Was the 1969 moon landing the most important thing in the space race?

gaiscioch

I suspect Americans might say so. It would seem to me that it was the most symbolic single event. But amid the propaganda of both sides in the Cold War, is there any other event which could be considered a greater highlight - e.g. Sputnik 1 (1957), first human into space (1961)? - or share the status of being the highlight of the Space Race?

Scientifically, was there another challenge in the Space Race that was more difficult than landing somebody on the moon, but achieved nonetheless? Thanks.

Capt'n Midnight

Best comment I heard was in an American documentary

Something like a dog taking no more interest in something after marking it's territory.

It was simply a goal the US could reach before the Russians, and only because both sides would have to start from scratch. The US threw serious money at it and it was a cold war era project where everyone had a "not on my watch" attitude to their work.

The legacy is that until recently the US have travelled to the ISS in the descendent of Russian space capsule on top of the rocket that pre-existed the moon shot. And engines developed for the Russian moon rocket are used to launch US satellites.

The US had no space legacy and is reinventing their moon rocket, the Saturn V at huge expense. SLS uses four new build Space Shuttle Main Engines which are costing each close to what SpaceX charges for a full Falcon Heavy launch.

Capt'n Midnight

gaiscioch wrote: »

Scientifically, was there another challenge in the Space Race that was more difficult than landing somebody on the moon, but achieved nonetheless? Thanks.

In the hellish conditions on the surface of Venus the Russians used a probe to measure the electrical properties of ... the camera lens cover that happened to fall on that exact spot.

Zubeneschamali

gaiscioch wrote: »

I suspect Americans might say so.

They are correct.

The US did it entirely as a dick measuring contest with the Soviets, but it is and will remain humanities greatest achievement ever, forever.

Those footprints on the Moon will be there long after humans are e tinct, unless we get back out there in a big way.

Capt'n Midnight

The Russians got most of the firsts and for the most part kept the capabilities. Before the ISS it was Mir, before Mir it was the Salyut stations which started before the last moon landing.



Yes the US had Skylab, but it used leftovers from Apollo. Had they flown the two remaining Saturn V's and not shut down the Saturn I's they could have had a bigger ISS back in the mid 1970's. Instead they waited for the Shuttle which was a money pit whose promise of cheaper flights to orbit was based on something like 500 trips for programs that were cancelled. Makes no sense.

Look at how long it's taking the US to get back to the moon using Constellation / Ares / SLS. All based on flight proven hardware too. It's so bad that some of the early missions might be transferred to SpaceX. James Webb is going up on a European rocket.


India got to Mars on the first attempt. China has put rovers on the far side of the moon. The United Arab Emirates probe to Mars should get there next month. The Japanese have sent solar sails to Venus and also sampled heavenly bodies..

AMKC

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The Russians got most of the firsts and for the most part kept the capabilities. Before the ISS it was Mir, before Mir it was the Salyut stations which started before the last moon landing.



Yes the US had Skylab, but it used leftovers from Apollo. Had they flown the two remaining Saturn V's and not shut down the Saturn I's they could have had a bigger ISS back in the mid 1970's. Instead they waited for the Shuttle which was a money pit whose promise of cheaper flights to orbit was based on something like 500 trips for programs that were cancelled. Makes no sense.

That's because originally the Space Shuttle was just going to be a re usable space plane to get Astranauts to space and to the space stations but then NASA made it like the truck of space to carry cargo as there was companies wanting there satellites sent to space and a market for it I suppose and this meant it was compromised as it took longer to set up each time.

Capt'n Midnight

AMKC wrote: »

That's because originally the Space Shuttle was just going to be a re usable space plane to get Astranauts to space and to the space stations but then NASA made it like the truck of space to carry cargo as there was companies wanting there satellites sent to space and a market for it I suppose and this meant it was compromised as it took longer to set up each time.

It was a lorry when you only needed was a hatchback or station wagon.

It was sized to fit spy satellites. Hubbles pointing down instead of up. Because the Air Force didn't want it. They used Titan rockets to launch the KH series from the 1960's to the 1990's then they used Delta's to launch them. Shuttle was used too, but wasn't actually needed.


The large wings had ONE purpose. ONE. That was to allow a Shuttle to glide far enough that it could land back at Vanderburgh after one polar orbit. Otherwise it could have much smaller wings similar to an F104 Starfighter. Cheaper, lighter, stronger because an orbiting spacecraft can remain in orbit until it passes near a handy landing site, even short wings enough glide range to get you to the next airport

Beeker

As said the Shuttle was designed to be all things to all people. It was forced to be this in order to win funds from Congress. The final design was a compromise and one that would never live up to its promise.
It was a shame as the shuttle could have revolutionised space travel and reduced costs.
SpaceX are now attempting to do now with Starship what the Shuttle never could.

Beeker

I think 1969 was not but rather the entire Apollo project was. It may have been done for propaganda reasons but it forced science and engineering to take massive strides forward, and that has had benefits to this day.

Capt'n Midnight

Beeker wrote: »

As said the Shuttle was designed to be all things to all people. It was forced to be this in order to win funds from Congress. The final design was a compromise and one that would never live up to its promise.
It was a shame as the shuttle could have revolutionised space travel and reduced costs.
SpaceX are now attempting to do now with Starship what the Shuttle never could.

It wasn't a compromise, it was a complete sell out. And it cost so much that it killed every other big project including the ones that justified it's existence. It was late so it killed Skylab too. If the US had stuck with Saturn V and Saturn I for a few more years they could easily have put up a space station bigger than the ISS using off the shelf technology.

The earlier Dynasoar project was what the shuttle could have been.

Capt'n Midnight

Beeker wrote: »

I think 1969 was not but rather the entire Apollo project was. It may have been done for propaganda reasons but it forced science and engineering to take massive strides forward, and that has had benefits to this day.

The engineering was abandoned and people fired. Just like when the shuttle was cancelled.

Miniaturisation would have happened anyway. The main benefit of Apollo was that when the program was cancelled and everyone was made unemployed a lot of the people took their skills to industry. NASA had upped the game on computing and quality control.


The ability to assemble stuff in orbit is the most important thing in the medium term. It means you aren't constrained to any particular launch system.

Wibbs

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It wasn't a compromise, it was a complete sell out. And it cost so much that it killed every other big project including the ones that justified it's existence. It was late so it killed Skylab too. If the US had stuck with Saturn V and Saturn I for a few more years they could easily have put up a space station bigger than the ISS using off the shelf technology.

The earlier Dynasoar project was what the shuttle could have been.

+1. Killing off the Saturn launch system in favour of Shuttle was a huge mistake IMHO. They scrapped a proven truck that was safer, scalable and improvable in favour of a compromised overpriced minivan that wasn't.

Considering how many ex nazis were working in American aerospace at the time I find it interesting that an oddly similar development environment caused similar problems. That is a huge amount of inventiveness, but spread across too many platforms and solutions and extremely prey to political infighting.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

NASA had upped the game on computing and quality control.

Many moons ago I got talking with an ex NASA engineering chap who was there from Mercury through the early days of the Shuttle and he told me that outside of the obvious achievements quality control and streamlining of production of scarily complex tech was the single biggest advance of the US space program. That procedures they developed on the fly after some false starts and ballsups like Apollo1 transformed many aspects of industry at the time and because of so many contractors being involved those procedures went through US industry very rapidly.