Culture The Soviet Space Program Was Not Woke - The Atlantic

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account


Sending the first women into space isn’t the same as developing an astronaut program that values equality.
Marina Koren is a staff writer at The Atlantic.
8:00 AM ET

The Russian cosmonauts Yuri Gagarin and Valentina Tereshkova
The Russian cosmonauts Yuri Gagarin and Valentina TereshkovaAP
Editor's Note: This article is part of a series reflecting on the Apollo 11 mission, 50 years later.
About this time 50 years ago, three men returned home from a long journey. They had flown to the moon, planted an American flag in the silver regolith, and flown back. After a decade of jostling, the United States became the indisputable winner of the space race.
But the Soviet Union netted another kind of victory, according to a recent story in The New York Times: “The Soviets won the space race for equality.” The story points out that after the Soviet Union made Yuri Gagarin the first man in space in 1961, the government sent the first woman, the first Asian man, and the first black man into orbit around Earth.
It took the United States years to reach the same milestones, but the Soviet space program was not as woke as the Times story suggests. Nationalist intentions, not a push for equality, were behind the many “firsts” of that era, and focusing on those flashy events ignores what unfolded after the supposed win.
The effort to bring women into the Soviet astronaut corps began when Nikolai Kamanin, the head of cosmonaut training, heard that female American pilots were training to become astronauts. (There was no official NASA program to recruit female astronauts, but the doctor in charge of providing examinations to male astronaut candidates gave the same tests to women at his own clinic in 1960.) “We cannot allow that the first woman in space will be American,” Kamanin wrote in his journal. “This would be an insult to the patriotic feelings of Soviet women.” A search began shortly thereafter, and the first female astronaut candidates reported for training in 1962.
Kamanin couldn’t have said it any more plainly. The impetus was nationalistic—any egalitarian impulse was in service of that primary motivation. Soviet women would fly to space for one of the same reasons that the rockets carrying them did: to beat their Cold War enemy. The historic flight would demonstrate the superiority of the Soviet space program and, by extension, its socialist government over the capitalist United States.
More in this series
  • They Went To the Moon
  • Peggy Whitson, the American record holder for time spent in space
  • A scientist examining a cartoon beaker on the lunar surface.

  • The moon's landscape
Valentina Tereshkova, a 26-year-old textile worker with a love for skydiving, was launched into orbit in the summer of 1963 after months of training. If there was one moment that might have verged on equality in this propaganda exercise, it was when Tereshkova, dubbed by Soviet officials as “Gagarin in a skirt,” was allowed to pee on the tire of the bus that delivered her to the launchpad, a tradition set by the first man in space. She spent three days circling Earth in a small, spherical capsule. When she returned, Tereshkova had racked up more hours in space than all the American astronauts combined.
Tereshkova was celebrated as a national hero and a role model for young girls in the Soviet Union. “News items and feature stories openly encouraged girls to strive for the highest levels of achievement in science and technology, loudly affirming that in the USSR there were no limits on female aspiration,” Roshanna Sylvester, a scholar in residence at the University of Colorado at Boulder who studies Russian history, wrote in Into the Cosmos: Space Exploration and Soviet Culture in 2011. Tereshkova made dozens of trips abroad in the years after her flights, representing the Soviet government at international conferences on women’s issues, before being elected to the Russian State Duma, where she still serves today.
But as Soviet leaders publicly touted her accomplishments, they continued to debate in private whether women should be astronauts. The masquerade didn’t last. Tereshkova never flew to space again. Neither did the other women who had trained with her. Tereshkova revealed decades laterthat the head of the space program decided against flying another woman because she “already had a family.” It was clear where the Soviets felt women belonged. A female cosmonaut would not fly again for another 19 years.
The Soviets’ other firsts in space were similarly short-lived efforts. The Soviet Union sent foreign astronauts, including Phạm Tuân, a Vietnamese military pilot, and Arnaldo Tamayo Méndez, a Cuban military pilot of African descent, to the country’s Salyut space station in 1980. By then, the U.S. and the Soviet Union had little to compete over in outer space and had actually begun to collaborate. The first-time travelers, accompanied by cosmonauts, were part of a Soviet program that was intended to bolster connections with other socialist nations in eastern Europe and Asia, and ended in 1988.
Early in its own space efforts, the U.S. was driven by the same motivations as the Soviet Union. After Gagarin went to space, the Johnson administration began a search for an African American candidate for NASA’s astronaut program. In the divisive Cold War climate, astronauts were “goodwill ambassadors” dispatched to promote American political ideals, Douglas Brinkley, a historian who has written about the American effort to land on the moon, told The New York Times in a different recent story. “You put a person of color in space and it’ll show how noble our democracy is,” he said.
An Air Force pilot, Ed Dwight, was in the running in 1962 to become the first black person to go to space, but he never became an astronaut, despite a recommendation from the military to NASA. Unlike the other trainees, Dwight experienced frequent racist encounters and, reportedly, daily taunts from his commander encouraging him to quit. The space agency never provided an explanation for why he wasn’t selected. The first African American to become a NASA astronaut, Robert Lawrence, died in a plane crash during training in 1967.
It wasn't until 1983 that Guion Bluford flew on the space shuttle, becoming the first African American in space. Ellison Onizuka, the first Asian American in space, followed two years later.
For both Cold War powers, demonstrating prowess mattered more than enacting progress. And if history books had ceased printing in the 1980s, then sure, they would say the Soviet Union bested its Cold War rival in the space race for equality. But the hard work of equal representation is more than a matter of giving one woman or one black man a rare opportunity, and a half century later, the Soviet, now Russian, space program has fallen way behind.
Over the decades, as the Americans caught up, the Russians backtracked. Since Sally Ride became the first American woman in space, NASA has flown nearly 50 female astronauts to orbit. Russia has sent four, including Tereshkova. At NASA, motherhood was not considered disqualifying; in 1984, Anna Fisher flew on the shuttle 14 months after giving birth.
NASA’s latest astronaut class, selected in 2017, includes six men and five women, and five recruits are people of color. Russia’s newest eight recruits, announced last year, are all white men.
The director of the spaceflight program offered an explanation for the absence of women that seems to belong in the 1960s: “One of the main requirements for those willing to join the crew is determination, the desire to become a cosmonaut. Apparently, the percentage of women willing to become cosmonauts is a bit lower.” But stereotypical assumptions about women are not uncommon in the modern Russian space program.
“There are definitely cultural mind-sets about women’s roles, and it takes some time to prove your value in some way,” Peggy Whitson, a former NASA astronaut, recently told The Washington Post, describing her experience training with cosmonauts in Russia before launching together to the International Space Station. “But it’s totally doable, and I felt like I did become very close and become very respected by the Russians, which I think is very important.”
To imagine what the beginning of her training was like, Whitson said, “set your watch back 40 years.”
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.
 
