21 ms·

NASA didn't do it first, the USSR did. And the only reason they didn't land people on the moon first too is because their country was falling apart and they red

NASA didn't do it first, the USSR did. And the only reason they didn't land people on the moon first too is because their country was falling apart and they reduced investment in their space program. You're the one downplaying actual history.

williamDafoe 4y ago
It took 12 attempts to land a robot on the moon for the USSR. Their heavy booster program was in shambles. They literally never developed anything close to as powerful as Saturn V (5m pounds of thrust). They would be lucky not to crash 12 human vehicles on the moon. Leading for the first 5 miles of a marathon doesn't make you the winner!
- cubefox 4y ago
  I think their N1 rocket was similar and pretty far in development before it was cancelled.
  - mustacheemperor 4y ago
    The N1 rocket was intended to be similar but how far along it really was to completion seems questionable to me. I’m not a rocket scientist, but my understanding is the first stage was not statically tested and the complete rocket failed in the first stage on each of its four tests - one of which caused a gigantic explosion in the launch complex visible from over 20 miles away. If anyone with deeper rocket history expertise can weigh in I’d be interested to know how feasible an average historian would consider the successful completion of the N1 if it had continued to be funded.
    - gcanyon 4y ago
      Here are links to posts about the N1, and the Soviet lunar program, on AskHistorians: Most mention Korolev's failing health and death. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3riyh3/why_didnt_the_ussr_land_a_man_on_the_moon/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3riyh3/why_d... Summary: Khrushchev wanted the moon for cheap, lunar rockets weren't useful for ICBM research, the transition to Brezhnev threw a wrench into the program. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/22pled/why_did_the_ussr_lose_the_race_to_the_moon/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/22pled/why_d... Summary: infighting, N1 had too many rockets and not enough quality control, exhaustion on the team, and Soviet electronics were way behind U.S. electronics. Comments from the soviets themselves: https://web.archive.org/web/20121002063209/http://www.astronautix.com/articles/whynrace.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20121002063209/http://www.astron...
- amrocha 4y ago
  In the space race's case, they were leading in literally all practical and utilitarian aspects during the entire race, then they won the race, called it quits, and then the USA moved the goalposts and crossed them.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    They could not get their moon booster rocket to reliably work, and that ended their moon shot program. Saturn V had the same problems (dynamic instability) which nearly destroyed it. It just barely worked.
  - DanHulton 4y ago
    "Called it quits, and then the USA moved the goalposts" For an informal international pissing match, you're assuming some pretty formal rules. The point was nearly entirely to show off how much more impressive one country was over another. The USSR was winning until they weren't, sure, but then the USA started winning until the USSR literally died.
    - Aachen 3y ago
      I didn't know the USA wasn't the first to land on the moon with something other than humans. I do kinda agree with the person above you that it does sound like they were simply better, only we'd never know because the USA made this last achievement into the only thing that's retold and rehashed. It speaks the most to the imagination to roam another world, but in the grand scheme of things... I had never even heard of unmanned, automated landers making it to the moon before humans! They had some computers and I happened to have picked up that they've sent things into orbit, but predetermined engine burns (with time to apply corrections from the ground) in a vacuum with nothing around you is quite a different level of achievement. I don't care as much about the history so much as the science and future, but I am a space nerd so I'm actually rather surprised that I never knew this. The USA manages its public image about as carefully as China I feel like, the advantage being that they're often genuinely on the good side (no concentration camps for a minority group tends to help, for instance) but by no means selfless, impartial, or genuine. (The best example of public image management may be immigration desire stats. You'd be foolish to immigrate from a poor place to the USA when you can immigrate somewhere with higher social mobility as well as security, but the number of people in such a situation that wish to immigrate to a place like Denmark is tiny by comparison. The American dream, it's called, not the Danish dream. It's a huge, well-managed PR campaign to look to the USA as a leader, shoving competitors' achievements under the rug.)
- motohagiography 4y ago
  If we want to go back to the moon, or better, to Mars, I think after I turn 70, I would absolutely volunteer to take a high risk test mission off planet, and potentially to Mars. Sure, it would be very nice to have a way back, but not necessary. When you finally get here, name a mountain after me or something.
Dah00n 4y ago
>the only reason they didn't land people on the moon first too is because their country was falling apart My interpretation of the history of the USSR space program is that they more often than not went the hard way and used remote controlled/preprogrammed vehicles not because it was easier but because it was hard (sorry). I fail to see how landing people on the moon is a bigger achievement than if it was done by remote control in a time with, well, hardly any computer power at all. In my opinion this is part of the rewrite of the history of the space race to an alternative version where the goal was actually landing a man on the moon and not a moving goal post that changed every time something new was achieved.
- amrocha 4y ago
  I don't disagree with you, the goalposts were always being moved by the country that lost the last stage, usually the USA. I also think there's a case to be made that, given their history of success and expertise, they could have also landed a man on the moon first if things had gone differently.
dragon-hn 4y ago
> And the only reason they didn't land people on the moon first too is because their country was falling apart and they reduced investment in their space program. This is most definitely not the case in the late 60s. The Soviets very much wanted to land on the moon up until the Apollo landing. The cuts to the Soviet space program came after.
- amrocha 3y ago
  I might be wrong there, thanks for the call out.

