Why was the Soviet Union years behind technologically when it produced so many renowned and respected scientists?
Why was the Soviet Union years behind technologically when it produced so many renowned and respected scientists?
Jaxon Richardson
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
extremetech.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
gen.lib.rus.ec
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
whale.to
news.nationalgeographic.com
braeunig.us
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Kayden Ortiz
because it started off far behind
Russia in 1917 was fucking appalling
Owen Morris
To my knowledge, the Soviet Union was barely behind the United States under Stalin scientifically–if it was behind at all. A lot of people wanted to use computers to simplify the planning process but that interfered with the liberal mark soc orientation of a lot of Khrushchev-era Soviet economists.
Seeing how the Soviets were winning the space race indisputably up until the moonlanding in 1968 (and allegedly the Soviets orbited the moon before the Americans but were unable to land) I'd say they didn't really start falling behind until the effects of revisionism started to set in.
Andrew Green
The USSR had more tech than the space program and some impressive aircraft, they also had top-notch photo cameras that are still popular with collectors today and they innovated in eye surgery.
Henry Clark
The US took the lead in 1965. The Gemini program mastered things like rendezvous and docking which the Soviets didn't get right until the 70s.
Source? I find that hard to believe, as they would surely have publicised such an achievement. Plus they never managed a successful launch of their Saturn V equivalent.
Colton Jackson
soviets also made ternary computers
en.wikipedia.org
Dylan Sanchez
My dad is an electrical engineer he always admired how far the Soviets took tube-based computing, he says it was avant-garde for what it was. Chances are if your a musician who uses tube-amplification today the tubes themselves come from Russia. I'm not an engineer or a computer expert myself but it appears there are some attempts to revive tube-based/analog computing: extremetech.com
Who can say if it will be successful? Maybe more informed comrades will know.
One cool thing is that while phage therapy was actually discovered in the West it was the Soviets who kept researching it long after Western biologists and doctors lost interest. Now that antibiotics are increasingly losing their effectiveness there's a lot of interest in Russian research and phage-based treatments that are really left over from the USSR:en.wikipedia.org
Carson Garcia
what really fucked soviet computer industry was a decigion to copy western IBMs
but even that was not a trivial task
I'd say they were world leaders in reverse engineering
Eli Diaz
because it wasn't behind
Anthony Young
Oy gevalt prole, why don't you believe The Truth about how capitalism is the only way to have real technological progress? The capitalists got to the moon first so capitalism is obviously best even though the USSR outperformed the USA in every other part of space other than landing a man on the moon.
Dylan Carter
You confuse science and technology.
Scientists and engineers are the same.
(Apparently the USSR wasn't behind. )
Evan Lee
Didn't the Soviet regime practically channel anyone with a science degree into either the defence and/or aerospace industries?
Leo Gomez
It started in feudalism motherfucker. It went from feudalism to space in under half a century. Compare that to the capitalist world and you'll quickly see just how much better things are when you even just attempt socialism.
Elijah Baker
Ya I'd say the "bear" bomber is a good example of that: en.wikipedia.org
I haven't read this book but there are a lot of people on this board who are really interested in computers so I think they might find it interesting: gen.lib.rus.ec
Tell me more about what you think was wrong with the IBMs they copied?
According to Kikeapedia he did defect: en.wikipedia.org
Unless you think he was playing the long-game like pic related. I didn't write that anyway, I just screened it from MIM's old archive.
Wyatt Peterson
en.wikipedia.org
Apparently, they just circled it with living biological material. So that's my mistake. I could've sworn I saw a Western documentary that claimed they did.
Prior to the moon landing they were ahead in most ways: first satellite in space,first dog in space, first chimp in space, first man &woman in space, first unmanned robots on the moon, venus, and mars.
I don't want to be that guy but I sorta wonder what Holla Forums thinks about moon conspiracy theories? Are they as crazy as they are made to sound? Why haven't we been back in almost fifty years and why hasn't anyone but burgerland landed on the moon? Shouldn't technological progress make it easier for anyone with the motivation to land on the moon?
I'm not a scientist so I don't consider myself qualified to claim that we did or didn't do it but certain aspects of the story seem fishy to me.
whale.to
Xavier Rivera
There really isn't all that much on the moon to do. Only a few reasons to go to the moon at this point would be to gather resources which are still cheaper to gather on earth or the maybe practice for building bases on another planet and no one really is at that point yet.
Jack Stewart
Russia was already behind technologically before the revolution. From my understanding, after the revolution, the USSR was effectively shut out of most of the research networks that the rest of the world was enjoying and sharing through, thus became largely internally dependent. This was slightly alleviated with the expansion of the "Eastern Bloc," but still there was a major barrier of scientific information between East and West meant primarily to "starve out" the East.
Also say what you will about Khrushchev, he was at the very least an advocate of science and engineering.
I've had the pleasure to work with some professors who have been involved in the further development of phage therapy. It's really cool stuff, especially when you consider how much easier they are to develop in comparison to traditional antibiotics.
