Who won the Space Race? Community poll

[vetrox]

I doubt i can even put up an argument here as i argue with myself about it.

To me the space race ended one there was a man on the moon which NASA managed first...however the ussr managed pretty much every other feet first. First man to orbit the earth. First man to spend a day in space, first un manned space mission, first probe to the moon, first probe to orbit the moon etc etcPersonally I feel the ussr won

If it were a points system with points awarded to the first team to complete a feat with all feats giving the same points then the ussr wins.

If it were a traight up race to the finish point (IE a man on the moon) then the US wins so I'm completley stumped.

I also feel thats when the "space race" ended. Once the first man was up there interest declined and so did budgets, along with the end of the cold war there was now now military need to continue to pour money into space programs!

[tom1499]

You got me hooked on Ted-Ed now!

[Shuttle]

It is a very interesting thread, I read it all.

USA. Why? Sure, they lagged behind, but in the end, they came out on top. Want to counter that? Well: U.S.S.R. didn't even get their moon rocket to leave the atmosphere, while the USA never had a problem with any of the Saturn Vs (Apollo 1 wasn't using a Saturn V, and the Apollo 13 incident was a result of the CSM, not the Saturn V). Also, on a side note, the US rocket was bigger. So much for Russia doing everything big. Finally, the last time I checked, the US is still in existence. So, the US has a double win: they (actually) got to the moon 1st and are still in existence.

I don't know if memoirs of soviet engineers are available in english but Mishin stated the whole budget of N1 program was 2.5 billion $ by 1970. And the first big financial investment was reveived only in 1964.

Current state of the F-1 engines not used for Saturn V launches:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/F-1_Engine.jpg/405px-F-1_Engine.jpg

Current state of Energia: http://i.imgur.com/zE36L71.jpg

Current state of Buran: http://i.imgur.com/HzUHzg5.jpg

Edited September 25, 2013 by Shuttle

[czokletmuss]

Personally I'm glad that the Soviet Union fell apart (totalitarian and opressive communistic empire it was) but to see high-tech rockets in such pathetic condition makes me sad

[Wahgineer]

i think people forget to make their points clear.

USSR got to the moon first actually...

If I'm mentioning the Saturn V and the N-1, my point is pretty clear. Also, the major goal of the space race was to get a man on the moon, not a robot. Think about it: What is more impressive, crash landing probes on the moon or actually sending several men there and back? The U.S. won because it proved it was able to send living, breathing, sentient humans to the Moon and back safely, not a cold, lifeless, expendable machine. In fact, it actually did send probes there, and the first one survived.

[Dispatcher]

I think we have all lost since the "space race" "ceased". As common enemies, the USA and the former USSR kept their space programs going in an "competitive" manner. Its probably why humans were able to land on the moon in the first place. Forgetting all the danger of "mutually assured destruction", if we still had a space race (to that same degree), we'd probably already have moon bases and a Mars base (from at least one Earth nation), and perhaps other solar system programs as well.

Edited September 26, 2013 by Dispatcher
M.A.D.

[Mr Shifty]

and perhaps other solar system programs as well.

Like a probe that has done fly-bys of nearly all of Saturn's moons, including approximately 70 fly-bys of Titan and a surface probe that landed there? Or a probe that has passed the heliopause and is transiting through interstellar space? Or a probe that circled Vesta and is headed toward Ceres? Or another probe that will reach Pluto in a couple years? A spacecraft that orbited and landed on Eros? Another that orbited Jupiter for 8 years? Etc etc etc

Much planetary science has been done using robotic probes that could never ever have been directly by human observers. These missions are relatively cheap and far less risky than crewed expeditions. We know much more about the solar system having focused on this type of mission than we would have had we tried to "conquer" space in person.

[hugix]

Like a probe that has done fly-bys of nearly all of Saturn's moons, including approximately 70 fly-bys of Titan and a surface probe that landed there?

That one was ESA. It hitched a ride on Cassini.

