How did the USSR manage to innovate in an environment characterized by government censorship and high...
Languages that we cannot (dis)prove to be Context-Free
"to be prejudice towards/against someone" vs "to be prejudiced against/towards someone"
Is it tax fraud for an individual to declare non-taxable revenue as taxable income? (US tax laws)
Approximately how much travel time was saved by the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869?
Why not use SQL instead of GraphQL?
How can I prevent hyper evolved versions of regular creatures from wiping out their cousins?
Can a Warlock become Neutral Good?
What are the differences between the usage of 'it' and 'they'?
Why are electrically insulating heatsinks so rare? Is it just cost?
Mage Armor with Defense fighting style (for Adventurers League bladeslinger)
Can I ask the recruiters in my resume to put the reason why I am rejected?
Mathematical cryptic clues
What's the output of a record cartridge playing an out-of-speed record
Test if tikzmark exists on same page
can i play a electric guitar through a bass amp?
I'm planning on buying a laser printer but concerned about the life cycle of toner in the machine
Accidentally leaked the solution to an assignment, what to do now? (I'm the prof)
Can I make popcorn with any corn?
What is the offset in a seaplane's hull?
Finding the repeating unit of polymerisation given two constituent molecules
Fully-Firstable Anagram Sets
How can bays and straits be determined in a procedurally generated map?
Adding span tags within wp_list_pages list items
Is it legal for company to use my work email to pretend I still work there?
How did the USSR manage to innovate in an environment characterized by government censorship and high bureaucracy?
What was the Mantineian form of government and what praise did it receive?In what way and to what extent did the USSR exert influence on Mongolia?What is the difference between NKVD and OGPU (USSR)Why did the USSR preserve the national republics?Why did people in the USSR participate in elections?When and how did the West lose its dependency on the USSR for Titanium?Why and when did countries develop long names that include the form of government?Why did the USSR annex Tannu Tuva?How and when did the border regime change when the USSR broke up?How did the Apollo-Soyuz test project affect the relationship between the USSR and USA during the cold war?
Despite the high bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, some design bureaus still achieved spectacular feats in science and engineering (mostly in defense and aerospace) e.g. Mir space station, Soyuz rockets, Mil V-12, Caspian Sea Monster, Antonov 225 Mriya etc.
Free flow of ideas and criticism are important for innovative ideas to be realized. How did the scientists in these bureaus manage to innovate despite Soviet censorship and bureaucracy. Take for example a scientist disagreeing with the head of a design bureau on a certain design prototype. How was such criticism handled? Or was the best design prototype chosen from a scientist who had more political connections.
soviet-union government
asked 2 hours ago
Kevin MuhuriKevin Muhuri
211
New contributor
Kevin Muhuri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Despite the high bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, some design bureaus still achieved spectacular feats in science and engineering (mostly in defense and aerospace) e.g. Mir space station, Soyuz rockets, Mil V-12, Caspian Sea Monster, Antonov 225 Mriya etc.
Free flow of ideas and criticism are important for innovative ideas to be realized. How did the scientists in these bureaus manage to innovate despite Soviet censorship and bureaucracy. Take for example a scientist disagreeing with the head of a design bureau on a certain design prototype. How was such criticism handled? Or was the best design prototype chosen from a scientist who had more political connections.
soviet-union government
asked 2 hours ago
Kevin MuhuriKevin Muhuri
211
New contributor
Kevin Muhuri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Science was not free from political interference, with terrible examples like Lysenkoism. More examples here. Also it is important between science and engineering...
– SJuan76
1 hour ago
@SJuan76 Those are some very good examples you've given. I guess fundamental sciences were more prone to political ideologies than applied sciences which are closely related to fields of engineering. All my examples are in fact engineering feats.
– Kevin Muhuri
33 mins ago
add a comment |
Despite the high bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, some design bureaus still achieved spectacular feats in science and engineering (mostly in defense and aerospace) e.g. Mir space station, Soyuz rockets, Mil V-12, Caspian Sea Monster, Antonov 225 Mriya etc.
