Watch the 1st American Newsreel of Sputnik Launch 133
MMBK writes with this snippet from motherboard.tv: "Fifty three years ago this week, the Russians won the space race – or one of its laps – by successfully launching the Sputnik satellite into orbit. This newsreel, the first to report on the launch, recycles older animation about geosynchronic orbits, since all film footage was kept secret (note the very un-Soviet IBM logo on one of the massive computers)."
Respect (Score:3, Informative)
I gotta admit begrudging admoration of the Russians for this one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about for the first living creature in space? Or the first man in space? Or the first woman in space? Or the first space walk? Or the series of Moon, Venus and Mars landers? Or the automated Moon sample return mission?
If you have a real grasp of the history of the Space Race, you need a lot more than a "begrudging admoration" for the Soviets.
Have you read "Space Race" By Deborah Cadbury? You should. Then you should add "War in 2080" to your list.
Have to ask this... (Score:1, Insightful)
What's so different between putting a man and a woman in space? I could see the "first child conceived in space" or the "first birth in space", but why does the (astro|cosmo)naut's gender matter in this context?
Oh, yeah, I forgot. If a "man" (which can refer to either a male or female when used to refer to the species collectively) goes to space, or the moon, or Uranus, it's not fair until we get a woman up there too. /. should run an "Ask Slashdot" article (or at least have a poll) about the extent to w
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Have to ask this... (Score:4, Insightful)
What's so different between putting a man and a woman in space? I could see the "first child conceived in space" or the "first birth in space", but why does the (astro|cosmo)naut's gender matter in this context?
I dare you to ask your mother, aunt, or grandmother that question.
Re:Have to ask this... (Score:5, Funny)
Are you attempting to imply that those individuals are more likely to give an emotional response, instead of a rational one?
You sexist pig.
Re: (Score:2)
If a "man" (which can refer to either a male or female when used to refer to the species collectively) goes to space, or the moon, or Uranus, it's not fair until we get a woman up there too.
Must... resist... Uranus... joke...
Re: (Score:2)
I could see the "first child conceived in space" or the "first birth in space", but why does...
AFAIK, space is everywhere. All children were conceived and born in space. Oh, but you probably meant "outer space." But there is a concept we all have considered at one time or another... known as sex in zero-gravity. I would think gender matters in that context.
Re: (Score:2)
I could see the "first child conceived in space" or the "first birth in space"...
Well, I'll agree that the "first child conceived in space" might be interesting, I for one do not want to be on the spacecraft when her 'water breaks' for the "first birth in space".
I can't even imagine all the problems caused by that event in zero-gee! Yuck!
I hope none of that splashes into your bourbon. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Birthing pod.
Which, considering some traditional ways of ending the presence of humans, could bring few interesting thoughts / something about "life & full circle" on one hand, and big shift for humanity on the other (because ways of body disposal might very well be different after all, not traditional anymore)
Or it will just happen in semi-normal conditions thanks to centrifugal "gravity" (it might indeed be required for human growth; surely there were some experiments with mice? A small colony of them
Re: (Score:1)
You have no idea about either the politics of space programs or sexism.
Sending things into space has an enormous impact on society. To the Soviet society (where everyone including women were "workers" as opposed to only paying and recognising half of society based on their "scientific difference") cosmonauts were an extremely important inspiration (especially for children, including girls).
It may be "irrelevant crap" to you, but in our gendered society and in the Soviet's slightly less gendered society, wom
Re: (Score:1)
In addition, in our society woman have historic
Re: (Score:2)
This one's nice too:
How about having a few decades of experience with operating a manned spacecraft essentially capable of beyond-LEO operation? Soyuz was actually the first spacecraft to carry macroscopic living creatures (most notably - turtles :p ) beyond LEO (around the Moon, to be exact) and bring them back safely (via the more complex profile of skip reentry), on a Zond 5 mission.
