PRAVDA (The Truth) yesterday had THIS article on why the USSR lost the moon race.

A quote:

"The USSR lost the technical race with the USA, despite the technical genius of Soviet designers. America spent $25 billion on the Apollo project, whereas the USSR spent only four and a half billion rubles, according to unofficial information.

The debacle can be explained by the weakness of the state management as well. There was nothing in the USSR like NASA in the United States. Too many political issues in science, imaginary values instead of real ones, and too many personal views played roles as well. Every Soviet chief designer had to stand for his ideas, looking for the patronage of a communist official. There should have been completely different political and economic mechanisms in the country in order to elaborate new approachs to science and industry."

(I´m looking forward to Jim Obergs comments on the PRAVDA article. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] ...)


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stardust on 2002-12-04 10:42 ]</font>

<a name="2-12-04.ES"> page 2-12-04.ES aka E S
On 2002-12-04 10:39, Stardust wrote: To: 7:52 A.M.
I doubt that the 60's or 70' or even the 80's
PRAVDA (The Truth) yesterday had THIS article on why the USSR lost the moon race.

matter very much
in the race4
Enforced Stupidity
==================
this I think matters
{maybe not}
::::::::::::::::::::
now back to php comparisions {maybe}
http://www.allyourtv.com/boards/view...ebad32b1826bbd
there may be a limit on the number of edits? hmm?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-12-04 11:23 ]</font>

There is a delicious irony in that the respective space administrations were exactly the opposite of what one would expect from the political systems: the US organization was monolithic and centrally controlled, while the Soviet was distributed, with different factions competing for support.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Why the Soviets Never Beat the U.S. to the Moon
An Interview with Charles P. Vick.
http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/cp_vick_interview.htm

• You end up saying to yourself, "Was the lunar race real?" Yes and no. It's a very ambiguous answer. . . . Ultimately, we ended up finding out that you have to look at the money: Follow the money and that tells you the truth. . . . I'd have to say that, so far as the [Soviet] government was really concerned, for all practical purposes, there was no lunar race. . . . The Soviets were two and a half to five years behind U.S. developments. Khrushchev started the space race, but one would have to legitimately say that he also ended the space race, when the decision was made to put the appropriations into the strategic rocket programs. . . . But it is amazing what the Academy of Sciences and the Russians managed to accomplish.

Not to mention that Korolev died during the space race. That couldn't have helped either.

It didn't help Korolev...

The Vick interview actually addresses Korolev's death. He says their program was already in trouble because Kruschev wasn't providing the funding, and Korolev's death really didn't have that big an impact. *shrug*

Another interesting statement:

• "As a result of the Cuban missile crisis, the legitimacy of the Soviet regime and the credibility of its strategic forces were being questioned. U.S. Defense Secretary and geopolitican Robert McNamara stated, after the Apollo announcement, that the Russians would have to choose between strategic systems and the space race. Our policy people hoped they would choose the space race, but they did not."

Speaking of the Space Race -

I'm working on a paper on the impact of the launching of Sputnik on the American education system. Basically, the Soviet satellite struck fear into the hearts of Americans that the Soviets were beating us in math, science, and technology, and the education system was to blame. Part of the fear, however, not only had to do with their superiority but also their (perceived?) ability to launch spy satellites and missles into orbit.

Based on what I am reading, it seemed that our landing men on the Moon ended Americans' fear of Soviet technology and settled in the hearts of many that we won the Space Race.

What is puzzling me is that our landing men on the Moon should not have negated the Soviet's ability to launch satellites or missles into orbit - thus should not have eliminated the threat of our Cold War enemy. Yet it seems the American public rested on their laurels that making it to the Moon first was enough to prove our superiority. Well, at least these books focusing on the history of education and the reforms of the late '50's through the '60's seem to indicate that, as the reform movement died by the end of the Apollo landings. Granted, there were other issues involved, but the motivation for scientific superiority, success, and motivation definantly died down.

So, I was wondering from people who are able to remember that period of time might be able to clarify my confusion. Did we consider the Apollo landings as the "winning" of the Space Race? If so, why, when any advancements the Soviets could still make into space could still have been a threat? What had a greater impact on the waning of this drive for an improved science curriculum: social unrest during the '60's or the aforementioned "resting on our laurels?"

Thanks in advance for any thoughts and opinions and recollections.

President Kennedy "started" the Space Race, with his infamous speech. However I don't think that the USSR ever set a goal so specific. After the many firsts in the first half of the 60s, and with Khruschev's reign ending in 1964? and Korolev's death, the program was doomed from the start. Brezhnev had disliked the program from the start, mostly because Khruschev supported it.

Gambit: President Kennedy "started" the Space Race, with his infamous speech.

The starting pistol that signaled the commencement of the space race sounded like this.

• We are in a strategic space race with the Russians, and we have been losing. The first man-made satellite to orbit the earth was named Sputnik. The first living creature in space was Laika. The first rocket to the moon carried a Red flag. The first photograph of the far side of the Moon was made with a Soviet camera. If a man orbits earth his year his name will be Ivan. These are unpleasant facts that the Republican candidate would prefer us to forget. Control of space will be divided in the next decade. If the Soviets control space they can control earth, as in past centuries the nation that controlled the seas dominated the continents. This does not mean that the United States desires more rights in space than any other nation. But we cannot run second in this vital race. To insure peace and freedom, we must be first.
  