Free flow of ideas and criticism are important for innovative ideas to be realized. How did the scientists in these bureaus manage to innovate despite Soviet censorship and bureaucracy. Take for example a scientist disagreeing with the head of a design bureau on a certain design prototype. How was such criticism handled? Or was the best design prototype chosen from a scientist who had more political connections.
soviet-union government
asked 2 hours ago
Kevin MuhuriKevin Muhuri
211
New contributor
Kevin Muhuri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Despite the high bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, some design bureaus still achieved spectacular feats in science and engineering (mostly in defense and aerospace) e.g. Mir space station, Soyuz rockets, Mil V-12, Caspian Sea Monster, Antonov 225 Mriya etc.
Free flow of ideas and criticism are important for innovative ideas to be realized. How did the scientists in these bureaus manage to innovate despite Soviet censorship and bureaucracy. Take for example a scientist disagreeing with the head of a design bureau on a certain design prototype. How was such criticism handled? Or was the best design prototype chosen from a scientist who had more political connections.
soviet-union government
soviet-union government
asked 2 hours ago
Kevin MuhuriKevin Muhuri
211
New contributor
Kevin Muhuri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
Kevin MuhuriKevin Muhuri
211
New contributor
Kevin Muhuri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
Kevin MuhuriKevin Muhuri
211
New contributor
Kevin Muhuri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
Kevin MuhuriKevin Muhuri
211
asked 2 hours ago
Kevin MuhuriKevin Muhuri
211
211
New contributor
Kevin Muhuri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Kevin Muhuri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Kevin Muhuri is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Science was not free from political interference, with terrible examples like Lysenkoism. More examples here. Also it is important between science and engineering...
– SJuan76
1 hour ago
@SJuan76 Those are some very good examples you've given. I guess fundamental sciences were more prone to political ideologies than applied sciences which are closely related to fields of engineering. All my examples are in fact engineering feats.
– Kevin Muhuri
33 mins ago
add a comment |
Science was not free from political interference, with terrible examples like Lysenkoism. More examples here. Also it is important between science and engineering...
– SJuan76
1 hour ago
@SJuan76 Those are some very good examples you've given. I guess fundamental sciences were more prone to political ideologies than applied sciences which are closely related to fields of engineering. All my examples are in fact engineering feats.
– Kevin Muhuri
33 mins ago
Science was not free from political interference, with terrible examples like Lysenkoism. More examples here. Also it is important between science and engineering...
– SJuan76
1 hour ago
Science was not free from political interference, with terrible examples like Lysenkoism. More examples here. Also it is important between science and engineering...
– SJuan76
1 hour ago
@SJuan76 Those are some very good examples you've given. I guess fundamental sciences were more prone to political ideologies than applied sciences which are closely related to fields of engineering. All my examples are in fact engineering feats.
– Kevin Muhuri
33 mins ago
@SJuan76 Those are some very good examples you've given. I guess fundamental sciences were more prone to political ideologies than applied sciences which are closely related to fields of engineering. All my examples are in fact engineering feats.
– Kevin Muhuri
33 mins ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The USSR didn't tend to go in for economic competition, but it made good use of intellectual competition and competition for prestige. It was also relatively good at creating organisations that did a specific thing, and kept on doing that.
The competition between the MiG and Sukhoi fighter design offices, for example, was quite significant, driven by rivalry and prestige. They designed pretty good aircraft for far less money than the Western aircraft companies, and kept on doing it until the fall of the USSR meant that the money supply dried up.
In the same way, the OKB-1, OKB-52 and OKB-586 design offices competed fiercely, with different ideas of how the space and missile programmes should be organised. Political influence was important in these rivalries, but it wasn't measured on a single scale, and the virtues of designs were also significant.
The system had some definite flaws. One of them came when one ministry's organisation needed something that the relevant ministry did not produce.