Parker Fisher
I don't want to sound like a sarcastic nay-sayer but don't you think some nation with a massive inferiority complex like China or India would've at least attempted it?
It's certainly within Russia's technical capacity to do it if not their economic ability. And don't you think Yuros would want to do it just to prove their as good or better then clapistan?
The fact that there wasn't much use in West Europe having nuclear bombs when America was there to back them up didn't stop them from developing them.
Kayden Flores
If the soviets didnt put a man on the moon to save face for america beating them there I dont think anyone will for that reason but maybe china or india might they just havent gotten to that yet but are building towards it
Ian Brown
In the end the US just outspent them; I believe NASA's budget was over twice as big as that of its Soviet rival. Even when the Soviets were well ahead in the early 60s, they were doing it all on a shoestring. Blame Brezhnev for not caring enough to put the funds in.
Yeah. It's not that unbelievable an achievement. If you believe in the International Space Station, you should believe in the Moon landings.
>whale.to
This guy's retarded. He says things that anyone who's read up on the subject will laugh at. For example,
As I said earlier, the US took the lead in 1965, four years before the Moon landings.
Jason Thomas
Lunar landers and rovers are cheaper (in the long run - consider the cost of astronaut training), easier to replace, and require less maintenance or protection over humans on the moon.
China is using rovers, not humans.
news.nationalgeographic.com
Tyler Collins
NASA did so many practice runs and research programs leading up to Apollo 11 that it is asinine to believe they couldn't have actually gone there in the end.
The general idea around moon landing denialism is that, for whatever reason, in the end the US just couldn't master the technology required to get there, but that idea begs the question of just where the line should be drawn at what they could and couldn't do. I know in the US the schools do a very poor job at explaining the amount of work that went into our side of the space race, and a lot of firsts tend to be glossed over, and it makes the whole thing seem a lot more miraculous that they could pull such a thing off. A lot of people don't even know the Moon was orbited by the manned Apollo 8 before they did the landing run. By 1969 they had done so many rendezvous and docking tests, probe missions and this and that it's even harder to believe that something as stupid large as the Saturn V couldn't get a small craft there and back. If you believe Gemini was real, they had the tech, they just needed the fuel.
Jason Stewart
Mostly what they rely on is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Van Allen Radiation Belts assuming literally no living thing can transit across them for even five seconds as if it's an impenetrable barrier of pure death.
All nonsense of course.
Gabriel Brooks
The funniest part of moon landing denialism is that what they didn't have the technology for was faking it.
Ian Wood
...
Tyler Gomez
I'm not sure what your trying to say in the intelligence world that is called defection. Maybe what you mean is he was a Russian defector at this time instead of a Soviet one. But since the Soviet Union was recently dissolved isn't that really a game of tomayto, tomahto?
Jaxon Hernandez
It is more economical but it kinda lacks the "wow factor" doesn't it? I mean the Soviets and the Americans already had robots on the moon in the 60s-70s.
If the message is supposed to be "bow down laowai" or "China has arrived" I think a manned flight would be more effective. It's not like China is going to be terribly upset if they lose a few trying to get there tbh
Jack Young
Why call him a "Soviet defector", when they could have just mentioned his high-ranking position in the KGB instead?
Or did they just call him a "Soviet defector" to lend more credence to his claims than identifying him as a former KGB member would?
Andrew Nguyen
Who gives a fuck about the 'wow' factor? People have already been on the Moon. All a Chinese manned flight do is make a blip in the headlines.
And if it ends in disaster, that blip doesn't look so good for the Chinese anymore, does it?
If anything, China will try to send humans to Mars simply because it's more of an accomplishment.
Thomas Phillips
Not all "Soviet defectors" were Solzhenitsyn's, friend. In fact, afaik most who defected typically were high-ranking Soviet officers or people with access to sensitive information they knew the West wanted.
Yes, I'm sure literal MI5 historian Christopher Andrew had an agenda to prove that the Soviets were once quite competitive in computing in order to make the West look bad.
Caleb Barnes
Idiots seem to care. Plenty of burgers still hyping up the moon landing that happened 50 years ago.
Do you think that its possible to do that already? Wouldn't make sense to land on the moon as a stepping stone for a manned flight? Or are they afraid it will trigger America's autism and they wont be able to get to mars first?
Isaiah Cooper
Before its budget was slashed during Nixon's first term, NASA was planning to go to Mars in the early 80s. The technology's there, but not the willpower.
I don't think it would be essential. Landing on Mars is a lot different from landing on the Moon because Mars has an atmosphere. Everything could be tested jut as easily in Earth orbit.
Gavin Miller
Good thread bump 41
Brody Price
Does anyone of you guys have any pics or documents on the sea weed farms plan to kill world hunger?
Liam Perry
wtf im a tankie now
Gavin Hill
Welcome to the club, bud
Parker Martinez
Khrushchev was an advocate of Lysenko.
Brody Powell
The USSR had some good consumer stuff actually, and they had a specific mark of approval for high-quality consumer goods, like some cameras. I think it looked like a star. Anybody knows what I'm referring to?
Xavier Moore