Remix.run Logo
1970-01-01 2 hours ago

The goal is entirely different.

Apollo - Cold war. USA must do it before Russia and win the space race. Money is not a restriction. USA did it before Russia and won the space race.

Artemis - Prove a multi-national program can function under financial, economic, political, and even technical restrictions. We can't simply land and observe, it needs to be a team effort under a tight budget.

https://www.planetary.org/charts/apollo-vs-artemis-spending

abcd_f 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> won the space race

Some of it.

Not first to the space, not first to the Moon, not first in human spaceflight, not first in spacewalk, etc.

1970-01-01 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That remains a ridiculous argument. The thing about a race is you can always think of excuses for not winning. Plans for Mars were being met by all accounts, however Nixon still cancelled them because the Apollo victory was so decisive.

rtkwe 33 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

IMO he stopped it because Russia wasn't meaningfully threatening to field a mission. The end was always artificial and if the USSR had beat the US to the Moon maybe we would have gotten a race to the first "permanent" base on the Moon or spacestation or even a rush to Mars. That's the point of the "did the US really win the Space Race?" question, it's about how the finish line was essentially always the next thing the USSR hadn't done yet.

asdfasvea 40 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Thats a ridiculous comment. The thing about the space race is we were getting are ass kicked, then said 'Oh the finish line is actually this. Oh look we kicked your ass "

It was like we lost the first 9 events of a decathalon and then won the 1500 and declared ourselves the winner.

14 minutes ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
bee_rider 24 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Actually, in Russia do they have a pitch for where they’d rather draw the finish line? I admit it is probably influenced by having a US upbringing, but “landing on the Moon” does seem like a natural finish line for a space race.

The move of picking an advantageous finish line is easily countered by… picking an obvious successor finish line. If they’d stuck a base on the moon that’d have been a pretty compelling “actually, here’s the next finish line.”

Maybe they have some space-station based claim.

1970-01-01 31 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

You're supporting the USA decisive victory with this take. We are not disagreeing on the winner.

tekla an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

This is such a bad response. The space race was to get to the moon. There is a reason the USSR dropped any crewed lunar plans instantly when the USA landed (also they couldn't get the N1 to stop exploding) and went all in on satellites. They also kept the crewed tests secret because they knew they were behind the USA and was embarrassing.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AmericaBad/comments/1apgsc9/regardi...

orbital-decay 32 minutes ago | parent [-]

>The space race was to get to the moon.

That's either revisionist or ignorant (likely the latter, looking at cheap memes). The term was coined by American journos in the early 50's, and the actual events started in 1955, very publicly. And objectively speaking it never ended until the USSR crashed.

You should probably read something on the Soviet space program (starting with Rockets and People, for example), and the US one while you're at it. The Soviets didn't went all in on satellites. They simply returned to the original ideas Korolev & co had long before Sputnik ever flew, namely LEO modular assembly tech followed by manned circumnavigation of Venus (before the surface conditions were known) or Mars (after that) as a meaningful first step in deep space exploration. Which was pretty pragmatic and long-term thinking, although it's hard to say how realistic it was politically: they would have finished by the late 80's at best and securing the funding without propaganda-worthy progress wasn't a given. Regardless, they succeeded at actual LEO colonization, which was presumably "not space race" (I'm sure Space Shuttle/Freedom being a massive failure and NASA seeking Soviet expertise after the crash has nothing to do with that framing...).

Lunar missions, let alone single-flight ones without modular spacecraft, were a practical dead end and a distraction, the engineers understood that perfectly. The party however got successfully baited by JFK's advisors into the race they couldn't win because they still needed to close the "reverse missile gap" after the US panicked and closed the actual missile gap they imagined existed by building a ton of Titan IIs. The Apollo people were also in perfect understanding that the program had no practical followup and only existed for novelty, see anything written by Chris Kraft and Gene Kranz who were actual participants. STS was a colossal blunder and a setback as well, in practical terms, and it was obvious before the first flight.

The race was never limited to manned missions either. For example most of what we know about the Solar System comes from the JPL, which is hugely underappreciated. The Soviets only succeeded with Venus missions.

next_xibalba an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That’s like saying the goal of the process is the process. It is a recursive definition and a pointless, expensive endeavor.

orbital-decay 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>and won the space race

... or maybe just called some convenient events "space race" and refused to notice the others. Like a literal space colony circling above, for example. If you control the framing you control the reality.