If you have $100 million, you can get yourself a ride [spaceadventures.com] (those are the folks so far responsible for all private orbital fligh
Re: (Score:2)
There was also an excellent docudrama [imdb.com] done of this book. Sadly, it only aired a few times in the U.S. (on the National Geographic channel) and isn't available on video in the U.S. (only in Region 2). There is a real animosity in the U.S., institutional or otherwise, to anything which presents the space race from any other perspective than NASA's (and even the NASA documentaries in the U.S. tend to ignore completely or downplay significantly the contributions o
Re: (Score:2)
Jeez, that's a really awful text
/ hides in shame
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, on the plus side it was only few minutes for you to realize what kind of nonsense you've written; "some people go their entire lifes," and so on...
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, I was wondering if anyone else spotted that.
Re: (Score:2)
> I gotta admit begrudging admoration of the Russians for this one.
Why the grudge? They were better and faster so they won that part. Though I suggest you don't read up on who put actual rovers onto the Moon, Venus & Mars first. That might disturb your tiny slice of USA-centric knowledge & feelings even more.
The fact that you can't seem to spell admiration makes your post even more amusing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because of that political contest we ended up with the pile of manure known as the shuttle program, and wont make it to the moon again for nearly a century after the last time we put foot on it. What a complete waste of resources.
Many would argue that going to the moon is a waste of resources, at least when it comes to sending humans. We have already been there and can send probes for a tiny fraction of the cost. Manned exploration is fine and dandy, but only in small doses if you want to get the best use
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Many would argue that going to the moon is a waste of resources
Humans are a waste of resources
Thinking is a waste of resources
Moving is a waste of resources
Reproducing is definitely is a waste of resources
I suggest you do us a favour and consider that last point carefully.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Probes might do good science, but man alone inspires our kids to become scientists.
You lack imagination and underestimate children. To think that the only reason a child would want to enter science is because they saw a spaceman on the surface of mars is absurd. Most don't need to be manipulated, only pointed in the right direction. And not everyone in science gets to fly to the moon. Actually, most of the people who get to fly to the moon aren't scientists at all. Some people enter science out of the
Re: (Score:1)
Videoing comets explode over Jupiter isn't cool. You know what's cool? A Billion dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
Remind us again how that enthusiasm went after Moon landings, with lots of footage available?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The "space race" was some of the best work humankind has ever done, for all the worst reasons.
That's true on a much more fundamental level than you put.
In the case of Russians, for example: ...yeah, from R-7 lineage.
Which rocket put Sputnik into orbit? One from R-7 lineage.
Which rocket put Yuri Gagarin into orbit? One from R-7 lineage.
Which rockets put Soyuz and Progress spacecraft, and many other payloads into orbit?
What was the first operational ICBM? R-7 Semyorka. ...not even very good as an ICBM, not very practical. But turned out to be a fabulous launcher; it is "the most reliable ... the most [esa.int]
Re: (Score:2)
Progress spacecraft are not put into the orbit by R-7 but by Proton rockets. R-7 is very reliable but it's not powerful enough for large payloads.
Re: (Score:2)
No, just no; which is a most straightforward fact, easily confirmed in the most straightforward of places. Progress is not a large payload; Soyuz and Progress are, as far as the launcher is concerned, virtually the same.
Proton is, among other, for Salyut/Almaz/TKS-type payloads; an entirely different league.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, it's amazing what zombie Stalin could do to people for several years after his death.
PS. (Score:2)
On the second thought, maybe he's onto something... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
2) You catch more files with honey than vinegar. (sounds good, may not apply, but you can't argue with Grandma or she'll kick your ass - well would have but now she'd dead, so until the zombie apocalypse you are safe, for now)
3) If threats were sufficient to generate superhuman results, why did the Soviet Union's economy fail so badly, based mainly in their inability to produce food at the targeted levels?
Or, in other words, you are full of shit. But thanks for giving y
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
USSR economy "failing so badly" is propaganda. USSR was far from perfect and had many problems, mostly political ones, but also some economical ones, but you can't said it "failed". Just look at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:Soviet_Union_GDP.gif [wikimedia.org] . GDP of USSR in 1990, just before the fall, was more than 3x the GDP of USSR in 1970, +200% in 20 years is a feat few countries can achieve. And it took very long for the capitalist Russian Federation to reach the level of the USSR.
