, reliable solid-fuel rockets – came out of the USSR, but their manned spaceflight program fell behind ours around the same time Korolev died.
Sergei Eisenstein and the Moscow montage.
Who did “better” in the space department is a matter for IMHO (because everyone has a different opinion and it isn’t worth a Great Debate), but regardless who did “better,” the Soviets were certainly competitors who pushed our (Earth’s) knowledge further, particularly in the area of survivability in long term space missions and the effects on humans.
Back to the OP, the Soviet Dr. Fyodorov expanded the work on Radial Keratotomy (originally investigated in Columbia) to the point where later investigators had a jump-off point for Lasik surgery.
I do not recall specific break out contributions, but Soviet medicine was a steady contributor to medical advances for many years (at least when the government was not suppressing the conclusions).
The flaws inherent in the Shuttle design, as revealed by the Columbia disaster and the too close for comfort repeat during Discovery’s launch (the now obvious lesson: keep the re-entry vehicle above all other pieces of the rocket), mean that for the foreseeable future the Russians have a monopoly on reliable manned space transport systems with their Soyuz. The closely related unmanned Progress ships are also absolutely indespensible to keeping the ISS inhabited and running. A good chunk of the $100 billion NASA wants to spend to get back to the Moon will be spent in re-engineering the Apollo CSM design, which is basically exactly what the Russians have had in the Soyuz all along.
The irony of this is that we’re totally dependant on Russia for manned access to space at this moment, and have been (except for STS-114) for two and a half years now. And in terms of operational flight losses, we’ve lost 14 astronauts (with several near misses in Gemini and Apollo) as compared to 4 (or possibly 5) by the Soviet programs. (Deaths in ground operations and training are another matter and depends upon the criteria you use, but it still doesn’t paint a sterling picture of the US program with respect to the Soviets/Russians.)
So far, the only self-contained manned space program that hasn’t had deaths is the Chinese program…and they’ve only lobbed one body into space. Their time will come, too; space exploration is hazardous and uncertain, relying on extremely complicated machinery operating in extreme environments.
Well, let’s qualify this by saying that they are the most reliable engines in the world, and in fact Boeing is using the Zenit booster from the Buran program in their SeaLaunch program. But the Saturn-utilized F-1 is still the most powerful single engine every developed, and the Shuttle Main Engines are the most efficient for weight.
We (westerners, and especially Americans) like to portray the Soviets as being incompetent and backward because of their crappy manufacturing infrastructure and debilitatingly compartmentalized research during the Cold War. But in fact, the Russians are as well noted for their developments in physics, medicine, chemistry, materials science, mathematics, et cetera as they are for their literature and chessmanship. Their crippling political and economic system is what kept them from being more widely known and revered as contributors to modern science and technology. The Soviets had their Lysenko and Beria; we had our Proxmire and McCarthy. We readily jettisoned our baggage when Reason stirred; the Soviets had to live with their legacy of deliberate obtuseness for decades.
Stranger
I do believe that Soviet military aircraft were second to none. We were surprised at the MIG-15 in Korea. But of course we are always surprised at the accomplishments of others as we were at the abilities of the Japanese Zero at the outset of WWII.
I hope we get over that fault some day, but I’m not overly optimistic.
TRIZ, an approach to innovative problem solving, was developed by Genrich Altschuller, a Ruskie.
In Soviet Russia, problems solve you?
No? Sorry.
What about in medicine? The Ilizarov device, which was what repaired my severely fractured leg, was Soviet-developed. Some info.
I wouldn’t call the Ilizarov experience fun, or a scientific discovery on a scale with fusion or a space program, but it meant a lot to me.
Sputnik, Yuri Gagarin and Vostok happened not because of Soviet-developed science, but because of the spoils of WWII–captured German rocket scientists. So did the Mercury project, but it took a while longer. Their spoils may have been better than ours.
My apologies to Werner Von Braun
Surprised, yes, but certainly not beaten.
While we were loosing our edge as time went on, our ECM was hands down better than the Soviets.
The Soviets built a water-powered analog computer in the 30s, which is kinda impressive.
That is bloody brilliant.
Not invent but the first to actually use. Very interstersting stuff which I worked on for a bit. It may one day return as a form of treatment against microbial infections since the phages are very specific and replicate at the sight of infection. The only downside is they’re extremely immunogenic, so your own body gives them a good whooping. Good for a 1-time shot maybe as a last resort though.
Cutting/pasting from one of my own presentations on the subject:
1915 - Frederick Twort discovered bacteriophages.
1919 – Felix d’Herelle administered a single dose of bacteriophage to a 12-year-old boy suffering from severe dysentery – he fully recovered.
1921 – staphylococcal skin disease successfully treated. d’Herelle went on to treat thousands of people in India infected with Cholera and Bubonic Plague.
The antibiotic revolution pushed phage therapy research to the back burner in the West, but research continued in the Soviet Union. During World War II Russian soldiers carried vials of bacteriophages to treat their wounds or dysentery.
The Soviets also did a lot of outstanding work in mathematics. I can’t find data on how many Fields Medalists (the Fields is sort of the math equivalent of a Nobel Prize) during the Soviet era were from the USSR, but IIRC there were quite a few. A lot of effort in non-Russian mathematical societies was devoted to keeping up with and translating the Russian publications.
During the Soviet era itself, the USSR actually didn’t do that conspiciously well in winning Fields Medals. Through to 1990 there were only 3 such winners out of 34 overall: Novikov (1970), Margulis (1978) and Drinfel’d (1990). But there were considerable political complications, including the Soviets boycotting the first few congresses where the decisions being made and both Novikov and Margulis being refused permission to collect their medals.
Although he didn’t win until 1994, Efim Zelmanov got it for work done in the USSR.
The two subsequent Russian-born winners - Kontsevich (1998) and Voevodsky (2002) - both emigrated to do their graduate studies and so probably shouldn’t count.
Michael Monastyrsky’s Modern Mathematics in the Light of the Fields Medals (1991; A.K. Peters, 1996) is a nice little account of the subject from a Russian perspective.
From first hand experience, while the emigration of Soviet-trained theorists to the West in the early 90s had a devastating effect on Russian physics at home, it was immensely fruitful to the subject in both the US and Europe. We were all exposed to different ways of thinking and I’ve nothing but respect for the quality of the theoretical physics the Soviet-era tradition in the subject produced.
Actually, I hate to disagree with Adam Yax, but I was speaking of Kuleshov. Eisenstein was one of his students / friends / comrades / fellow film-makers (depending on who you ask), but Kuleshov did an experiment that involved, in essence, making the first film montage and showing that people could actually draw connections between the scenes that weren’t necesarilly there (ie- the two people you see talking are, indeed, talking to each other, although we never see them in the same frame. Pretty basic today, but mind-blowing stuff back then.)
according to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/88802.stm
" lightbulb, the radio and the television.- Neck ties from Italy, jeans from USA - they’re all Russian inventions."
so there!
one I can vouch for that changed the modern world (else no good vibrations!) was the theremin ( http://www.obsolete.com/120_years/machines/theremin/ )
The US simultaneously used several different methods to seperate U235 from natural uranium, including gas centrifuge, mass-spectrometer, gaseous diffusion, and thermal diffusion. The Soviet Union, although it knew almost all of our Manhattan Project secrets from spying the hell out of us, thought that their method was the best. It wasn’t.
Obviously, their method was good enough, though.