How come the USSR and China were never able to do this historically speaking? Are Communists simply low IQ?
China was underdeveloped and the USSR was only good at making a huge spectacle of shooting random objects into space rather than doing something that required creative vision like the moon landing
>>18628491Underdeveloped movie industry.
>>18628514/Thread
>>18628514Space is real, third worldists can only cope when American satellite technology is helping demilitarize the old Soviet arsenal in Ukraine.
>>18628491Because pretty much all we have is the result of la belle epoque science and the nazi science, while the "real science" never brought any real results.
>>18628491>spend a fortune to plant a flag on a giant rockThe real question is why would America want to do this.
>>18628491>How comeculture
>>18628491NASA head confirmed China will be landing on the moon before 2030
>>18628491Another question. How come USA and China can do reusable rocket boosters but European Union can't?
>>18628658This. We should all just sit in our huts eating bananas and never advance anything or try to achieve anything cool.
>>18628491it should amaze all of us that there are still a few americans who think their violent empire in decline is exceptional
>>18628730anon maybe you should google esaonly retards with something to prove waste money on this shit alone
>>18628728Yeah, they say shit like this to secure funding. China hasn't demonstrated any launch capability beyond LEO, it's a giant leap between that and lunar capability
>>18628787The person you're responding to is a brown sinophile schizo btw, he's been flooding threads with the same images for the past month and seems particularly triggered by Japan for some reason, he's one of those posters that give themselves away because a lot of the shit they spam have the same filenames
>>18628787The ESA has never landed a reusable rocket like China has.
>>18629110>sinophileSorry you thought the spaceX IPO would win you arguments and are now stuck seething at the CXMT IPO.
>>18629260You're mentally ill dude
>>18629262Your use of the term "sinophiles" makes it obvious it's the same person. Sorry your past schizo ramblings are available on the archive.
>>18629265Stop flooding and derailing threads and take your meds, nobody likes you
>>18629278Maybe you should stop spamming the board with seethe posts about "sinophiles"
>>18629285Yeah see I'm not the one stocking users that triggered them, taking screenshots of their posts and spamming the same images, people with functional brains don't do that I'm afraid
>>18629288If you spam the board with the same seethe everytime it makes sense to screenshot your past posts that embarrass you. I understand that you are upset at being exposed.
>>18629295I'm very embarrassed, truly, you sure showed me, now can you please stop derailing threads and going on diatribes about AI?
>>18629301This entire thread is bait that deserves nothing but to be derailed. Sorry if that upsets you.
>>18629301Sorry you created a shit thread and it got derailed with posts that embarrass you. Please keep lashing out at "sinophiles" or whatever next boogeyman you get.
>>18629288>stocking usersESL moment
>>18628491They didn't have Hollywood
>>18629325Nice image, you cleverly excluded bottle cap bros from the EU
>>18628491the soviets were hamstrung economically because they lost 15% of their population in ww2 and spent decades trying to fund left wing revolutionaries across the worldthe soviets didn't fail because they were communist, nasa was pretty much running a command economy in the run up to apollo 11
Soviet tech was more limited and they had a hard time with the reliability and manufacturing tolerances needed for this kind of stuff. Their spacecraft generally had shorter operating lifespans then US ones.
>>18628491You're an idiot OP. Also China has it's own space station, while the entire rest of the world shares the other space station.
>>18630198>Also China has it's own space station,The USSR also had its own Space Station anon so it's not that impressive. That image has been debunked by the way, in terms of accomplishments the USA was the undisputed winner of the Space Race
>>18630198I can't wait for Tankies to finally learn that China doing things 20 years after everyone else just makes those accomplishments less impressive. Kind of like how they think having reusable rockets 10 years after the Americans is somehow impressive. Nobody cares about your participation trophy. India also has their own space program by the way
>>18630202>>18630211I'm not a tankie by any means, I have many criticisms of "communist" nations. But one of the things the USSR undoubtedly did best was their education system. They were world leading in the hard sciences. It turns out that making a full university education entirely free actually did result in the worlds most educated populace. The USSR had the highest per capita amount of doctors, engineers, and physicists in the entire world.
>>18630211>India also has their own space program by the wayNo they don't, it's fake CGI
>>18630198Your infographic is wrong and misleading. Sputnik was the first satellite, but only because the Russians rushed it and deliberately launched it just before the Americans sent up a much better, more advanced satellite. Americans had the first animals in space with fruit flies, and the first mammals in space with monkeys. Laika was the first animal in orbit, which the Americans didn’t bother trying because there was no way to bring that animal back. America had the first super heavy rocket in space, the first photograph of earth from orbit, the first planetary fly by, first pilot controlled space flight, first geosynchronous satellite and then first geostationary satellite, first rendezvous of a crewed spacecraft, first spacecraft to orbit Mars, first spacecraft to achieve escape velocity from the sun, and the first untethered spacewalk.They won for more than just 1 achievement
>>18630571is this accurate?