USSR collap
Re: (Score:2)
And once communism was gone, the GDP has lagged even more. Communism was better for their economy than capitalism has been.
You mistake my comments to be about the fall of the USSR, and not about them having 5-year plans and never meeting a single one. By their own measure, their economy was permanently a failure. That was what my comment was about, and the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's pretty amazing to be able to do that kind of work knowing that Stalin will have your whole family killed if you don't succeed.
Stalin was long dead by the time the Sputnik was launched. What more, he was already dead by the time the Soviet space program was even kicked off (as the extension of ballistic missile program)!
Furthermore, it wasn't even something initiated "from above". It was Korolyov who convinced his superiors that non-military space program would be extremely beneficial for USSR prestige if it can be pulled off before US does it - and also that they could pull it off in time.
Its a good thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, I have always thought that the Soviets getting a satellite into space first was a good thing, as an American of 45 years. It put the fear of ungod into the American military complex to get into space, which ended up netting more good science than simply building bigger and bigger bombs. It also created a huge demand for science, and boosted the desire of teenagers to enter the science field. Nothing like fear to motivate a country into investing into science.
Being raised during the cold war in a lifer military family might color my perspective, but a lot of good things came out of the cold war. One of them is the internet, which might have taken much longer to develop if not for the fear of Soviet ICBMs, reinforced by that humble little beeping satellite named Sputnik.
Re: (Score:2)
but a lot of good things came out of the cold war. One of them is the internet
I sometimes think how the world would work if there weren't the internet we know of today.
It's amazing how hard it would be to do some tasks that we consider trivial today.
Voice line telephone networks would be much more heavily used compared to what those are today.
Re:Its a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Or more scary is the internet could have started as a purely commercial venture. Imagine if it had not existed, and AOL had created their own version of the internet. It is kind of what they were trying to do before the open internet kicked their butts. You would have several private nets (like in the 80s) and eventually, the big ones would buy out the small ones. You would have MUCH less content, as the price to enter the market with a website would be dictated by singular corporate interests. Most important is the fact that Free Software wouldn't be as far as it is now, with a more limited distribution method.
The only reason that the internet is as open as it is now is the US govt. was naive enough to not know what it could really be. Otherwise, they would have tried to control it more.
Re: (Score:2)
You're spot on about the content. That's what made internet what it is today.
Content seems to be driving other industries aswell. It seems like it's irrelevant if you can actually make calls with current smartphones, but oh boy! if they can't run the fart app of the week.
Re: (Score:2)
The original MSN was for the most part, an AOL style service with its own interface. They did try "exclusive" websites later on though, like the original startrek.com
Nitpick: Its obvious whoever captured this video didn't use a time-base corrector on the VCR output.
What's old is new again (Score:1, Troll)
Or more scary is the internet could have started as a purely commercial venture. Imagine if it had not existed, and AOL had created their own version of the internet. It is kind of what they were trying to do before the open internet kicked their butts. You would have several private nets (like in the 80s) and eventually, the big ones would buy out the small ones. You would have MUCH less content, as the price to enter the market with a website would be dictated by singular corporate interests.
What do you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm... Read your history! (Score:2)
There _were_ several commercial internets (small 'i') - CompuServe, AOL and so on.
There were also free noncommercial global networks, FidoNET was the largest one.
So no, Internet could have happened even if it was purely commercial.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, that's why all the competition among US mobile providers, essentially each of the big ones using their own preferred tech, brought a much better situation for customers than in the places where there is essentially one mandated standard (that some of them have 2x lower population density assured they will always behind); all the incompatibility, interoperation issues, small economies of scale and customer lock-in only strenghtened competition.
Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
IPX?
*runs away scared of the thought*
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps IP over Avian [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No.. (cue scary music) Appletalk
Re: (Score:1)
Decnet Phase IV
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH that which we do not speak about perhaps would seem more...living; less like a zombie at the least.
Re: (Score:2)
We'd have several [smaller networks] based on protocol[s] other than TCP/IP.
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn't be thinking of those tasks, wouldn't be doing them, wouldn't miss them. Generally, it would be just life as usual.
