Certainly from a political perspective, this was a space RACE. Better to be first barefooted, than second on Nikes.

But the barefoot runner should not then brag about the quality of his footwear, simply because he won the race.

Bailing out of a capsule instead of landing inside it can be an acceptable choice considering the purpose of the craft was to send the first man into space.

Acceptable in a general, common-sense way; yes. Unacceptable according to the rules they had agreed to for the contest, which specifically prohibited bailouts.

Running 98 meters is acceptable and impressive, except when the race is 100 meters long.

The way both countries worked on space development was different.

Exactly, hence a direct comparison is difficult and somewhat fruitless.

To win races, it proved to be the best way obviously.

Obviously, which is the way Khrushchev apparently wanted it.

Remember, the "best thing" is the one that's worth most to you!

Keeping in mind, of course, that it may be worth less to someone else.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Nice forum. Someone is able to comment on my post without making me feel threatened to death or a complete idiot. Your reactions are exactly what I was trying to say with my post. It's just how you look at it.

About the bailout, I was unaware that there was something like a closely predefined goal. On the other hand defining what is "the first man in space" is something with which one can redefine the achievements hugely. I mean, if you define it as "shoot a man over 100 km" then gagarin was definitely the first (unless you count "coverups" of dead cosmonauts or other blabla). If you define it as "to bring an untrained man without help from qualified pilots into space, let him travel and stay there with the same comfort as he is used to on earth, and bring him back softly and safe" then we haven't brought a man in space yet.

Anyway, my point of view there was posted with the idea that they had developed a system that shot a man into space and brought him back alive "period". No matter how, even if he had to climb up a rope

You can discuss endlessly on the difference in value between jumping out on a parachute (which is a return vehicle too) or bobbing in the middle of the ocean till someone finds you.

Something to think about: at this moment, the USA and Russia are both unable to send up a "simple" gyroscope to the ISS. (Of course I know it is technically possible, but in practice it's impossible due to shuttle grounding and door sizes etc.) The USA drove cars on the surface of the moon once.
Now what's that thing about "results achieved in the past" again? Both countries made amazing contributions to the exploration of space and to me the complete "what is best" question does not make any sense.
ESA sent a probe to the moon. Because it uses the least amount of fuel to get there considering its goal orbit and weight, does that make ESA the most efficient moon travelers? Or because it takes the longest time are they the least efficient?

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

About the bailout, I was unaware that there was something like a closely predefined goal.

Only in the sense that the USSR accepted FAI certification of Gagarin's flight. If you read the preceding thread, FAI requires that the pilot remain with his craft until it lands. When you learn that the USSR kept secret the fact that Gagarin had ejected, you wonder what the Soviets were up to.

If you have Problem X and Solution A and Solution B to that problem, you can ask a whole host of questions. Which is better: A or B? If you want to answer that based on how well they solve Problem X, then you had better have a detailed definition for X. If the inventors of A and B have a different idea of what X is, you might not be able to directly compare A and B.

If you forget about X and try to compare A and B on their intrinsic merits and quality, again you have to agree on a set of criteria that A and B should both be expected to satisfy, so that you can directly compare them. If Solution A has a clever Wifty Widget, while B requires no such widget and instead employs a Ramistat Coil -- and each of them is an impressive innovation -- how are we to weigh those innovations on a common scale?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Thank you for informing me.

Keeping the bailout secret indicates how important it was for the Russians to be "first". Looking in the perspective of the race, they cheated, even failed you could say.

Outside these regulations, they have managed to bring a man into space.

This indicates the problem with facts in this discussion: they are only true in their context, and one can change this context for its own purposes. If I want to claim the Russians were best, I could say Gagarin went into space first and came back in one piece without claiming wrong facts. If I want to minimize their effort, I could say they cheated and Gagarin was not the man who won the space race, which is true too.

Putting this in a Bad Astronomy perspective, the value of this topic is that any "X were best" claim is subjective, and shouldn't be used as an argument. You can compare speed, capacity etc, but you can't uniformly compare "doing the job" (unless in extreme cases of course where one option clearly is way better than another).