  - John F. Kennedy

Brezhnev had disliked the program from the start, mostly because Khruschev supported it.

Khruschev had clearly brandished the space program like a cold war weapon. He did not endear himself to the engineers and astronauts by insisting on foolhardy and meaningless space stunts. On top of this, the focus on firstmanship instead of infrastructure left the Soviet space program ill equipped to run in a space race over the long haul.

Brezhnev's backlash caused further damage. By setting overly stringent safety standards to compensate for the bravado of the previous era, he set the bar higher for his country than Kennedy had set for the U.S. The U.S. won because it defined victory in terms of simpler and more achievable goals, and it had sacrificed early victory for greater long-term stability.

Or so think I.

Hi, nebularian,

I remember reading your excellent question when you first posted it, and wanting to reply (but not having time just then). Sorry for the delay, but here are my thoughts and recollections.

The Space Race really began with Sputnik, not the Kennedy speech. Sputnik was a wake-up call to the general American public, who had (on the whole) become complacent about the assumed American technological "edge" over the rest of the world -- most of all the Soviet Union, which was perceived as a rather backward country. Sputnik, combined with the USSR's known nuclear capability, raised the spectre of pushbutton nuclear holocaust.

In the early years of the Space Race, the US was consistently behind, at least by the most obvious public yardsticks. (The real technical situation may have been more balanced, with each side having strengths and weaknesses -- but I'm talking about perceptions.) The Soviets were the first to orbit a satellite, orbit an animal, orbit a human, orbit a two-man vehicle, perform a space walk, and so on. They held the lead in endurance (time in space) and lift capability, too.

But as time went by, it became clear that the US was catching up. The Gemini program began to match, then exceed, the Soviet achievements. Some of the USSR's "firsts" were realized to be more like stunts than real achievements. By the time of Apollo, it was becoming clear the the American program was superior in many ways.

But there were other forces at work, too. Military applications became separated from the manned space program, both in fact and in perception. By the mid-60's, the US was into its second or third generation of ICBMs and no one was too concerned about a "window of vulnerability" -- that is, the public was confident that the US had an effective retaliatory capability.

Perhaps even more importantly, though, as fears of a nuclear armageddon faded, the public's concern turned to other issues. Segregation, poverty, civil rights, women's rights, the environment, and most of all, the Vietnam war moved to center stage.

Apollo 11 was a huge event, of course, but it no longer carried any significant Cold War implications. By 1969 there wasn't much of a connection between the Space Race and the Missile Gap (or other aspects of international nuclear politics). I'd say the public felt the Space Race was already over, and A-11 was just the hallmark of that fact.

That's why the US backed away from further lunar exploration, I believe. The cost/benefit equation had changed. Without the "let's show up the Soviets" justification, and with the other social concerns moving to the forefront, going to the Moon just didn't seem worth the money anymore.

I hope this is helpful, and I'm sorry if it's too late to help with your paper.

Hey, thanks for the response!

Unfortunately, I had to turn my paper in last night, but I'm glad for the answer, anyway, because it does clarify a lot of things for me.

Thanks again to all who offered some input!

It's funny you should say this. Just last night, I was conversing with one of my classmates about our respective papers, and she brought up having heard recently about how the dog that the Soviet's launched died in space. We were wondering why the launching of a live animal into space that did not survive the experience was such a wonderful accomplishment. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img]

1) It showed that a living mammal could survive being launched into space.
2) It showed that a living mammal could survive in space (at least for a while).
They just forgot to provide a way to return her to Earth. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_evil.gif[/img]
They also completely overlooked the backlash from the rest of the world - "How dare you doom that poor animal to such a lonely death".

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

We were wondering why the launching of a live animal into space that did not survive the experience was such a wonderful accomplishment. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img]

Animal lovers and some scientists don't do well in the same room together.

There has always been some question about the nature of Laika's demise. The problem was that there was no way to bring her home. So some versions say she was put to sleep with narcotics, the same way small animals are euthanized today. Other versions say they simply let the oxygen run out.

There's this from Aulis, which is from CNN.

http://www.nasamoonlandinghoax.com/news39.htm

__________________
~AstroMike

That's a great topic. I'd recommend a couple of books, particularly: James Killian's "Sputnik, Missiles and Eisenhower" - James Killian was Ike's first chairman of the PSAC (Presidential Science Advisory Committee) and he wrote a good monograph about that and his involvemnt, IIRC, about his work on the National Educational Defense Act (or national defense educational act).

George Kistiokowsy (Killian's successor, check the index of that book for how to spell "Kistiokowsky") also wrote a book about his own experiences (in part) working for Eisenhower.

Oops - didn't see that you'd turned in the paper already. For a little more general history, I'd read Walter McDougall's "The Heavens and the Earth" (1985 Basic Books or 1995 John Hopkins Press) a very good history of the politics of the space program.





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rodina on 2002-12-13 16:23 ]</font>

MANY facts about soviet space activities/failures were unknown to the West untill the end of communism.
SO I wonder if at that time 1969, Soviets had enough listening/tracking/monitoring thechnology to depict any moon landing hoax.

IN other words, had moon hoax occurred, this could have went unnoticed by Soviets ??

any comment ?

" If the Soviets control space they can control earth, as in past centuries the nation that controlled the seas dominated the continents ........"

WELL, u dont need to go to moon to control earth.
BY placing Nukes/satellites/telescopes at just a 200 km earth orbit, u controll the erath.