williamDafoe 4y ago

It took 12 attempts to land a robot on the moon for the USSR. Their heavy booster program was in shambles. They literally never developed anything close to as powerful as Saturn V (5m pounds of thrust). They would be lucky not to crash 12 human vehicles on the moon. Leading for the first 5 miles of a marathon doesn't make you the winner!

cubefox 4y ago
I think their N1 rocket was similar and pretty far in development before it was cancelled.
- mustacheemperor 4y ago
  The N1 rocket was intended to be similar but how far along it really was to completion seems questionable to me. I’m not a rocket scientist, but my understanding is the first stage was not statically tested and the complete rocket failed in the first stage on each of its four tests - one of which caused a gigantic explosion in the launch complex visible from over 20 miles away. If anyone with deeper rocket history expertise can weigh in I’d be interested to know how feasible an average historian would consider the successful completion of the N1 if it had continued to be funded.
  - gcanyon 4y ago
    Here are links to posts about the N1, and the Soviet lunar program, on AskHistorians: Most mention Korolev's failing health and death. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3riyh3/why_didnt_the_ussr_land_a_man_on_the_moon/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3riyh3/why_d... Summary: Khrushchev wanted the moon for cheap, lunar rockets weren't useful for ICBM research, the transition to Brezhnev threw a wrench into the program. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/22pled/why_did_the_ussr_lose_the_race_to_the_moon/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/22pled/why_d... Summary: infighting, N1 had too many rockets and not enough quality control, exhaustion on the team, and Soviet electronics were way behind U.S. electronics. Comments from the soviets themselves: https://web.archive.org/web/20121002063209/http://www.astronautix.com/articles/whynrace.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20121002063209/http://www.astron...
amrocha 4y ago
In the space race's case, they were leading in literally all practical and utilitarian aspects during the entire race, then they won the race, called it quits, and then the USA moved the goalposts and crossed them.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  They could not get their moon booster rocket to reliably work, and that ended their moon shot program. Saturn V had the same problems (dynamic instability) which nearly destroyed it. It just barely worked.
- DanHulton 4y ago
  "Called it quits, and then the USA moved the goalposts" For an informal international pissing match, you're assuming some pretty formal rules. The point was nearly entirely to show off how much more impressive one country was over another. The USSR was winning until they weren't, sure, but then the USA started winning until the USSR literally died.
  - Aachen 3y ago
    I didn't know the USA wasn't the first to land on the moon with something other than humans. I do kinda agree with the person above you that it does sound like they were simply better, only we'd never know because the USA made this last achievement into the only thing that's retold and rehashed. It speaks the most to the imagination to roam another world, but in the grand scheme of things... I had never even heard of unmanned, automated landers making it to the moon before humans! They had some computers and I happened to have picked up that they've sent things into orbit, but predetermined engine burns (with time to apply corrections from the ground) in a vacuum with nothing around you is quite a different level of achievement. I don't care as much about the history so much as the science and future, but I am a space nerd so I'm actually rather surprised that I never knew this. The USA manages its public image about as carefully as China I feel like, the advantage being that they're often genuinely on the good side (no concentration camps for a minority group tends to help, for instance) but by no means selfless, impartial, or genuine. (The best example of public image management may be immigration desire stats. You'd be foolish to immigrate from a poor place to the USA when you can immigrate somewhere with higher social mobility as well as security, but the number of people in such a situation that wish to immigrate to a place like Denmark is tiny by comparison. The American dream, it's called, not the Danish dream. It's a huge, well-managed PR campaign to look to the USA as a leader, shoving competitors' achievements under the rug.)
motohagiography 4y ago
If we want to go back to the moon, or better, to Mars, I think after I turn 70, I would absolutely volunteer to take a high risk test mission off planet, and potentially to Mars. Sure, it would be very nice to have a way back, but not necessary. When you finally get here, name a mountain after me or something.

Dah00n 4y ago

>the only reason they didn't land people on the moon first too is because their country was falling apart My interpretation of the history of the USSR space program is that they more often than not went the hard way and used remote controlled/preprogrammed vehicles not because it was easier but because it was hard (sorry). I fail to see how landing people on the moon is a bigger achievement than if it was done by remote control in a time with, well, hardly any computer power at all. In my opinion this is part of the rewrite of the history of the space race to an alternative version where the goal was actually landing a man on the moon and not a moving goal post that changed every time something new was achieved.

amrocha 4y ago
I don't disagree with you, the goalposts were always being moved by the country that lost the last stage, usually the USA. I also think there's a case to be made that, given their history of success and expertise, they could have also landed a man on the moon first if things had gone differently.

dragon-hn 4y ago

> And the only reason they didn't land people on the moon first too is because their country was falling apart and they reduced investment in their space program. This is most definitely not the case in the late 60s. The Soviets very much wanted to land on the moon up until the Apollo landing. The cuts to the Soviet space program came after.

amrocha 3y ago
I might be wrong there, thanks for the call out.