The space race for equality

America may have put the first man on the moon, but the Soviet Union sent the first woman, the first Asian man, and the first black man into orbit — all years before the U.S. would follow suit https://t.co/DrTZYxvbD7

— The New York Times (@nytimes) July 18, 2019

Thanks to Steve for pointing out this NYT article to me. My thoughts:

1. Tokenism. This is pure tokenism. The Soviets didn't put the first woman, Asian, or black man into orbit because they cared so much about the welfare of women and minorities or people of color. In fact, after Valentina Tereshkova's mission to become the first woman in space, she wanted to go back to space again. She pleaded to do so. However, the Soviets wouldn't allow it. Tereshkova was told the nation didn't want to risk losing a hero or heroine. As if that ever mattered to the Soviets.

   By contrast, in the US, women and minorities have the chance to become an astronaut if they have the chops. In this respect, the US has done more for women and minorities going to space than the Soviets ever did. In fact, part of NASA's mission today is to help facilitate space programs in other nations and cultures too. For example, consider the astronauts from other nations and cultures that NASA has taken into space too. (To be fair, the Russians after the Soviets have done a lot, though Russia is a capitalist democracy at least in name. Also, that's quite arguably motivated more by money than beneficence toward women and minorities.)

   In short, why does it matter who did it "first" rather than who did and continues to do it "well" on behalf of women and minorities?

2. Human life. I suspect one of the main reasons the Soviets were ahead especially early in the space race was precisely because they had less regard for human life than we did. They didn't care as much about their cosmonauts as we cared about our astronauts. We would have delayed or canceled launches that the Soviets went ahead with. In general (though sadly not always), we cared more about doing it right than doing it first.

   Perhaps the best or at least most infamous example is Vladimir Komarov. Komarov had the unhappy distinction of being the first cosmonaut or astronaut to ever die in the space race. Apparently Komarov was all but forced to fly the mission that eventually killed him. He died in a crash landing that literally left his body burnt to a crisp. (There are photos online.) Apparently Komarov knew it was a suicide mission since he knew there was no way the spacecraft was ready. However Komarov also knew if he refused, then he would be punished and his best friend Yuri Gagarin (the first man in space) would be forced to fly the mission. Apparently Komarov sacrificed his life so Gagarin could live. After Komarov died, the rumor (unconfirmed afaik) is that Gagarin was so angry and upset that he slapped or punched Brezhnev for forcing the mission on them.

3. The moonshot. The race to the moon was a culmination of the most difficult challenges faced in the space race all rolled into a single tremendous challenge. However, the Soviets never had a viable chance to make it to the moon at the time. The Soviets could do low orbit space flights and the like, but the moonshot was an entirely different beast. Especially after the Soviets lost the sole genius behind their early successes in the space race, Sergei Korolev. In any case, the US finally landed on the moon with Apollo 11.

   I think the ability to make it to the moon and back is a better reflection of the quality of a space program than being feminist, racially diverse, and the like. Not that they're necessarily mutually exclusive. However, if a space program can only pick one at that point in time, then surely physical and technical abilities should be prioritized over cultural diversity. But I guess progressives care more that a space program prioritizes diversity over competence.

   Granted, NASA was imperfect and made a lot of mistakes, then and now. Things could always be improved. However one should likewise consider them in light of the standards of their own time.

4. First = best? Sure, the Soviets had a lot of firsts in space. The first satellite in space, the first animal in space, the first man in space, the first woman in space, the first Asian in space, the first black man in space, the first space station, etc.

   However, why does first equate to best? For example, the Nazis had the first man-made object in space when the V-2 rocket crossed the Kármán line on June 20, 1944. Does that mean the Nazis were the best in the space race because they were first overall? Does that mean Nazism is a legitimate political and social ideology because the Nazis were the first in space?

   Besides, the US had many notable firsts too:

   • First craft capable of changing orbit (Gemini)
   • First space rendezvous (Gemini 6A and Gemini 7)
   • First docking between two craft (Gemini 8 and Agena)
   • First direct-ascent rendezvous (Gemini)
   • First "productive task during EVA" (Gemini)
   • First to high orbit (Gemini?)
   • First manned cislunar flight (Apollo)
   • First manned lunar orbit (Apollo)
   • First LOR (Apollo)
   • First "deep space" EVA (Apollo)
   • First Mars orbiter (Mariner)
   • First functional probe landed on Mars (Viking)
   • First rover on Mars (Pathfinder/Sojourner)
   • First probe to Jupiter (Pioneer)
   • First probe to Saturn (Pioneer)
   • First probe to Uranus (Voyager)
   • First probe to Neptune (Voyager)
   • First probe to a comet (NASA+ESA, ICE)
   • First probe to an asteroid (Galileo)
   • First impact probe on asteroid (Deep Impact)
   • First landing on a Saturnian moon (ESA, Huygens)
   • First probe to Mercury (Mariner)
   • Closest approach to Sun (NASA+FRG, Helios)
   • First comet tail sample return (Stardust)
   • First solar wind sample (Genesis)
   • First sample return from asteroid (JAXA, Hayabusa)
   • First partially reusable spacecraft (STS)
   • Most powerful rocket (Saturn V)
   • First suborbital reusable craft (X-15)
   • First geosynchronous satellite (Syncom 2)
   • First geostationary satellite (Syncom 3)
   • First space-based optical telescope (Hubble)
   • First space-based dedicated x-ray satellite (Uhuru)
   • First probe to a dwarf planet (Dawn (en route))
   • First comms satellite in space (Telstar)
   • First solar probe (Parker Solar Probe)
   • First weather satellite (TIROS-1)
   • First geosynchronous satellite (Syncom)
   • First and only multiple trips to the moon (e.g. Apollo 11)
   • First spacecraft manually controlled by crew (Apollo 8?)
   • First manned mission over a week (Apollo 11)

5. Propaganda. In short, all this is just propaganda. We communists are better than these capitalist pigs!

   What's more relevant to us is that Soviet era propaganda evidently works on the NYT. Indeed, it works on progressives in general.

   Maybe that's unfair. I grant it's not necessarily because progressives are genuinely persuaded by Soviet propaganda, at least not unless the propaganda is under a different guise. Rather I think it's because this kind of narrative is useful to progressives in the pursuit of their own agenda. Specifically it plays into their own playbook, viz. identity politics.

   Progressives can allege (say) the US via NASA is chauvinistic and paternalistic. Progressives can allege the US is so sexist and racist that the first NASA astronauts were all white men. Not to mention military men (test pilots) which doubtless reflects the military-industrial complex. In fact, NASA really stands for the National Aryan Space Administration. And Mercury 13 was a cover-up by the white male patriarchy who wanted to oppress women. Down with the patriarchy!

   Ironically, progressives like the NYT are themselves using propaganda to further their own narrative. However, even on that level, it's silly. Is the message the NYT is sending that the Soviets may have lost the space race, but they won the diversity race?

6. Orwell. It would do well to keep in mind the doublespeak of Soviet era communism as well as modern American progressive socialism. For example, what does "equality" really mean under socialism? Consider: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."