Two Shuttles and two Soyuz were both lost with the entire crew.

There were no deaths on any other US spaceflight.

Soyuz has seen many more launches than any US system. Your comparison is misleading.
 
Men worked hard and died to get to the Moon only for 50 years later feminists to look back and sneer "But what about usssssssssss!?" rather than see it as a collective achievement for mankind as it was intended.
 
Seriously, I can't get over the feminist reaction to the 50th anniversary of the Moon landing.

It really speaks to how utterly worthless they see men as being, it doesn't count because there were no women, they can't for one single fucking thing put aside their self centeredness and egotism and show a little respect for the fucking Moon landing of all things.

Armstrong said "one giant leap for mankind" which means both men and women, it was supposed to be a collective achievement for the human race, but nope, they can't see it that way, because it was technically a bunch of worthless men they have to piss and moan about it, we all know men are just garbage whose lives are worth nothing, am I right?

Makes me sick to my stomach to be honest.
 
Soyuz has seen many more launches than any US system. Your comparison is misleading.

There have been 141 crewed Soyuz missions and 135 Shuttle missions. Hardly "many."

I suspect you knew that. Why are you trying to spin this?

Does Apollo 1 not count because they didn't even get off the launch pad?

It's hard to tell when to stop counting because people get killed in training and aircraft all the time. People have been killed when cranes failed, dropping rockets.

If we include pad accidents like Apollo 1, then it becomes complicated since the Soviets suppressed the news of theirs and it's difficult to get a consensus. The most serious, the Nedelin Disaster, has estimates between 50 and "over 100" killed. A Soyuz also exploded on the pad, killing at least 1-5.

Even restricting it to "crew on spaceflight" gets debatable because the X-15 was arguably a space vehicle and its fatal accident occurred on a flight above 50 miles but below 100km.
 
There have been 141 crewed Soyuz missions and 135 Shuttle missions. Hardly "many."

I suspect you knew that. Why are you trying to spin this?



It's hard to tell when to stop counting because people get killed in training and aircraft all the time. People have been killed when cranes failed, dropping rockets.

If we include pad accidents like Apollo 1, then it becomes complicated since the Soviets suppressed the news of theirs and it's difficult to get a consensus. The most serious, the Nedelin Disaster, has estimates between 50 and "over 100" killed. A Soyuz also exploded on the pad, killing at least 1-5.

Even restricting it to "crew on spaceflight" gets debatable because the X-15 was arguably a space vehicle and its fatal accident occurred on a flight above 50 miles but below 100km.

Where you getting that bro?

46 years and 1,804+ launches later (article is from 2013), the Soyuz family (derived from the R-7) holds the record for most reliable by far.
 