[Camacha]

Also, the major goal of the space race was to get a man on the moon, not a robot

I can not help but feel that picking a man on the moon as the finish line of the space race (after the fact) is arbitrary and actually quite America-centered, especially in light of all the firsts the USSR achieved. As an American or coming from an American influenced culture (like me) this is the logical point of view, but when you take a step back and look at things in a broader perspective and less as something that is devided between us and them, this idea feels more like a media spin than an actual fact.

Running the risk of annoying some people; it kind of reminds me of Bush's Mission Accomplished, which we all know did not make much sense.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Camacha

[M.Wolfy]

If I'm mentioning the Saturn V and the N-1, my point is pretty clear. Also, the major goal of the space race was to get a man on the moon, not a robot. Think about it: What is more impressive, crash landing probes on the moon or actually sending several men there and back? The U.S. won because it proved it was able to send living, breathing, sentient humans to the Moon and back safely, not a cold, lifeless, expendable machine. In fact, it actually did send probes there, and the first one survived.

which is more impressive, landing a man on the moon or landing a probe that survived the scorching tempratures of venus ?

[Rocketscience101]

It was really a tie, even though the U.S. had been to the moon, the USSR had later helped the US with their space station and later ended with the ISS, because the USSR was able to stay longer in space it had been in the lead for most of it. We really don't give the soviets credit were credit is due.

[Camacha]

I just read up on the Lunokhods. It is amazing to think that they drove rovers all that time ago, and actually still hold the record for furthest drive on another celestial body (41 kilometers for Lunokhod versus 37 for Opportunity). It is also noteworthy that the moon is closer, but that the circumstances are actually a lot harder on rovers:

Beneficiaries of three decades worth of Moore's Law, Nasa's currently-operating Mars Exploration Rovers are golf-cart-sized six-wheelers with a 185kg mass. They have to be smart, explains principal investigator Steve Squyres: 'You can't real-time joystick with a typical one-way delay time of 10 minutes. Instead we have a set of imaging systems that the vehicle uses to build up a 3D topography, autonomously negotiating its way past obstacles.'

Mars is in some ways a milder environment than the Moon – its nights are much shorter and not as cold, while average daytime temperatures tend to be below zero. The terrain is more varied, however, and weather, notably wind and dust storms, is a wild card. Both rovers have had problems with dust build-ups that, thankfully, later blew off again. Though because Mars dust is weathered, it is not as abrasive or statically chargeable as lunar soil.

Spirit, Opportunity and Curiosity are great achievements and pieces of kit, but I can not but help but be amazed by this USSR feat of engineering.

[czokletmuss]

I can not help but feel that picking a man on the moon as the finish line of the space race (after the fact) is arbitrary and actually quite America-centered, especially in light of all the firsts the USSR achieved. As an American or coming from an American influenced culture (like me) this is the logical point of view, but when you take a step back and look at things in a broader perspective and less as something that is devided between us and them, this idea feels more like a media spin than an actual fact.

I agree. It was Kennedy who said that "this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth". Was this really the point of the race? Nemo iudex in causa sua - if the Soviet official said that he wants his nation to put a man in orbit than they would've win? Plus, after almost 50 years we can clearly see that the orbital stations and robotic probes turned out to be much more important part of the space exploration than political stunt which was putting Old Glory in the Moon's soil - sadly. It's still the crowning achievemen of mankind but does it really mean that the USA won?

[hugix]

It was really a tie, even though the U.S. had been to the moon, the USSR had later helped the US with their space station and later ended with the ISS, because the USSR was able to stay longer in space it had been in the lead for most of it. We really don't give the soviets credit were credit is due.

The space station part, the reverse is also true about MIR. The only reason MIR got the funding it needed was because Americans helped funding it (In exchange that astronauts could board the station and do science). If it weren't for the USA the MIR would have been a lot worse.

