2 ms·

I think parent does have a point, A lot of the early soviet successes were hasty and just made to be first. Sputnik 1 just beeped, Laika died very early on on s

I think parent does have a point, A lot of the early soviet successes were hasty and just made to be first. Sputnik 1 just beeped, Laika died very early on on sputnik 2, Yuri Gagarin had very little control over what he did, he was more of a passenger. But hey, they were first https://youtu.be/rSK7rUSnFK4 https://youtu.be/rSK7rUSnFK4

avmich 2y ago
I understand, but to say that Soviet tech was too overestimated is also questionable. You just can't have those firsts, or even close seconds, if you don't actually have a lot of engineering done well. Remember, USA's Explorer was 14 kg, vs. Sputnik's 83, which says about launcher capabilities. Yuri Gagarin flew to orbit some weeks before suborbital Shepard's flight, showing how human can survive reentry in a capsule - Alan Shepard didn't nearly have similar speeds. Similarly the demonstrations of capabilities of automatic probes - yes, they took lots of attempts, but still weren't much more expensive than the competitor ones. If you discount those successes, it may sound like USSR's discounting Apollo program's successes - because obviously they served little useful purpose, right?