By popular demand, seems like the "race" ended when the Americans stepped on the Moon, which is a bit odd. Why not end the race at the time when Gagarin became the first man in space? No one should underestimate the American achievement of landing a man on the moon, but to claim Americans won the space race is unfounded, thus neither country won or lost anything.
1st satellite - Sputnik
1st mamal in space - Layka
1st soft/hard landing on an outer body - Luna
1st man in space - Y. Gagarin
1st docking - Soyuz
1st lunar rover - Lunohod
1st space station - Salyut
Number of satellites launched
US-1815
USSR/Russia-3228
Total human spaceflight time
US-10000 days
USSR/Russia-17000 days
--------------------------------------------
This message has been edited by filin on Jul 23, 2008 8:48 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Americans on the moon? Hardly. The greatest achievement of Soviet Man, the sending of humans to another planet, landing there and returning safely, dwarfs anything ever achieved by the US. Thank God, the Soviets had the foresight and technological prowess to acheive this. Who could ever dispute this?
Provost
Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.
Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States 1924-1929
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Could you please direct me to the document which outlined the rules of this "race", that both US and Soviet leaders received and signed off on? You obviously very familiar with it so it shouldnt be too hard for you to enlighten me on the details.
--------------------------------------------
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
was race not to get to the moon? were both nations not trying to get there? that was the race. first was to put a satellite. then to put a man in orbit. then to get to the moon. afterwards no one cared. maybe mars?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
LOL. You are so predictable, Filin. I knew when I mentioned that you'd say the Soviets beat the US to the moon that this was coming. LOL.
Now, will you start the Tu-4 thread I asked for as well?
Provost
Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.
Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States 1924-1929
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
neither sides won, so the thread title should be changed, as both the Soviets and US had made amazing achievements in this field. In addition to what was listed, the US has the following accomplishments:
1. First rover on mars
2. First Man on the Moon
3. First Rover on Saturn's Moon
4. First Resuseable Space Craft
and I'm sure many others as well. While looking at the past can be inspirational to national pride, what is important is present capabilities, as that is what affects the future.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
In all honestly I believe that the USSR saw it more as a race than the United States. The USSR covered up its failures (there were many) while in the United States failures were out in the open for all to see. In the USSR the program was much more connected to the military than in the United States. In fact the United States may have been able to launch a satellite right after the Soviets if the President allowed a military rocket to be used that was ready to go. The President said no and decided that the effort should be civilian. It took longer.
"Korea has not been the only battle ground since the end of the Second World War. Men have fought and died in Malaya, in Greece, in the Philippines, in Algeria and Cuba, and Cyprus and almost continuously on the Indo-Chinese Peninsula. No nuclear weapons have been fired. No massive nuclear retaliation has been considered appropriate. This is another type of war, new in its intensity, ancient in its origin--war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins, war by ambush instead of by combat; by infiltration, instead of aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him. It is a form of warfare uniquely adapted to what has been strangely called 'wars of liberation,' to undermine the efforts of new and poor countries to maintain the freedom that they have finally achieved. It preys on economic unrest and ethnic conflicts. It requires in those situations where we must counter it, and these are the kinds of challenges that will be before us in the next decade if freedom is to be saved, a whole new kind of strategy, a wholly different kind of force, and therefore a new and wholly different kind of military training."-President Kennedy's Address at Graduation Exercises of the U.S. Military Academy, 1962
------------------------------
"The reason I'll be released is the same reason you think I'll be convicted. I do rub shoulders with some of the most vile, sadistic men calling themselves leaders today. But some of these men are the enemies of your enemies. And while the biggest arms dealer in the world is your boss - the President of the United States, who ships more merchandise in a day than I do in a year - sometimes it's embarrassing to have his fingerprints on the guns. Sometimes he needs a freelancer like me to supply forces he can't be seen supplying. So. You call me evil, but unfortunately for you, I'm a necessary evil."-Yuri Orlov, Lord of War
------------------------------
"Of all the weapons in the vast soviet arsenal, nothing was more profitable than Avtomat Kalashnikova model of 1947. More commonly known as the AK-47, or Kalashnikov. It's the world's most popular assault rifle. A weapon all fighters love. An elegantly simple 9 pound amalgamation of forged steel and plywood. It doesn't break, jam, or overheat. It'll shoot whether it's covered in mud or filled with sand. It's so easy, even a child can use it; and they do. The Soviets put the gun on a coin. Mozambique put it on their flag. Since the end of the Cold War, the Kalashnikov has become the Russian people's greatest export. After that comes vodka, caviar, and suicidal novelists. One thing is for sure, no one was lining up to buy their cars."-Yuri Orlov, Lord of War
------------------------------
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Darn it, Oak, why are you always trying to confuse these people with the facts? You know, as well as I do, that the Soviet Union was, and Russia is, superior to the US in every way. Just ask Filin, Irkut, or even our Croat Friend, Koniev.
