4 ms·
> not try to compete with them I seriously doubt this. Sure, it wouldn't be seen as a threat, but it certainly would be seen as a clear sign of America's deca
by efuquen 12y ago
> not try to compete with them
I seriously doubt this. Sure, it wouldn't be seen as a threat, but it certainly would be seen as a clear sign of America's decay in technological leadership and capabilities.
> oh no we need to beat them to the moon!
Everything I've seen documented from that era actually points to this being exactly the attitude. Sending satellites into orbit and launching ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads involves a different set of skills then sending humans into space. Sure you need to launch rockets in all cases, but life support, pushing the extra payload (into orbit, and then the moon), developing a whole set of extra skills (docking, space walking, etc.) It's just way more complicated and expensive to send people into space and there was no military advantage for either country to do it. Both countries wanted to beat each other in a game of technological machismo, just plain old competition at work.
- josho 12y agoIt really depends what your source material is. Anything geared to the masses will site US innovation and competitive spirit. Anything geared to the political/military class focuses on how Russian rockets were superior to the US, and that the US had to catch up and surpass the Russians. If you take away the cold war background, many observers seriously doubt that the Americans would have bothered going to the moon. And yes, both countries wanted to beat each other in a game of technological machismo, because they were convinced that the other side was going to be a military aggressor if they didn't. That is something missing from today with China/India, and why I doubt the US would care much if those countries space programs surpassed the US.