[M.Wolfy]

The space station part, the reverse is also true about MIR. The only reason MIR got the funding it needed was because Americans helped funding it (In exchange that astronauts could board the station and do science). If it weren't for the USA the MIR would have been a lot worse.

you mean there would of been something worse than a collision (I think that was piloted by a american, correct me if I'm wrong), solar panel damage, depressurization (caused by the colision), micrometeorites hitting the solar panels, loss of power and fire? oh my...

Edited September 28, 2013 by M.Wolfy

[hugix]

you mean there would of been something worse than a collision (I think that was piloted by a american, correct me if I'm wrong), solar panel damage, depressurization (caused by the colision), micrometeorites hitting the solar panels, loss of power and fire? oh my...

Not quite true, the collision that destroyed Spektr module was because the Russians decided to test a new docking system that was less expensive than the KURS system (KURS is still in use on the ISS). It is true that there was an American aboard the MIR during the collision but the Russians didn't tell him that they where testing the docking system. Must have been quite the scare.

without NASA / the space shuttle the MIR would be abandoned and left in orbit after the regime change in the USSR / Russia.

But those where different times. Nowadays I see the space agencies as a big family that decided to sell the Jeep and keep the little Asian family car in order to save money.

[magnemoe]

Not quite true, the collision that destroyed Spektr module was because the Russians decided to test a new docking system that was less expensive than the KURS system (KURS is still in use on the ISS). It is true that there was an American aboard the MIR during the collision but the Russians didn't tell him that they where testing the docking system. Must have been quite the scare.

without NASA / the space shuttle the MIR would be abandoned and left in orbit after the regime change in the USSR / Russia.

But those where different times. Nowadays I see the space agencies as a big family that decided to sell the Jeep and keep the little Asian family car in order to save money.

As I understand it was an manual AND remote controlled docking, using an handheld device to get distance to the supply module. So kerbal it's insane.

Yes this might be as the new docking system broke down.

[hugix]

Didn't broke down. The Russians thought the simpler docking system was a great way to save money. The money was almost none and a space station was the last thing the country could use. They got lucky other country's had interest in placing astronauts on the station so there was a little bit of money to run the program on. If the USA finished the shuttle earlier and used it to refurbish the Skylab things would have been completely different for the Russian space program. this MIR would have been abandoned, the Soyuz would stop because there would be no more targets to fly to.

I know I am over simplifying things, but people saying "Well the USA rely on the Russians to get them to space" are simplifying even more

[Shuttle]

The space station part, the reverse is also true about MIR. The only reason MIR got the funding it needed was because Americans helped funding it (In exchange that astronauts could board the station and do science). If it weren't for the USA the MIR would have been a lot worse.

That's what happens when the president of your country is an alcoholic

[Camacha]

That's what happens when the president of your country is an alcoholic

Still sounds better than a former agent with a somewhat shady record, to be honest.

[Shuttle]

Still sounds better than a former agent with a somewhat shady record, to be honest.

He is at least a good politician. And I guess you don't know everything about Yeltsin.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/books/25bookready.html

like the Russian president Boris Yeltsin, whom Secret Service agents reportedly found late one night drunk in his underwear looking for a cab on Pennsylvania Avenue so he could get a pizza.

But Putin is also one of the biggest corrupters in the world, I believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putin%27s_Palace

http://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/20130408172047.shtml

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-07/strongman-putin-is-no-match-for-corruption.html

The market volume of corruption in Russia is about $ 300 billion a year.

Corruption costs Russia about $300 billion a year

[Moon Goddess]

I answered "Other"

humanity being the winner.

[Van Disaster]

We all won. We're still winning too.

[Camacha]

But Putin is also one of the biggest corrupters in the world, I believe.

That, in my book, would make him not a great politician. If you define great politician as someone that does lots of pretty awful stuff and gets away with it, then yes, he is.

[nuclearpower13]

In the terms of rocket technology. Example: The engines designed for the Soviet N-1 Moon Rocket. The Soviet Union was on top. But when it comes to getting the first man outside of the earths sphere of influence and entering the moons. The Americans came up on top.