>>18628730Euclid is so much better than Webb that it isn't even funny.
>>18630602>Euclid>Launched from Cape Canaveral Florida >On an American Falcon 9 RocketYurosisters...Also it's an apples and oranges comparison anyways, both telescopes serve slightly different purposes
>>18628491The US spent like 4x the amount of money on their space program during that era, and later could afford to do a lot more- flexiblyWhereas the USSR program always had to share more resources with military applications and such>Are Communists simply low IQ?They unironically had better rockets and pioneered space stations and most of the research on long term habitabilityAlso landed on Venus after a bunch of attempts which no one else has doneThe soviets sucked at computers and where like 10 years behind nasa in the 60s with stuff like guidance and control systemsThen nasa's robotics in the 70s and later let them go and look at everything, on Mars and probes to all various planets, and all the telescopes- completely outpaced the soviet effort
>>18630611>They unironically had better rockets andNot at all. They couldn't figure out how to build large LOX/RP-1 engines without combustion instability issues, didn't attempt an LH2 engine until the 80s, and couldn't build large solid rocket motors.
>>18630571Not really. Americans were the ones who rushed it with Juno which was an absolute clown Rocket with Payload of 1.5kg. Soviets already had Sputnik 2 which was over Half a Ton.>Americans had the first animals in space with fruit flies, and the first mammals in space with monkeysAnd Soviets had the first Mammals that survived Spaceflight. But to be honest, these early Experiments were done with slightly modified V2s and the Honour should go to Germans.>which the Americans didn’t bother trying because there was no way to bring that animal backFirst Animals that survived orbital Flight were also Soviet Dogs.>America had the first super heavy rocket in space, There's countless other possible Achievements. Like first Touch of various Planets. First robotic Missions. First Fotographs from various Planets etc.But at the End of the Day, space Program was just leftovers from the Military. Of course Americans would have much worse Rockets early on, because Soviets desperately needed an ICBM due to having massively inferior Navy and global presence in general.
>>18630956>and couldn't build large solid rocket motors.Solid state rockets are shit for space tho. They had no motivation to do so.>didn't attempt an LH2 engine until the 80sIt was a political choice. Glushko was strongly against hydrogen.>They couldn't figure out how to build large LOX/RP-1 engines without combustion instability issuesThey chose to pursue multichamber strategy which doomed them, because those are demanding on electronics for synchronisation. Funnily enough modern day American superheavy uses this Soviet style of design, but thats more related to the fact superheavies are a vanity project and US doesnt want to spend money on developing F1 style monster anymore when small raptors were near perfected.Overall, Americans relied on Soviet tech for quite some time between fall of SSSR and elonification of NASA.
>>18631021>Overall, Americans relied on Soviet tech for quite some time between fall of SSSR and elonification of NASA.That's completely wrong. The US had a fleet of Space Atlas rockets, and Delta rockets in the meantime. The occasional Soyuz contract was for good will at best> but thats more related to the fact superheavies are a vanity project and US doesnt want to spend money on developing F1 style monster anymore when small raptors were near perfected.SLS is roughly comparable to the old F1s but launch cadence has been absolutely abysmal
>>18631025>The US had a fleet of Space*Space Shuttles I mean
>>18630956>and couldn't build large solid rocket motorsIt was mostly due to the limitations of Soviet railroad transport.
the R-7 had some neat features like a propellant utilization system, but it also showed a lot of the limitations of Soviet tech.>four small thrust chambers per engine as they couldn't into large RP-1 engines>verniers for steering as they couldn't figure out how to gimbal an engine>the guidance system was little more than a simple electromechanical device to pitch the booster over, there was no roll program and instead the launch pad sat on a turntable which would be rotated to the desired azimuth>this was used all the way into the 2010s and only replaced with a modern computerized guidance system because the part had been manufactured in Ukraine and Russia wanted to reduce dependence on them for rocket hardware
>>18628491the Soviets never had a chance. work on Apollo program was started 1958-60 while N-1 program started 65.
JFK said to land a man on the Moon by "the end of this decade" although it was not clear what he meant by that, if he did mean "by the end of the '60s" or if he meant "by May 1971" ie. ten years from when he made that speech.
>>18628626How can we bring back nazi science? Have the jews stunted us permanantly?
