|
Author
|
Topic: Yuri Gagarin: A great (or even good) cosmonaut?
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-04-2011 06:10 PM
   
quote:
Originally posted by randyc:
The fact that I didn't know the Soviet's policy about suiting up the backup cosmonaut HAS NOTHING to do with my position.
Had someone else raised the point first Randy, I would have accepted your rebuke. But it was you who introduced the whole question in your original post. If you didn't think it mattered, you wouldn't have mentioned it.Rather, it appears that now your other reasons have been dispelled by the facts, all you have left is that Gagarin was only a passenger. Maybe that's the not the case, but that is how it appears. quote:
The fact that I don't know as much about the Soviet space program... their space program became somewhat insignificant by comparison to the U.S.
I condensed my excerpt of your reply to illustrate a point: your own choice to limit your knowledge of the Soviet space program makes you a poor judge of what is and what is not significant. Nor does your career history compensate for that lacking. I highly suggest getting a copy of Asif Siddiqui's authoritative "Challenge to Apollo: The Soviet Union and the Space Race, 1945-1974." It may very well change your opinion about the Soviets and their relative significance to space exploration history. (By the way Randy, I honestly think what you've done for the U.S. space program makes you great... even if you haven't piloted a spacecraft.) |
mikepf
Member Posts: 441
From: San Jose, California, USA
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 03-04-2011 06:26 PM
It sounds to me that this discussion is a bit futile until all agree on what defines "greatness". There seems to be more than one definition in this thread. Many of you here have a far greater knowledge of the details of the cosmonauts than I do, but here's my reasoning for a "yes" to Gagarin being great (at least to my way of thinking). Considering all that the Soviets had riding on a successful first manned space flight(and potential embarrassment of a failure), it only makes sense that they pick the very best candidates for this mission. This must have been based on their performance in training under all kinds of conditions, including potential failure modes. The fact that some of this training was never needed during the flight is not important. Gagarin and Titov must have proven themselves to the Soviet decision-makers as the most capable of carrying out a successful mission under any foreseeable conditions. So if the best can't be considered great, who can? |
onesmallstep
Member Posts: 1310
From: Staten Island, New York USA
Registered: Nov 2007
|
posted 03-04-2011 06:34 PM
Well, I can see that some people's facts or understanding of Gagarin's achievement has been clouded a little by their biases or criteria for acknowledging 'greatness', 'good' or even 'perfect'. Suffice to say, can we really judge an historical event by the unique circumstances surrounding it, in this case, the first trip into space by a human being after only dogs, primates and other creatures had done it before (and some of those had perished in the attempt)? In another thread in this forum, it was discussed how the USAF MISS (Man in Space Soonest) program selected their astronauts and the qualifications/experience they had; if MISS had not been cancelled and merged with Mercury (or one more unmanned M-R flight had not been launched) and an American had been 'first' in space, we would not be having this discussion (or maybe a 'Russian cS' site would)! If to merely be a 'passenger' (albeit a trained, alert jet fighter pilot) somehow disqualifies you from your place in history, then maybe Amelia Earhart's ride as merely 'baggage' (her words) as the first woman to cross the Atlantic after Lindberg also applies. As we all know, her career did not end there, making the first solo crossing of the Atlantic by a woman years later, among other achievements. So, if she had died on that 'first' attempt or made only that flight as an untrained pilot, should we also downgrade her place in aviation history? My point is, as primitive and short as Gagarin's (or the Mercury astronauts) flights may have been, let's not judge them too harshly in today's light, for they were truly pioneers sailing the new ocean of space-an unknown, possibly fatal arena of exploration. Let's celebrate the man and his achievement for all of humankind, for without someone being first, others could not have followed in his footsteps. (By the way, randyc, good to have another space cover collector-I have been since '79-and follower of the US space program-me, since '68-albeit as an informed 'civilian' and not a participant..) |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 03-04-2011 06:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by randyc:
Well, there's certainly at least two members of this group who just don't want to give up their view that Yuri Gagarin was a great cosmonaut. They are confusing BRAVE and FIRST with GREAT.
