For All Mankind (spoilers)

I didn’t come back to thread after I saw those episodes, but fantastic response! LOL

And yeah, my eye rolling went to extremes in that plot line.

I still say that it’s good, but not great. Space stuff has been very interesting, but the home front stuff is not good at all. There seems to be, however, packs of super fans who claim this show is one of the best shows on TV right now… who were indignant it didn’t receive any Emmy nominations. I don’t really get that POV for this show (and I didn’t think it deserved a nom… though of course I don’t think Emily in Paris deserved one either, but…).

It wasn’t ‘stupidly wrong’. Garret Reismann is their technical advisor, and he was asked about it. It came down to a budget problem - they had enough money for a moon base set, or for a new ticket design. Using a Shuttle meant they could use stock footage, and there were sets already built for the interior. Shuttle space suits were also available.

So, they fanwanked that by mentioning on the show that the Shuttle had to refuel in orbit to get to the moon. And that in this alt timeline where there was a moonbasd it may have had other changes like radiation hardened avionics and such. It still wouldn’t work, but they did the best they could. Also, using the shuttle added a connection between the timelines with a spaceship the audience was familiar with.

It’s not hard to imagine that future with a race to a moon base, the requirements of the shuttle might have included ability to go to the Moon. It would have been a very different vehicle, but close enough.

I can accept deviations brought in by the reality of filmmaking. Another example was that it would have been really hard to show astronauts constantly in 1/6g, so they just occasionally showed something to remind viewers of low gravity. That’s just the reality of medium budget filmmaking.

But for an example of how hard they worked for accuracy when they could, the original mission control set was so accurate that they went to the trouble to match the correct paint on the door hinges. The layout was not only the same down to the inch, but every console showed the proper display for that console for each part of a flight. The technical manuals at the consoles were the actual ones they would have used, etc.

Yes, it was. Utterly, moronicly wrong.

“Okay, so we know it can’t,” Garrett Reisman, a former NASA astronaut who flew on the space shuttle, admitted in an interview with collectSPACE.

Reisman, who made a cameo appearance as the commander of the space shuttle Columbia on its way back from the moon, has served as a technical advisor for the series from its start.

“We all pointed out that the shuttle could never actually get to the moon. It had nowhere near enough delta-v,” he said, referring to a change in velocity. “We even did calculations that showed if you filled up the payload bay with hydrazine and fed it to the [orbital maneuvering system] OMS engines, you still couldn’t get to the moon and back without exceeding the payload mass of the orbiter.”

Yes, I said that. There is a difference between not caring about the details and simply not having the budget to do what you want…

Strange hill you are trying to die on here. I will concede that Space Shuttles can’t fly to the moon in our timeline, and a shuttle that could fly to the Moon in the FAM timeline wojkd look very different. It’s stupid to use a shuttle because you have to pay the mass penalty of dragging wings along to an airless world.

The point is that the show tries very hard to get the details right. Not that once in a while they simply have to compromise.

They should have saved even more money and used a VW Bus. After, alt-history VW busses may have been built differently, making them moon-capable.

Or a Winnebago. I once saw a documentary that showed that they were quite space capable.

Hm. I thought of a different documentary.

I think if the show had built a fleet of real space shuttles and a working moon base it still would have been cheaper than whatever the song licensing budget must have been.

I just finished it last night. The premise is great and I had high hopes for it. However, it seems like a day time soap opera. Ninety to ninety-five percent of it is about the interpersonal relationships of the characters (most of whom I don’t find compelling and cannot bring myself to care about) and only a tiny bit is the alt-history.

I hoped it would touch more on the space travel itself, the long term goals, the technology, etc. It seems like they went from “we found ice on the moon” to "now we have an unlimited source of power

I finished it up a few months back and overall enjoyed it. The slow pace didn’t bother me and space shuttles to the moon was 'meh I’ll live with that '. The other production values and attention to detail really helped with a sense of realism, obviously YMMV
As others mentioned the Mrs Robinson plotline was eyeball rolling.
Looking forward to season 3

Who’s president in 1995?

Hasn’t happened yet.

I think they ended in 1983-4ish? And Reagan was ending his second term.

Well, it has happened, the last shot of season 2 was a teaser to 1995. But I mean that question like, “So who do you think they will show is president in 1995?”

I’m just trying to keep the conversation going here, but maybe no-one wants to play that game.

I suspect Ellen, the current NASA boss, will become President.

The show stuck with real-life people at first, because timelines drift apart slowly. For example, Reagan and Kennedy were already national figures when the timeline split, and the show’s changes made a lot of sense. Kennedy was being groomed as future presidential material before Chappaquiddick, so if that didn’t happen it made sense that he would beat Nixon. And without a Republican in the White House Reagan didn’t have to mount a primary challenge - he could run against Kennedy. So it made sense that Reagan would become President four years early.

After that it gets a lot murkier. Bush probably wouldn’t have been his running mate, as there wwre specific reasons Reagan chose him in 1980 even though they disliked each other. Clinton was almost too young for the office for public opinion when he ran, so if a Democrat beat whoever the Republican would be in an open election after Reagan term-limited out, we probably don’t know who it is.

So my guess is that from this point forward the Presidents are likely to be new characters with no analog in our timeline, and the obvious one is Ellen. They’ve been hinting that she was headed for the Presidency for the last season. And it makes sense that in a world with a greatly expanded and necessary space program, a head of NASA would be a good candidate.

Maybe it is a Rooskie on Mars and the commie bastards beat us again. That might change who becomes president. My prediction? And don’t laugh. Donald Trump. Because he is a guy that can get things done like go to Mars! He will build the most beautiful, tremendous Mars rocket ships in the world, guarantee it. Make the Soviet ships look like paper airplanes, I promise you that.

It would be funny if he was trying to tear down walls (Berlin Wall) instead of building them. The producers may go for that. But that’s a WAG.

Apple may want to avoid that controversy with a 10 foot pole. At least for the next few years.

I actually recall reading an article when the shuttle was flying that argued that it could be sent to the moon. But that was a long time ago and I don’t recall any of the technical details. Might have been in Analog or Asimov’s or something like that.

If you launched another full fuel tank to hook up with it, maybe. But that would just get it into orbit, and maybe back. There’s no way it could land.

You can send anything to the Moon if you strap enough fuel tanks to it. But the Shuttle made a spectacularly bad lunar tensfer vehicle, because a large amount of mass you would be hauling to the Moon would be useless there. Wings, landing gear, etc.