>>18631072There was no Nazi science. Von Braun said most of his work was based on Robert Goddard's. Most of Nazi Germany's top physicists were Jews who fled the country to take part in the Manhattan Project
>>18631063More like American government fully supported Apollo project because they were butthurt over sputniks. Soviet moon missions could not get sufficient support for program because it did not have any military utility.
>>18631081The Americans had the advantage because NASA was a Civilian Agency, which meant they didn't have to compete for military contracts. Military space applications were handled by the Air Force. The Russian Space Agency was meant to handle both civilian and military projects and civilian science groups simply couldn't compete with the military, who were already busy using Cold War Paranoia to siphon money from the rest of the government and build a strong military industrial complex at everyone else's expense. In a way, the Soviets losing the space race was just a symptom of a larger problem within the government
>>18630149a lot of the more advanced US satellite tech was out of their grasp, for example in the military satellite programs the Soviets never managed digital photography or ELINT.
>>18631025>The occasional Soyuz contract was for good will at bestToplel. For the 2000-2015 period 1/5 of total orbital launches used Soviet rockets and for the heavy category it was 2/3, with. RD170 was just a fucking good design, no way around it.
>>18631045One advantage was the launch pads being highly reusable and they could carry out another launch from them in as little as 48 hours while US rockets and pads could take a couple months to prepare.
the Soviet space program was a clusterfuck until 1974 when it was consolidated into a single agency headed by Glushko, after which reliability and mission success improved a lot
>>18631045Russia's geography is a problem, their launch sites are in northerly locations which makes it harder to reach geosync orbit and they couldn't do many launches during the winter months due to short days and frigid temperatures.
no Russian has ever been out of LEO whereas the first American astronauts to do so were the Gemini 11 crew in 1966
>>18630956Glushko like Von Braun was an oldskool guy who didn't believe LH2 was a viable rocket propellant, even after it was pointed out to him that the US space program was flying LH2 engines. Only after the Apollo program did he finally relent.
>>18631045There is no range safety destruct system on any Russian LVs. What they have instead is an automated malfunction detection system that monitors a couple of booster operating parameters (pitch and yaw angle, electrical power, and engine thrust) and sends a command to terminate thrust if they fall outside a certain range. The booster then simply falls to earth and explodes. This was ok because their launch sites are not near populated areas and there's no risk of it falling on anything but steppe.
>>18631045it was a mid-1950s design and has a lot of period limitations eg. they didn't at that time know how to air-start a rocket engine so the whole thing was started on the ground, but this problem was quickly resolved by 1959.
>>18631100The Mars 3 probe failure was a classic example of Soviet mismanagement.>probe failed because it was supposed to use gold-legged transistors in a part of the electronics>someone absconded with the gold meant for those and likely resold it on the black market>the transistors were instead given aluminum legs which were not as suitable because aluminum has a large thermal expansion ratio>during the flight, the metal expanding from heating up eventually caused the transistor legs to get loose and cause an open circuit>mission failed
>>18628491They were no match for Hollywood.
>>18628491But does america did it, historically ? Every single one of their so called "moonrock" actually turned to be regular rocks.
>thread immediate becomes filled with moon landing deniers (sign of low IQ)maybe commies really do have low IQ after all...
the only real advantage Soviet program had was LV lift capacity until 1965
>>18631459Yes they did do it, hence why the Soviet Union literally invited Neil Armstrong for a honoured state visit and publicly congratulated him and the Apollo 11 crew. Also the Chinese published their own photos taken by their satellite of the Apollo landing sites. Moon Landing denial is literally just peasant brain shit, while the actual top engineers in Russia and China operate on a "Real recognizes Real" game.
The US Moon Landing was basically just a freak case of all the right factors coalescing at the right time for it to happen, and as always it's a matter of politics and money above all else.If the USSR hadn't pulled off a propaganda stunt like Sputnik 1 and if the US military wasn't interested in the practical military usage of rocketry and space and if JFK hadn't been fucking shot and killed after making a "promise" to the nation to get to the moon then we likely would've never had the political capital to have dedicated so much time and funding to the Apollo missions
>>18631045That was a reason for the N-1's failure btw, they couldn't build a large RP-1/LOX engine and so had to use dozens of small engines which required a maze of complicated, heavy plumbing.
>>18630988>First Animals that survived orbital Flight were also Soviet DogsOn Korabl-Sputnik 2, however a launch before that got two dogs killed and a launch after that and a third pair were almost killed.
