4 ms·

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,

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.)
- amrocha 3y ago
  I don't agree with the race framing either, but I was replying to a comment that used it so I leaned into it. My point is not who won and who lost, it's that the USA has basically erased the USSR's achievements through its PR campaign and framing it as a race to put people on the moon, instead of the USs effort to catch up to the way more advanced USSR.
rainsford 4y ago
"moved the goalposts and crossed them" seems like an unusual way to describe an enterprise (yes, this is a deliberate Star Trek pun) that provides an endless supply of next steps, or "new goalposts" if you prefer. There's no milestone you reach and gain the ability to declare the game over, or at least not one we've identified yet. The fact that the Soviet Union was first with some early steps is a pretty big credit to them, the fact that they were overtaken later on by the US is a point in the Americans' favor.
- amrocha 3y ago
  That's the thing, they weren't "the first with some early steps", they were way ahead of the US on literally every single measure that matters. The only thing the US managed to do first was land people on the moon, which is mostly a symbolic gesture. However, because of a decades long PR campaign, people think the US "won" and don't even realize all of the USSR's achievements. That's the rewriting of history that I'm referring to. I'm happy to acknowledge NASA's achievements, as long as it's not at the expense of others.
gcanyon 4y ago
I'm curious why you think the US moved the goalposts when Kennedy set the goalposts in May of 1961: https://history.nasa.gov/moondec.html https://history.nasa.gov/moondec.html You could argue that was moving the goalposts, since at that point the Soviets were (significantly?) ahead of the Americans, but the Soviets had just put Gagarin briefly in orbit. It seems hard to say that there had been that much of a "race" to that point?
- amrocha 3y ago
  Yes, they declared their intent, but there was never an official "race". Matter of fact is that the US was behind the USSR in terms of technology. Kennedy declared a symbolic goal that was extremely risky and served little scientific purpose, and then accomplished that. That's the moving of goalposts. It was never a race to put a man on the moon, it was a rapidly developing scientific field, and the USSR was ahead of the US until their country started falling apart. And now, because of that symbolic goal and a successful PR campaign, people don't know the USSR's achievements. The commenter above didn't know the USSR was the first to land on the moon and just claimed it was the US. That's the part that irks me.

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.)
amrocha 3y ago
I don't agree with the race framing either, but I was replying to a comment that used it so I leaned into it. My point is not who won and who lost, it's that the USA has basically erased the USSR's achievements through its PR campaign and framing it as a race to put people on the moon, instead of the USs effort to catch up to the way more advanced USSR.

rainsford 4y ago

"moved the goalposts and crossed them" seems like an unusual way to describe an enterprise (yes, this is a deliberate Star Trek pun) that provides an endless supply of next steps, or "new goalposts" if you prefer. There's no milestone you reach and gain the ability to declare the game over, or at least not one we've identified yet. The fact that the Soviet Union was first with some early steps is a pretty big credit to them, the fact that they were overtaken later on by the US is a point in the Americans' favor.

amrocha 3y ago
That's the thing, they weren't "the first with some early steps", they were way ahead of the US on literally every single measure that matters. The only thing the US managed to do first was land people on the moon, which is mostly a symbolic gesture. However, because of a decades long PR campaign, people think the US "won" and don't even realize all of the USSR's achievements. That's the rewriting of history that I'm referring to. I'm happy to acknowledge NASA's achievements, as long as it's not at the expense of others.

gcanyon 4y ago

I'm curious why you think the US moved the goalposts when Kennedy set the goalposts in May of 1961: https://history.nasa.gov/moondec.html https://history.nasa.gov/moondec.html You could argue that was moving the goalposts, since at that point the Soviets were (significantly?) ahead of the Americans, but the Soviets had just put Gagarin briefly in orbit. It seems hard to say that there had been that much of a "race" to that point?

amrocha 3y ago
Yes, they declared their intent, but there was never an official "race". Matter of fact is that the US was behind the USSR in terms of technology. Kennedy declared a symbolic goal that was extremely risky and served little scientific purpose, and then accomplished that. That's the moving of goalposts. It was never a race to put a man on the moon, it was a rapidly developing scientific field, and the USSR was ahead of the US until their country started falling apart. And now, because of that symbolic goal and a successful PR campaign, people don't know the USSR's achievements. The commenter above didn't know the USSR was the first to land on the moon and just claimed it was the US. That's the part that irks me.