For example, one of the problems with the unsuccessful N-1 moon rocket was the excessive weight of the first stage. That was because the USSR did not make aircraft-grade aluminium in thicknesses greater than 13mm. That wasn't thick enough to make a first stage whose outer skin was also the wall of the propellant tanks. So the tanks had to be spherical to make them stronger, and the rocket needed a separate outer skin for streamlining. That weight disadvantage meant that all kinds of other things had to be pared to the bone, the rocket needed extra stages, and things got harder and harder from there.
answered 1 hour ago
John DallmanJohn Dallman
17.3k35783
4
This is a great answer, though it's probably worth noting that command innovation tends to do the predictable well, but is pretty bad at the genuinely new. The one scientific area where the USSR really excelled and genuinely innovated was in mathematics and mathematical physics -- otherwise, their greatest strength (and it was great) was in engineering.
– Mark Olson
1 hour ago
Thanks for the additional info on the N1 rocket. I already knew certain technical difficulties prevented them from building large cylindrical tanks but I did not know what it was specifically. But overall, a trip to the moon in the 1960s required so many technological developments that they would literally have to start from scratch just like the US. In the US, the Moon project received a lot of political support and funding but in the USSR it didn't receive enough of either.
– Kevin Muhuri
19 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "324"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Kevin Muhuri is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f51978%2fhow-did-the-ussr-manage-to-innovate-in-an-environment-characterized-by-governmen%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The USSR didn't tend to go in for economic competition, but it made good use of intellectual competition and competition for prestige. It was also relatively good at creating organisations that did a specific thing, and kept on doing that.
The competition between the MiG and Sukhoi fighter design offices, for example, was quite significant, driven by rivalry and prestige. They designed pretty good aircraft for far less money than the Western aircraft companies, and kept on doing it until the fall of the USSR meant that the money supply dried up.
In the same way, the OKB-1, OKB-52 and OKB-586 design offices competed fiercely, with different ideas of how the space and missile programmes should be organised. Political influence was important in these rivalries, but it wasn't measured on a single scale, and the virtues of designs were also significant.
The system had some definite flaws. One of them came when one ministry's organisation needed something that the relevant ministry did not produce.
For example, one of the problems with the unsuccessful N-1 moon rocket was the excessive weight of the first stage. That was because the USSR did not make aircraft-grade aluminium in thicknesses greater than 13mm. That wasn't thick enough to make a first stage whose outer skin was also the wall of the propellant tanks. So the tanks had to be spherical to make them stronger, and the rocket needed a separate outer skin for streamlining. That weight disadvantage meant that all kinds of other things had to be pared to the bone, the rocket needed extra stages, and things got harder and harder from there.
answered 1 hour ago
John DallmanJohn Dallman
17.3k35783
4
This is a great answer, though it's probably worth noting that command innovation tends to do the predictable well, but is pretty bad at the genuinely new. The one scientific area where the USSR really excelled and genuinely innovated was in mathematics and mathematical physics -- otherwise, their greatest strength (and it was great) was in engineering.
– Mark Olson
1 hour ago
Thanks for the additional info on the N1 rocket. I already knew certain technical difficulties prevented them from building large cylindrical tanks but I did not know what it was specifically. But overall, a trip to the moon in the 1960s required so many technological developments that they would literally have to start from scratch just like the US. In the US, the Moon project received a lot of political support and funding but in the USSR it didn't receive enough of either.
– Kevin Muhuri
19 mins ago
add a comment |
The USSR didn't tend to go in for economic competition, but it made good use of intellectual competition and competition for prestige. It was also relatively good at creating organisations that did a specific thing, and kept on doing that.
The competition between the MiG and Sukhoi fighter design offices, for example, was quite significant, driven by rivalry and prestige. They designed pretty good aircraft for far less money than the Western aircraft companies, and kept on doing it until the fall of the USSR meant that the money supply dried up.
