Over the next few years, the Apollo missions would continue. Apollo 12 sends the second manned mission to the Moon on November 14, 1969, during which time astronauts Alan Bean and Pete Conrad perform two moonwalks (on our natural satellite, not the dancefloor).
Then, on April 11, 1970, the Apollo 13 mission takes off. This mission ends in disaster after 2 days in space when a liquid oxygen tank in the service module explodes, crippling the spacecraft. Luckily, the crew manages to abort the mission and splash down on Earth safely.
Finally, Apollo 17 takes off in 1972, marking the last time human beings have set foot on the Moon. The Soviets, for their part, never will put a cosmonaut on the Moon.
Interpretations of the Space Race vary. With the Lunar landing, it’s easy to stake the claim that the USA won the Space Race. The landing of two humans on the Moon was an extremely complex and risky technological endeavour, requiring an unprecedented amount of expertise, meticulous planning and technological prowess. There is no more iconic image in the Space Race than that of Neil Armstrong on the Moon, and with it, the Americans scored a huge propaganda victory over the Soviets. This has persisted even today; most people tend to interpret the American landing on the Moon as marking their victory in the Space Race.
But more subtle interpretations are also fun to entertain. The anthropologist David Graeber has provocatively described the Moon landings as the ‘Soviet Union’s Greatest Achievement”, arguing that without the external pressure of a rival superpower with an ambitious space exploration project, the USA would never have been spurred on to explore space. The two superpowers worked in tandem in a way, the success of one side encouraging the other to pursue even loftier goals. Graeber’s interpretation is strengthened by the fact that, after the USA emerged from the Cold War as the only global superpower, it has never attempted as ambitious a goal as space travel.
Both Walter A. McDougall, in his famous political history of the Space Age, and Graeber take the argument further. They point out that, to marshal the huge resources, manpower and expertise needed to reach the Moon, the capitalist USA, which on paper claimed that the free market and private enterprise were the best ways to create human flourishing, was forced to adopt the principles of Soviet communism. Instead of a privatised company carrying out the Lunar landings, the USA harnessed the power of the state. When the US government wanted to do something as costly, long-term and ambitious as space travel, big government was needed – top-down, publicly funded (or socialised), operated not within the profit motive that capitalism champions, but for a loftier aim. McDougall called the political apparatus behind the Moon landings a ‘technocracy’, a state-directed vision of scientific progress led by public money and civilian participation rather than the private sector and market forces.
This interpretation asks us to consider the fact that, whilst the USA may have claimed victory in the Space Race, it was forced to adopt some of the techniques and structures of Soviet communism and central planning to get there. If the Space Race is seen as a competition between the ideologies of communism and capitalism to see which belief system could best marshal its nation’s resources and the talent of its citizens, who the winner was is much less clear.
So far, we have seen the stakes of the Space Race become less militarised, and the competitions more good-natured. We have seen the paranoid and volatile post-war arms race evolve into a contest based increasingly on the principles of discovery and technological innovation, with even the occasional friendly gesture between the two powers (i.e Armstrong’s plaque, or Krushchev’s gift to Kennedy). Now, as our story moves into its final chapter, these positive aspects of the Race will deepen, and the two superpowers begin to compete and collaborate on a series of missions intended to establish a semi-permanent human presence in space.