In many places people remember such times a bit more vividly. Like in ex-Soviet block, where the net access became reasonably available only during the last decade, and large portions of societies aren't plugged in almost at all; or so called developing nations in general.
Even if it's there, it's often somewhat different from what we are used to - for example access via mobile phone
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Supposedly, Eisenhower's goal was to have the Soviets make the first space flight to establish an international norm that overflying countries while in orbit was not a violation of territorial airspace. Once the Soviets had orbited a satellite over the US, they could hardly object to the US orbiting a satellite over them.
Re: (Score:1)
It is hard to believe that Eisenhower would worry so much about international norms as to let the Soviets win the space race, especially given the fact that the US had been violating their airspace using high-altitude U-2s on a regular basis for quite a while by then (until the Soviets shot one down in early 60s).
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the problem with 'your thought' is that is has nothing to with 'the facts' - because in reality, America was already trying to get into space.
Re: (Score:2)
IBM 650 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
A computer salesman from the 70's once told me about how his company release a new model of minicomputer that was about the size of a picnic cooler, but was about 1/4 the size of the prior model. However sales were poor until one of his colle
Re: (Score:2)
They were talking about recieving the signal so I suppose the computer represented the tracking systems in the west. It means don't worry, Uncle Sam and Big Blue are keeping an eye on the situation.
IBM computer in an American facility? (Score:5, Interesting)
Either that or they weren't immune to product placement in the 50's
Re: (Score:1)
After watching the video I don't think the IBM computer shown is meant to be in a Soviet facility.
Perhaps not (I couldn't get the vid to play, at least not without letting a bunch of unknown shit past NoScript) but it's well known that IBM's Continental division sold computing devices to the Nazis during WWII. I also have it on good authority that Mitsubishi Zeros wore American rubber on their landing gear during the war and this was no secret at Goodyear.
Considering these aren't the only things I've learned that have implications which fly in the face of what we've been taught in the history books, it
Re: (Score:2)
Or... (Score:2)
Or it was simply a ton of work to draw stuff by hand so they re-used pics where they could.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right - the signal was intercepted and Sputnik's position was tracked by the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitrack [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Vanguard [wikipedia.org]
Vanguard, which could have been launched before Sputnik, wasn't a national priority until after the launch of Sputnik.
Very interesting documentary video (Score:2)
Personally I find the introduction to a Roger Ramjet cartoon more informative (and with better music), though
Re: (Score:2)
I've just re-examined the footage and it's lost none of its informativeness [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Appropriate for that evening, 20 years in advance. (Score:2)
That's no moon!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
More entertaining film (Score:5, Funny)
some understanding required (Score:1)
One has to understand the the USSR scientific potential was the one of the former Soviet Union countries plus current Israel.
The stupid "socialist" enthusiasm was a result of an ugly massive civil war, which had roots in 19th century's deep social conflicts.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, those pesky Russians never really brought anything of use to the world, we would notice by now... [wikipedia.org] (FYI, Soviet satellite states were often shielded / prohibited from conducting certain types of activities)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, yes, it's good to be able to convince oneself that only the "concluding success" counts (do you not realize how one can dismiss anything with "they were just using such things earlier"?); I'm sure it also explains how both sides lost approximately the same number of astronauts while rushing...
Sputnik 1 provided valuable data about micrometeorite environment, ionosphere and upper atmosphere densities. Sputnik 2 (second Earth satellite launched) actually detected Van Allen belts, but Red Scare was in full
Re: (Score:2)
One has to understand the the USSR scientific potential was the one of the former Soviet Union countries plus current Israel.
The stupid "socialist" enthusiasm was a result of an ugly massive civil war, which had roots in 19th century's deep social conflicts.
... and is still going on, even today.
Kinda interesting... (Score:2)
that the narrator use the word "intercontinental" to describe the first stage. A hint at it also being capable of dropping a nuke on US soil?
Re: (Score:2)
They already had ICBMs at this point, and a lot of the first space rockets were just re-purposed missiles. Don't forget, the space programs of both the US and the USSR were boostrapped with captured German scientists and technologies. We road to space in the wake of the V2.