Provost
Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.
Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States 1924-1929
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The Soviets accomplished far more than the Americans in terms of Space research. This is pretty much a fact. The only problem was that the Soviets were doing it for prestige and the Americans were doing it for some kind of economic gain.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Quote:The Soviets accomplished far more than the Americans in terms of Space research. This is pretty much a fact. The only problem was that the Soviets were doing it for prestige and the Americans were doing it for some kind of economic gain.
I actually LOL'd at how backwards that statement was...
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I think the Soviet Union was hindered technologically because of their conservative view on technology. New ideas were refused to be implemented, but the accomplishments with basic mathematics that were able to compete against Western computer dependent systems is amazing.
But I think that had the Soviet Union been more liberal, their system would most definitely had been ahead of the US. The United States created the internet for phucks sake. The Internet! The greatest accomplishment in human history is the internet. Filin is right, the aqueducts quenched the thirst and hunger of millions, diseases were cured with penicilin and man finally had a hand above God! But the internet! The invention that made everyones voice in the world heard. Thats amazing! Globalism, man. Its an amazing thing. It changes societies.
Filin, you have to give it to the yanks. They are just as brilliant as the Soviets once were.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The Soviets lost because they though that having the biggest economy in the world does not equate to being a superpower. Thats why they lost and they are also an evil dictatorship unlike USA, glade they lost the cold war.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
That's IF the Americans actually landed on the moon
@ Oak
The Americans saw it as a race as much as the USSR. The Americans spent more money on space research then the USSR ever did and if the Americans didn't really care then they wouldn't have gone straight for a moon walk in a 10 year span when the Soviets had been in space for 20. If anything the Yanks cared more lol
No way they'd let a bunch of Commies walk on the moon before the Will of the Free world haha
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind us—immensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The Soviets lost because they though that having the biggest economy in the world does not equate to being a superpower.
During the height of the cold war, the USSR economy (GDP )was barely 40% of the US and they were spending nearly as much money for defence as the US with devastating consequences for the economy.
Crumbling infrastructure,antiquated production facilites ect..They were decades behind the US in everything including military technology,industrial production and processes, you name it.Even today,Russia needs trillions and trillions of Dollars of investments in machinery and equipment to achieve the same standard of US,Germany,Japan,France or Sweden in production technology and efficiency. Russia is not a superpower.
This message has been edited by leopardus on Jul 24, 2008 9:29 AM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The Soviets lost because they though that having the biggest economy in the world does not equate to being a superpower.
Nope
During the height of the cold war, the USSR economy (GDP )was barely 40% of the US and they were spending nearly as much money for defence as the US with devastating consequences for the economy.
Crumbling infrastructure,antiquated production facilites ect..They were decades behind the US in everything including military technology,industrial production and processes, you name it.
Not in the 60's and 70's
Even today,Russia needs trillions and trillions of Dollars of investments in machinery and equipment to achieve the same standard of US,Germany,Japan,France or Sweden in production technology and efficiency. Russia is not a superpower.
Who said Russia IS a superpower?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Quote:
In addition to what was listed, the US has the following accomplishments:
3.First Rover on Saturn's Moon
Thats not quite true as the Huygens probe that landed on Titan was a ESA built and supplied probe/lander and that the mission as a whole was a ESA/ASI/NASA joint mission.
For me the soviets were the true winners of the space race. They achieve all the `firsts` except the moon landing and that is mainly down to the suden death of their chief designer Sergey Korolyov. He died before he finished his `baby` the N-1 rocket and his folowers never stood up to his genious.
The space race is an interesting one. To be sure, the USSR got a huge head start in the 'race' in the '50s since the US didn't put much emphasis on it as they thought they were miles ahead of the Soviets. Then the USSR put Sputnik in space, and all of a sudden the USA realised they were behind and decided to spare no expense to beat the Soviets. The USA caught up in the mid '60s, and was ahead when they put a man on the moon in 69.
For me the race pretty much ended there as nothing really interesting has happened since the moon landings. Building space stations, using space shuttle - everything done in space since the Apollo program has been pretty pedestrian.
One thing to consider when evaluating who 'won the race' though is that everything the USSR did first in space - first satellite, first man, first spacewalk - the USA matched and achieved themselves, if a few years late. However when the US pulled ahead and put the first man on the moon, that is something the USSR has never matched. No one has ever matched it. Th USSR decided it wasn't worth the expense to be the second nation to land on the moon, and never did it. For me, that pretty much shows the USSR admitted defeat in the 'race'.
- Sarge
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
USSR shifted the focus on space station research, pretty silly to say anyone admitted defeat because they decided to take a different approach. Where is the US equivalent of the Mir space station?
--------------------------------------------
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
It is a coincidence then that the Soviet moon program was cancelled not long after the US Apollo landings? Although it didn't help that their moon rocket blew up everytime they tried to use it. It is pretty certain that if the US hadn't beat them there, the USSR would have continued their program. As it was they put their efforts into something else.