>>18631725Americans like having competition, that's why they want to return to the moon with Artemis, because now China is alluding to the possibility of them throwing their hat in the ring
>The first Vostok test spacecraft was launched May 15, 1960. The capsule had a dummy cosmonaut inside and lacked a life support system, heat shield, or a number of other systems, and it was planned to be destroyed on reentry. The orientation system malfunction during the retro burn and sent the spacecraft into a higher orbit instead. The instrument module decayed from orbit in 1962 and the descent module in 1965. A piece of the latter landed in Wisconsin.>The second test carried a pair of dogs aboard and was launched July 28. At 19 seconds into launch, one of the strap-on boosters experienced an engine failure and explosion, causing it to break away from the vehicle. The rest of the booster continued to climb until 28 seconds when it pitched over and fell apart, the strap-ons and core separating and crashing into the steppe. The descent module fell to earth, at too low an altitude for parachute deployment to be possible. Rescue crews found its hull cracked. Upon gaining entry, they found that the dogs had died from impact forces. The malfunction was traced to combustion instability in the failed strap-on, a problem that had since been fixed on R-7s, but the launch had used an older model of booster so no corrective action had to be taken.
>The backup booster and spacecraft with two more dogs were launched successfully August 19. The flight went well and after three orbits, Korabl-Sputnik 2 was deorbited and its passengers became the first living creatures successfully recovered from space--not the first manmade object recovered however as the US Discoverer 13 satellite had accomplished that two weeks earlier. Examination of flight data found that one dog had experienced convulsions during the second orbit, so it was decided to limit the first manned flight to one orbit to be safe.>Korabl-Sputnik 3 was launched December 4 with two dogs. The mission was successful up until reentry, when a malfunction of the orientation system resulted in the reentry path taking the capsule outside the USSR and to a likely landing spot in China. The onboard self-destruct system activated and blew it up, killing the dogs. The state TASS media reported the unsuccessful reentry.
>The next flight, with another two dogs, launched December 22. This time a malfunction of the third stage gas generator resulted in low engine thrust and orbital velocity could not be attained. The capsule was ejected and reentered successfully, but it landed in a remote region of eastern Siberia. Rescue crews were in a haste to locate it and disable the self-destruct device before it was too late. The capsule was located in a snowbank and the rescue crew trudged to it in thick snow and -20F temperatures. Additionally, they had to content with the limited daylight this time of year. A military engineer cut the wiring to the destruct mechanism and the dogs were recovered alive if shivering from the frigid cold--several other biological specimens died as they were unable to survive the temperatures.>Although Korolev thought the mission should be publicly announced since the dogs had been recovered alive, Khrushchev refused as he said the state could not admit to two failed space launches in a row. It was not made public until the glasnost era in the 1980s.
a lot of Soviet missions were stunt flights with no long term planning
>>18628507It's an unfair comparison. You correctly stated that China was undeveloped. Well the USSR was undeveloped compared to the USA. It had been 100 yrars behind the west when Stalin took power, and was still many years behind when he died. When both powers were simply making derivatives of German technology the Soviets were doing ok, but the more that new spacecraft designs relied on drawing from a developed high tech industrial base, the more this industrial discrepancy showed. Soviet technology simply did not allow for the construction of a rocket large and complex enough to carry out Apollo style moon landings. Nevertheless they tried with the N1 program, and it didn't work. In the 1980s the Soviets built the Energia rocket, which with sufficient funding would have been redesigned to take Soviet citizens to the moon.
>A Vostok rocket meant to launch a Tselina SIGNIT satellite catastrophically exploded on its launch stand at Plesetsk on March 18, 1980 as crews were working on it to prepare it for launch, causing the deaths of 48 persons. The disaster was caused by a manufacturing mistake when fuel line filters in the rocket's third stage had been manufactured using lead rather than tin solder. The lead violently reacted with hydrogen peroxide lubricant, causing an explosion and fire that destroyed the third stage and ultimately the lower stages of the rocket as the fire spread to them. The fully-fueled rocket exploded on the pad, leaving it a mass of blackened rubble--small fires burned for two days afterward, when the dead could finally be removed from the site. The pad was not used again for four years.
>>18632014most likely they didn't have tin solder on hand due to the retarded planned economy so the factory used lead instead
>Surviving witnesses were in agreement that the explosion originated in the third stage and began shortly after its hydrogen peroxide tank was filled. The investigating committee was politically pressured to not fault the Khrunichev plant where R-7 rockets were manufactured and instead blame the launch crews, many of them dead and unable to defend themselves, and put forth the claim that some of them had disregarded proper procedures and started a runaway fire by allowing an insulating blanket to become soaked with liquid oxygen. However, a similar mishap a year later narrowly averted disaster and it was then concluded that the likely cause of the disaster was improper substitution of tin solder in the fuel line filters with lead, which was reactive to hydrogen peroxide, although it was not possible to determine what the filters in the rocket had used.