Re: (Score:2)
My knowledge of the time in question is rusty, but how much public knowledge was there about ICBMs at the time of sputnik? I thought nuclear delivery was still focused on bombers around that time (tho both sides would have had rocket programs considering the demonstrated ability of V2 during the recent war).
I just wonder what the point was of including such a word in the narration, as being intercontinental have very little to do with getting satellites into orbit (tho everything to do with delivering somet
Well, I'm not so sure 'won' as 'competed well' (Score:2)
I know that Americans feel it dents their national pride to admit it, but the Russians categorically won the space race.
America achieved only a single victory - the first man on the moon - and then decided that was enough so just sat back from there.
However, the Russians had already done all the rest - first animal, first orbit, first man, first woman, first moonwalk.
So if you're happy as a nation to believe you 'won' because of a single victory, go ahead.
However, the rest of us know the truth.
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps first spacewalk? Leave something for the Americans too :-) It's a shame that the Soviet film material from the era is so much worse than what NASA was able to provide. It would be interesting to see quality footage from the Soviet accomplishments too.
Re: (Score:2)
And who knows how much of nice material neglected, forgotten, lost...
Some of those [mentallandscape.com] are quite nice; but I guess if people remember anything, it's virtually only Apollo-era photos shot with medium-format Hasselblad cameras. Quick search also gave eerie Phobos pictures [strykfoto.org]. And Soviets knew how to make a good camera, Zenit line was quite nice.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it is a good example of winning the battles and losing the war. Where are the USSR now? Gone and surrounded by former Warsaw pact nations that have sided with Western Europe if not actively feuding with Russia. Even the USSR is no longer as they are just "the Russians" as former parts of the USSR have separated to form even more hostile counties on their borders. There were only t
Re: (Score:2)
product placement in the 1950s (Score:1)
>> Maybe even with the IBM logo added to make that clear
> Either that or they weren't immune to product placement in the 50's
Check out _Ozzie_and_Harriet_ pushing Coke, or
_I_Love_Lucy_ pushing cigarettes.
Summary misses important point (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Winning the space race is reaching a technological milestone that the other guy couldn't.
Think of it as making the first car, period. That's definitely a win.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no question that the research done originally for the purposes of space exploration has benefited humanity in other areas. The question is whether the money spent on it would have resulted in greater good if spent elsewhere. The answer to that question is relevant to the decision where to spend the money in the present and future. Not that I'm saying the two situtations are the same, but: A country could decide to dig the world deepest hole, and that effort would probably result in a number of benef
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What part of Virginia are you in that you're insinuating the roads are any good? Even the Federal interstate infrastructure around Hampton Roads, which is chock full of military bases, is dilapidated crap with a gazillion choke points 'cause they won't just bite the bullet and fix the damned tunnels.
I wish Warner and and Webb would bring home some road bacon, 'cause right now we're getting shafted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You make a pretty convincing argument. :)
Re: (Score:2)
First one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope [wikipedia.org]
Then one of these (RIP): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wmap [wikipedia.org]
Putting satellites in orbit has brought forth some of the best data to help us understand the universe we live in.
Re: (Score:2)
Launching the first multi-stage orbital body is a great scientific break-through and therefore a "win". We were trying to do the same thing, but the Russians were first.
The reason why we were the first to the moon "Our German scientists were better than the Russians' German scientists."
Re: (Score:2)
The Soviet Union collapsed, and the USA doesn't give a sith about space anymore.
Sure we do. It's where you put the weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
At least it was original (except for the part about mounted lasers and the reference to Nancy's labia - the latter is from a Bill Hicks' skit that would probably cause you to break down and cry for mommy, or tearfully admit to your roommate [while he was trying to coax you out of hiding under the mattress] that she touched you "down there and it felt good but I felt bad about it later" - because something really fucked-up must have happened to you so that you can't appreciate a joke, even a "disgusting" on
Re: (Score:2)
You know, that AC almost looks like an effort to keep that post / quote visible ;)
Re: (Score:2)