I suppose the US answer to Mir was Skylab. Mir was 50% heavier, and stayed up a hell of a lot longer, but Skylab was unique in that it was launched in one piece in a single launch of the Saturn V rocket. It took seven different launches and 10 years to put the completed Mir into orbit.
To be sure, Mir was an impressive achievement, but the USA demonstrated the capability to do the same many times. The Soviets certainly never demonstrated the capability to get to the moon. Every rocket they tried to use blew up.
- Sarge
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
lol, you amuse me. I guess Lunokhod never actually landed on the moon...
The goal to land a man on the moon was set by a US president, Soviets had been just as happy with the first rover and orbiter. If there was a will to get to the moon in USSR it would have happened, maybe loosing 1000 people while doing so, but it would have happened. Space stations were the main goal, Mir contributed so much research data in its 15 years of existence that one could argue it was one of the most important achievements in the space race.
--------------------------------------------
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Pffft, putting a small rover on the Moon and putting a man there - and bringing him back - are two totally different things. Man can put a probe on the moons of Saturn - that doesn't mean they can land a man there.
That the Soviets would have put a man on the moon if they wanted I do not doubt - that they didn't in the end after the US beat them there speaks loads to me. That they did lots of important research on Mir I am sure, although I am not sure how that counts in a discussion about the space race.
- Sarge
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
No, the US didn't put a rover on the moon. Instead they put a man on the moon which is much, much harder. Getting to the moon is one thing - getting back is something else. Thus they won.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Personally, I don't believe that ANY nation has made it to the moon yet, its all propagandistic crap from the old U.S.-Soviet space race. For one thing, the fvckin flag that they placed on the moon was WAVING, there is no wind on the moon. Then the morons at the film studio's DIDN'T put the stars in the backround. So 12 guys were in space walking on the moon and there were no stars..............awesome. But let's say that there are supposedly "perfectly good explanations for these things"........ok lets say that...........there is still alot more, some of it is here and spoken about by the people who were there at the time:
Thank you, Fantaros, you've just confirmed my opinion of your intellectual capabilities.
Provost
Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.
Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States 1924-1929
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
And in 39 years, not one of the 10 000s of people around the world who would know the truth about a moon landing have come forward to say the landings were fake.
And yet Nixon wasn't able to keep Watergate under wraps.
Whats that Occums Razor thing again?
- Sarge
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
An intelligent human being. Are you trying to tell me that landing a rover on the surface of the moon is more difficult than landing two men on the moon and returning them safely to the Earth? Really? Hell, the US put a manned buggy on the moon. Beats an unmanned rover anyday.
I also dare say putting a man on Mars would be more difficult than the various rovers that have landed there over the years.
- Sarge
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
An intelligent human being. Are you trying to tell me that landing a rover on the surface of the moon is more difficult than landing two men on the moon and returning them safely to the Earth? Really? Hell, the US put a manned buggy on the moon. Beats an unmanned rover anyday.
I also dare say putting a man on Mars would be more difficult than the various rovers that have landed there over the years.
- Sarge
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Well, as you can see from the 2 videos I posted above, Nixon was discussing FAKING portions of the moon landing trip. This statement and others in the video were made by highly "respectable" and "credible" U.S. politicians or people involved with the defense of the U.S. ( see Eagleburger, Rumsfeld in the video.........etc.) . These are NOT my opinion,these are not ANYONE'S opinion, they are things which were REAL, as you can see from the interviews in the video.
Mediocre intelligence at best, I can take a look outside and see plenty of cars with human drivers, but even 40 years later UGVs are still not widely used, not to mention being able to work after surviving a trip to the moon.
--------------------------------------------
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
FFS, you don't give up do you. The US has landed multiple Rovers on Mars - does that demonstrate their ability to do the same on the Moon? It is probably worth noting that both Soviet rover missions to Mars failed. If you think landing a robot on the moon is tougher than a manned mission, well, I doubt anyone else will agree with you.
A comparison to a car isn't very smart - a car isn't launched atop a 100 ton rocket, and then required to take its passengers through freezing hard vacuum, land on another planet, and then fly back and survive re-entry into the Earths atmosphere. Men driving a car is easy, men flying in space hard. Robots flying in space - much easier. By your logic it would be easier putting man in space than simply putting up a satellite.
- Sarge
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
lol, the first US rover on Mars was in '97, 6 years after the USSR and 27 after Lunokhod. A manned mission carries more risk, but when a human is on board problems can be fixed, there is a brain or 3 in the carrier. When there is a robot everything has to go virtually perfect, if your tire falls in a ditch you are screwed. Not only do you have to have a system to get the rover to the Moon in perfect working order but you have to make the rover work. Why did the Americans not send up a rover first if its so easy?
