4 ms·

I don't want to dismiss your experience... but space is a bad example here. The USSR was far ahead of the US on basically every "first" except landing people on

I don't want to dismiss your experience... but space is a bad example here. The USSR was far ahead of the US on basically every "first" except landing people on the moon (which was important! It just wasn't everything.). I'm skeptical of SpaceX. While they make claims about Mars, they've mainly innovated in regaining access to space (which was lost through lack of investment) and making it cheaper (in an impressive way). These aren't wholly new capabilities.

chr1 7y ago
The fact that USSR was happy to spend enormous resources on anything weapon related in a hungry country doesn't speak about communism being better for space. The main reason USSR had its "firsts" was that by shear luck Korolev didn't die in gulag (though was very close to) and that we were more willing to risk human lives. Perhaps one of the reasons soviet moon program has failed was that in 1966 Korolev have died just 59 years old because of his time at gulag. The other reason was that until mid fifties cybernetics was considered anti-communist science and USSR never managed to recover from that and develop good computers. (This is typical with communism where utility of things is determined not by people freely choosing where to invest their money, but by government). So i can't agree that USSR being first makes space a bad example. That being said i was bringing SpaceX not as a comparison with USSR, but with the mild socialism of current day Europe which despite having more people doesn't produce the kind of innovation US does.
- mirimir 7y ago
  > The fact that USSR was happy to spend enormous resources on anything weapon related in a hungry country doesn't speak about communism being better for space. They were terrified by the US. For good reason, arguably. I mean, I've read that the US nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki in part as a warning shot for the Soviets. And there were discussions in the late 40s of nuking the Soviet Union, preemptively.
  - chr1 7y ago
    Good point, i didn't mean to say that getting nuclear weapons and ways to move them was irrational. Just that space exploration was a side effect.
    - mirimir 7y ago
      For both sides, I agree that space exploration was a side effect of the arms race. Putting stuff in orbit was a demonstration that you could put it anywhere. Also, it was an issue of national pride. So in that sense, for the Soviets, not that different from gross whale harvest. Or wheat, nails, or whatever. But in the end, it's arguable that the arms race played a large role in destroying the Soviet Union. Its military budget was so large, relative to its GNP, that everything else fell apart.

chr1 7y ago

The fact that USSR was happy to spend enormous resources on anything weapon related in a hungry country doesn't speak about communism being better for space. The main reason USSR had its "firsts" was that by shear luck Korolev didn't die in gulag (though was very close to) and that we were more willing to risk human lives. Perhaps one of the reasons soviet moon program has failed was that in 1966 Korolev have died just 59 years old because of his time at gulag. The other reason was that until mid fifties cybernetics was considered anti-communist science and USSR never managed to recover from that and develop good computers. (This is typical with communism where utility of things is determined not by people freely choosing where to invest their money, but by government). So i can't agree that USSR being first makes space a bad example. That being said i was bringing SpaceX not as a comparison with USSR, but with the mild socialism of current day Europe which despite having more people doesn't produce the kind of innovation US does.

mirimir 7y ago
> The fact that USSR was happy to spend enormous resources on anything weapon related in a hungry country doesn't speak about communism being better for space. They were terrified by the US. For good reason, arguably. I mean, I've read that the US nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki in part as a warning shot for the Soviets. And there were discussions in the late 40s of nuking the Soviet Union, preemptively.
- chr1 7y ago
  Good point, i didn't mean to say that getting nuclear weapons and ways to move them was irrational. Just that space exploration was a side effect.
  - mirimir 7y ago
    For both sides, I agree that space exploration was a side effect of the arms race. Putting stuff in orbit was a demonstration that you could put it anywhere. Also, it was an issue of national pride. So in that sense, for the Soviets, not that different from gross whale harvest. Or wheat, nails, or whatever. But in the end, it's arguable that the arms race played a large role in destroying the Soviet Union. Its military budget was so large, relative to its GNP, that everything else fell apart.