Skip to main content

For whom was the space race significant? Was it significant in the short term or long term?

The Space Race was significant for many countries both in the short term and in the long term.


In the short term, the Space Race was very significant for both the United States and the Soviet Union.  For the Soviet Union, the early part of the Space Race was a source of pride.  They were able, as the supposedly more backward country, to keep up with and even defeat the United States in the race to put something in orbit.  Conversely, for the United States, it was a cause for fear and anxiety.  It made Americans fear that they were falling behind the Soviets.  This spurred, among other things, a boom in funding for science education and a concerted effort to compete more vigorously in the Space Race.  Later, the Space Race became a source of pride for the US as the country won the race to put men on the moon.


In the long term, the Space Race has been significant for the entire world.  It led to the creation of huge missiles that can deliver nuclear weapons around the world.  This has made people feel less safe as the specter of nuclear warfare has hung over us.  On the other hand, it also spurred the creation of communications satellites, which have given us the ability to communicate easily around the world and which have also brought about technology, like the GPS, that we use every day.  We can also argue that, in the long term, the Space Race helped to win the Cold War for the US.  We can say that it helped force the Soviet Union to spend more than it could afford on things other than consumer goods.  This helped make Soviet citizens dissatisfied with their regime and helped cause the collapse of that country.  In these ways, the Space Race was significant for people in many countries in both the long term and the short term.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more