IMHO it is impossible to find the "true answer" in this discussion, cause the question "which one was best" is just too subjective.

As an aerospace student, I was learned to be extremely careful when choosing between alternatives, and to look as broad as possible. This lesson was more important than anything one can lookup in a book. The book will always be there to give a fact, never to make a decision. If a book makes decisions for you, you should be EXTREMELY sceptic about it!

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

This sounds a lot like most conspiracy literature. The authors don't encourage independent thought, they just tell you what you should believe.

Conspiracy books indeed.

But also any book on any subject written by someone who is just a little too self-confident.

Be careful when placing religious books in this category. For some people these books are law (they decide for you), for others just a set of guidelines. (help you to decide).

Also there is a subtle difference between a conclusion and a decision. Someone can perfectly conclude something when he has proven it to be the only correct conclusion. If this proof is not fully "closed" then the value of the conclusion is zero (conspriacy books...) A decision however is the result of the choice between 2 or more valid alternatives. All alternatives are possible, and should only be presented in a very detailed AND COMPLETE way. The final decision is up to the reader, not the writer.

So "we found DNA traces, we have a motive, the knife used for the murder and the suspect has admitted so we conclude he is the murderer" (written out in detail, including tracking of other suspects) is a valid conclusion in a murder case report.

But "this this and this is an indication that it might not be true, so it is false" is an incomplete foundadtion for your case if you don't mention things that seem to prove the opposite, and do this for both viewpoints in a very profound way.

Don't just prove that you are right or someone else is false, do BOTH things. Otherwise you are just pushing conclusions down someone's throat. From a good argumentation any reader can make your conclusion for himself.

And don't do this "conclude for yourself" the way we often tend to find in the conspiracy writings: "The arguments for my case are: fuzzy a, unclear b, shallow c, plain wrong d and not-to-the-point e which ALL PROVE MY THEORY IS CORRECT!!!! So, decide for yourself..."

I have decided indeed

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

In my mind there is nothing inherently wrong with a book that draws a conclusion. I prefer those kinds of books over those that simply raise questions; those do only half the investigation.

A book that draws a conclusion, however, must do so only when it can present a case that supports such a conclusion. It must identify what other leading conclusions might be drawn, it must present a balanced discussion of all the significant available evidence, and it must deal fairly and directly with evidence that would appear to erode the author's conclusion.

Diane Vaughan's The Challenger Launch Decision is a good example of such a book. She reaches conclusions that differ from those reached by other authors and by the Rodger's commission. But her conclusions are meticulously laid out, well-documented, and draw from a much broader range of applicable understanding. I think her conclusions have a much greater chance of explaining the problems at NASA than those who simplify the problem down to mismanagement and intimidation.

Some questions have no clear answers, and it's wrong for a book to imply a clear answer where none is warranted.

Conspiracy theory books very often decline to specify a conclusion. This is partly a rhetorical tool and partly a defensive posture. If the author stops short of drawing a conclusion and leaves you only with questions and innuendo -- e.g., Why else would NASA have provided such lousy television on Apollo 11? -- then he can state his conclusion without really stating it. The typical pattern invites the reader to draw his own conclusion (a rhetorical device that preconditions the reader to believe he's being given a balanced view), but then presents only the evidence leading to a particular conclusion. The previously uninformed reader has little choice but to be led there by the nose, but the reader is left fully on his own to make that inductive leap so that the author can absolve himself of that particular responsibility. "The reader drew that conclusion; my hands are clean."

I don't read books to get only unanswered questions. I read books expecting answers.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

=D>
My idea too.

My knowledge of English doesn't always allow my to phrase my thoughts in such a nuanced way. But we're on the same frequency on this one.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Related to this thread only tangentially, recordings of Sputnik and Vanguard are available here.

__________________
"If a tree is cut down in the rainforest, and is used to make paper to print a book, and the book is really bad, and there's nobody that will read it, do you still hear a sucking sound?"
Charlie in Dayton, A.AsC.