In the same way, the OKB-1, OKB-52 and OKB-586 design offices competed fiercely, with different ideas of how the space and missile programmes should be organised. Political influence was important in these rivalries, but it wasn't measured on a single scale, and the virtues of designs were also significant.
The system had some definite flaws. One of them came when one ministry's organisation needed something that the relevant ministry did not produce.
For example, one of the problems with the unsuccessful N-1 moon rocket was the excessive weight of the first stage. That was because the USSR did not make aircraft-grade aluminium in thicknesses greater than 13mm. That wasn't thick enough to make a first stage whose outer skin was also the wall of the propellant tanks. So the tanks had to be spherical to make them stronger, and the rocket needed a separate outer skin for streamlining. That weight disadvantage meant that all kinds of other things had to be pared to the bone, the rocket needed extra stages, and things got harder and harder from there.
answered 1 hour ago
John DallmanJohn Dallman
17.3k35783
4
This is a great answer, though it's probably worth noting that command innovation tends to do the predictable well, but is pretty bad at the genuinely new. The one scientific area where the USSR really excelled and genuinely innovated was in mathematics and mathematical physics -- otherwise, their greatest strength (and it was great) was in engineering.
– Mark Olson
1 hour ago
Thanks for the additional info on the N1 rocket. I already knew certain technical difficulties prevented them from building large cylindrical tanks but I did not know what it was specifically. But overall, a trip to the moon in the 1960s required so many technological developments that they would literally have to start from scratch just like the US. In the US, the Moon project received a lot of political support and funding but in the USSR it didn't receive enough of either.
– Kevin Muhuri
19 mins ago
add a comment |
The USSR didn't tend to go in for economic competition, but it made good use of intellectual competition and competition for prestige. It was also relatively good at creating organisations that did a specific thing, and kept on doing that.
The competition between the MiG and Sukhoi fighter design offices, for example, was quite significant, driven by rivalry and prestige. They designed pretty good aircraft for far less money than the Western aircraft companies, and kept on doing it until the fall of the USSR meant that the money supply dried up.
In the same way, the OKB-1, OKB-52 and OKB-586 design offices competed fiercely, with different ideas of how the space and missile programmes should be organised. Political influence was important in these rivalries, but it wasn't measured on a single scale, and the virtues of designs were also significant.
The system had some definite flaws. One of them came when one ministry's organisation needed something that the relevant ministry did not produce.
For example, one of the problems with the unsuccessful N-1 moon rocket was the excessive weight of the first stage. That was because the USSR did not make aircraft-grade aluminium in thicknesses greater than 13mm. That wasn't thick enough to make a first stage whose outer skin was also the wall of the propellant tanks. So the tanks had to be spherical to make them stronger, and the rocket needed a separate outer skin for streamlining. That weight disadvantage meant that all kinds of other things had to be pared to the bone, the rocket needed extra stages, and things got harder and harder from there.
answered 1 hour ago
John DallmanJohn Dallman
17.3k35783
The USSR didn't tend to go in for economic competition, but it made good use of intellectual competition and competition for prestige. It was also relatively good at creating organisations that did a specific thing, and kept on doing that.
The competition between the MiG and Sukhoi fighter design offices, for example, was quite significant, driven by rivalry and prestige. They designed pretty good aircraft for far less money than the Western aircraft companies, and kept on doing it until the fall of the USSR meant that the money supply dried up.
In the same way, the OKB-1, OKB-52 and OKB-586 design offices competed fiercely, with different ideas of how the space and missile programmes should be organised. Political influence was important in these rivalries, but it wasn't measured on a single scale, and the virtues of designs were also significant.
The system had some definite flaws. One of them came when one ministry's organisation needed something that the relevant ministry did not produce.