I find it absurd to think that bravery is not a component of greatness. Without bravery, there never would have been a manned space program. The fact that Gagarin was willing to take that first step out into the unknown is, by itself, a sign of greatness. Greatness isn't always defined by a demonstration of skill. There are other less tangible qualities that all contribute to an individual's greatness. Was Captain Sullenberger a great pilot before he landed his plane in the Hudson River? Of course he was. The river landing didn't make him a great pilot...it just allowed him to demonstrate he was already a great pilot. Speculating that Gagarin wasn't a great cosmonaut because he didn't have the opportunity to demonstrate his skills during his spaceflight is nonsense. There is more to being a great cosmonaut (or astronaut) than just flying the mission. |
golddog
Member Posts: 210
From: australia
Registered: Feb 2008
|
posted 03-04-2011 07:20 PM
De mortuis nil nisi bonum |
randyc
Member Posts: 779
From: Chandler, AZ USA
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 03-04-2011 07:31 PM
Let's leave it at this:We agree to disagree. In my opinion, unless an individual who is a pilot, race car driver, surgeon, astronaut or cosmonaut demonstrates skills 'above and beyond' their peers I don't consider them great compared to their peers. If some of you think that Gagarin is a great cosmonaut that's fine with me. But for those 'on the fence' please consider my point of view. I also realize that no matter what I or anyone else says on this subject there will always be two sides. There's very little in this world that EVERYONE agrees on. And thanks, Robert, for thinking that I'm great. I certainly don't see it that way; I'm just doing my job and trying to contribute to helping advance the exploration of space. And any fellow collectors who would like to discuss collecting space covers are welcome to contact me. We are few and far between and I always enjoy discussing that topic. And I'm sure it will be a lot less controversial! |
hinkler
Member Posts: 573
From: Melbourne, Victoria, AUSTRALIA
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 03-04-2011 07:37 PM
Randy, despite being asked to define "great" you have failed to do so which makes your proposition rather pointless.Gagarin is not "great" but you fail to define your interpretation of the word. Well how about this: great: person who has achieved importance or distinction in a field So by definition, Gagarin WAS great. |
Colin E. Anderton
Member Posts: 63
From: Newmarket, Suffolk, England
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 03-05-2011 03:46 AM
Considering all that the Soviets had riding on a successful first manned space flight (and potential embarrassment of a failure), it only makes sense that they pick the very best candidates for this mission. This must have been based on their performance in training under all kinds of conditions, including potential failure modes. The fact that some of this training was never needed during the flight is not important. I think Mike's comments above makes the most valid point of all. His argument is good enough for me. |
dom
Member Posts: 855
From:
Registered: Aug 2001
|
posted 03-05-2011 06:39 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
...all things being equal, a Soviet wasn't the perfect person to be first in space.
Robert, I'm not replaying the Cold War with my comments so I think you've misread my point of view entirely.By a strange twist of fate Gagarin turned out to be the perfect PERSON to make the journey on behalf of all mankind - if I can reuse that phrase out of context! No matter what we may individually think of his qualifications, we all have to admit that he ticks all the right boxes when it comes to someone who everyone can be proud to call the 'first man in space'. His tragic early death only adds to the legend and helps create an iconic image that will last for hundreds of years. Like I hinted in my earlier post it was probably for the best that Neil Armstrong made the first step onto the Moon rather than Buzz Aldrin and in my own opinion it was also for the best that it was Gagarin and not a cocky test pilot like Al Shepard or Grigori Nelyubov... |
ColinBurgess
Member Posts: 2031
From: Sydney, Australia
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 03-06-2011 09:19 PM
While I won't buy into any characterising debates based purely on semantics, what I WOULD like to do is acknowledge the 77th birthday today of Yuri Gagarin - at least here in Australia (in a few hours in the U.S.) - and just a few weeks shy of the 50th anniversary of his history-making flight. |
Lou Chinal
Member Posts: 1306
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 03-19-2011 05:26 AM
After viewing Vostok 3KA-2 earler today I was reminded of this topic. Was Mercury GREATER than Vostok? No, they were different. Both programs were needed, they spurred us on to the moon.And were the astronauts greater than the cosmonauts? Again no! The entire history of space exploration was GREAT. No matter who flew what flight, and the thousands of people who stayed on the ground and supported them were GREAT. |
Skylon
Member Posts: 274
From:
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted 03-19-2011 06:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Lou Chinal:
Was Mercury GREATER than Vostok?
If you are comparing spacecraft, I'd say Vostok comes out ahead of Mercury. It supported flights of over four days. Pushing Mercury up to its final, one day flight on Faith 7 required major modifications to the vehicle, and systems started to break down towards the end of that flight. Vostok had more space also, which enabled it to get adapted into Voskhod. Mercury was also sold as a quick and dirty way to beat the Soviets into space. At this it failed. You don't see a supremacy in American spacecraft until Gemini. And of course you could argue the X-15 was more technically advanced than Vostok in its own way. It was just a radically different vehicle. |
dom
Member Posts: 855
From:
Registered: Aug 2001
|
posted 04-08-2011 11:52 AM
A very nice BBC story about Gagarin's trip to Manchester, England. He was certainly considered great by those who saw him that day! |
FFrench
Member Posts: 3161
From: San Diego
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 04-08-2011 01:20 PM
The BBC also just did a good video version of the story with some different, equally interesting memories of the day. |
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3398
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 04-08-2011 03:33 PM
It's good to hear him talk. Despite the constraints of political expediency he shows all the warmth and charm of the other early cosmonauts - Nikolayev, Popovich, Tereshkova and Bykovsky - whom many of us have met. |
Duke Of URL
Member Posts: 1316
From: Syracuse, NY
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 05-20-2011 10:22 AM
quote:
Originally posted by randyc:
It doesn't matter WHY Gagarin was grounded... the fact is he WAS grounded and he never PROVED his space piloting skills.
Then what about John Glenn? He didn't fly after Mercury for the same reasons that Gagarin didn't fly after Vostok, and his ship was incapable of being "piloted" in any significant way. Even on his shuttle flight he was in a passive role as a mission specialist and not a pilot. A major difference of early cosmonauts and astronauts was that the Soviets were pilots and astronauts were TEST pilots. Those are two very different things. The Soviets had test pilots, but their early space program was automated to a degree which ours was not, so those skills were not in their requirements. And who's to say that a man not trained in flight test and who puts his life in the hands of an untried (for manned missions) automated system - over which he has extremely limited control in an emergency - isn't a great space pilot? Not I. |
advertisement