Liberals love to use identity politics to discredit socialist movements, nothing new.

Soviets turn a feudal shithole into the World's Other Superpower, and beat us into space -> well they weren't feminist enough.

Cubans overthrow a dictatorship and radically improve the material conditions of the working class -> well they didn't like the gays enough.

The American "left" seems a lot more concerned about their specific identity groups than they are in their economic class, and the wealthy love that shit.
 
We're talking total successful launches vs failed. Doesn't matter whether they were manned or unmanned.

No, that's you failing to move the goalposts.

At any rate, the number of failed R-7 launches probably cannot be determined definitively over the entire history of the system. For at least one period, there were public claims of perfect results while Boris Chertok estimated at least four failures to one success.
 
Soyuz and the STS were not directly competing platforms, they had different purposes and different design philosophies behind them and separated by 10 - 12 years of technological progress. I don't really consider them comparable, but if you must, consider:

Over the course of their service lives, they cost about the same in terms of fatalities-per-launch. With at least one incident, on both sides, being largely attributable to bureaucratic pressure/disregard for life, with higherups demanding a launch be made under adverse conditions when there were dire "don't do it" warnings ignored for the sake of political expediency. (Soyuz 1 / Challenger)

The fact they look and act so radically different is largely down to the circumstances that they were created under, the Western STS was a typical "no-expenses spared next-generation and it's got to work flawlessly" design, the Soyuz an Eastern "crude, the best we could do with the meager funding we got, but so simple that when it breaks you can fix it on-the-fly" design, and at the end of the day, both worked about as well as each other with the accident rate being not some grand flaw in one or the other, but because, well, it's FUCKING HARD to put THINGS IN ORBIT.
 
Liberals love to use identity politics to discredit socialist movements, nothing new.

Soviets turn a feudal shithole into the World's Other Superpower, and beat us into space -> well they weren't feminist enough.

Cubans overthrow a dictatorship and radically improve the material conditions of the working class -> well they didn't like the gays enough.

The American "left" seems a lot more concerned about their specific identity groups than they are in their economic class, and the wealthy love that shit.
It's pretty fucking stunning how shitty new feminist movement is right now.
 
Soyuz and the STS were not directly competing platforms, they had different purposes and different design philosophies behind them and separated by 10 - 12 years of technological progress. I don't really consider them comparable, but if you must, consider:

I'm in agreement. Spaceflight is still incredibly dangerous, and there's no clear single "best launch system."
 
I'm in agreement. Spaceflight is still incredibly dangerous, and there's no clear single "best launch system."

It would've been interesting to see what the Burans could have accomplished had they not had the bad luck to be ready for service just as the USSR died and funding disappeared, literally overnight.

People forget, that first test launch? It launched and landed itself on autopilot the whole way, there was NO CREW on board the whole time.
 
I wonder how did they ever think the Soviet Union was "woke".
Like, they missed all the Ceka/NKVD part and the Great Purges?
And all those gentlemen?
main-qimg-b0185d1521b478a7ecf20c8318b4da94
 
I wonder how did they ever think the Soviet Union was "woke".

It is baffling overall, but ignoring the mass democides and suppression of basic freedoms and so on, I have heard people reference Tereshkova's flight as some sort of triumph for feminism when it was in fact a token publicity stunt which continues to fool a lot of people. So, good on the Atlantic for pointing that out.

Tereshkova was selected for the first flight because she was a parachutist and they believed, correctly, that she would make a good spokesman for the Soviet Communist Party. However, there were certainly some others who had better qualifications as a cosmonaut.
 
Men worked hard and died to get to the Moon only for 50 years later feminists to look back and sneer "But what about usssssssssss!?" rather than see it as a collective achievement for mankind as it was intended.

Most people who have achieved something that is actually important are like this: they consider such achievement as a collective victory. If it's an athlete, it's for the country; if it's a scientific achievement, it's for whoever can use it and benefit from it. Even if they feel it's a personal victory, they honestly feel they've done it for everybody. Such is the proof of a real humble soul.

Alas, Feminists are the ones causing division. Last year, I saw an ad that had two versions, male and female (transphobic, I know): the male version, in Spanish, said a man's achievement was for "todos" (the masculine plural includes both men and women). The female version, though, said a woman's achievement was for "todas", meaning, only women. I'm sure thepeople making the add didn't notice the contradiction and hypocricy, but feminists probably did and didn't mind.
 
There was pretty much no black people in the Soviet Union so of course they will never be woke enough for them.
If there were chances are they were spiggers flown in from Cuba because they had some talent in boxing, judo or soccer and could get a higher quality training (and drugs, lotsa those) to bring back when the Olympics and Pan-American game rolled around.
 
Back
Top Bottom