For example, one of the problems with the unsuccessful N-1 moon rocket was the excessive weight of the first stage. That was because the USSR did not make aircraft-grade aluminium in thicknesses greater than 13mm. That wasn't thick enough to make a first stage whose outer skin was also the wall of the propellant tanks. So the tanks had to be spherical to make them stronger, and the rocket needed a separate outer skin for streamlining. That weight disadvantage meant that all kinds of other things had to be pared to the bone, the rocket needed extra stages, and things got harder and harder from there.
answered 1 hour ago
John DallmanJohn Dallman
17.3k35783
answered 1 hour ago
John DallmanJohn Dallman
17.3k35783
answered 1 hour ago
John DallmanJohn Dallman
17.3k35783
answered 1 hour ago
John DallmanJohn Dallman
17.3k35783
17.3k35783
4
This is a great answer, though it's probably worth noting that command innovation tends to do the predictable well, but is pretty bad at the genuinely new. The one scientific area where the USSR really excelled and genuinely innovated was in mathematics and mathematical physics -- otherwise, their greatest strength (and it was great) was in engineering.
– Mark Olson
1 hour ago
Thanks for the additional info on the N1 rocket. I already knew certain technical difficulties prevented them from building large cylindrical tanks but I did not know what it was specifically. But overall, a trip to the moon in the 1960s required so many technological developments that they would literally have to start from scratch just like the US. In the US, the Moon project received a lot of political support and funding but in the USSR it didn't receive enough of either.
– Kevin Muhuri
19 mins ago
add a comment |
4
This is a great answer, though it's probably worth noting that command innovation tends to do the predictable well, but is pretty bad at the genuinely new. The one scientific area where the USSR really excelled and genuinely innovated was in mathematics and mathematical physics -- otherwise, their greatest strength (and it was great) was in engineering.
– Mark Olson
1 hour ago
Thanks for the additional info on the N1 rocket. I already knew certain technical difficulties prevented them from building large cylindrical tanks but I did not know what it was specifically. But overall, a trip to the moon in the 1960s required so many technological developments that they would literally have to start from scratch just like the US. In the US, the Moon project received a lot of political support and funding but in the USSR it didn't receive enough of either.
– Kevin Muhuri
19 mins ago
4
4
This is a great answer, though it's probably worth noting that command innovation tends to do the predictable well, but is pretty bad at the genuinely new. The one scientific area where the USSR really excelled and genuinely innovated was in mathematics and mathematical physics -- otherwise, their greatest strength (and it was great) was in engineering.
– Mark Olson
1 hour ago
This is a great answer, though it's probably worth noting that command innovation tends to do the predictable well, but is pretty bad at the genuinely new. The one scientific area where the USSR really excelled and genuinely innovated was in mathematics and mathematical physics -- otherwise, their greatest strength (and it was great) was in engineering.
– Mark Olson
1 hour ago
Thanks for the additional info on the N1 rocket. I already knew certain technical difficulties prevented them from building large cylindrical tanks but I did not know what it was specifically. But overall, a trip to the moon in the 1960s required so many technological developments that they would literally have to start from scratch just like the US. In the US, the Moon project received a lot of political support and funding but in the USSR it didn't receive enough of either.
– Kevin Muhuri
19 mins ago
Thanks for the additional info on the N1 rocket. I already knew certain technical difficulties prevented them from building large cylindrical tanks but I did not know what it was specifically. But overall, a trip to the moon in the 1960s required so many technological developments that they would literally have to start from scratch just like the US. In the US, the Moon project received a lot of political support and funding but in the USSR it didn't receive enough of either.
– Kevin Muhuri
19 mins ago
add a comment |
Kevin Muhuri is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Kevin Muhuri is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Kevin Muhuri is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Kevin Muhuri is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to History Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f51978%2fhow-did-the-ussr-manage-to-innovate-in-an-environment-characterized-by-governmen%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Science was not free from political interference, with terrible examples like Lysenkoism. More examples here. Also it is important between science and engineering...
– SJuan76
1 hour ago
@SJuan76 Those are some very good examples you've given. I guess fundamental sciences were more prone to political ideologies than applied sciences which are closely related to fields of engineering. All my examples are in fact engineering feats.
– Kevin Muhuri
33 mins ago