• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

The Moon Is Red: Apple TV does AH.

Feeling a bit wary about Apple's involvement in this kind of project (esp. after Amazon and Man in the High Castle), but the idea is definitely intriguing.
 
Sulemain said:


So, the premise is that the Soviet's land on the Moon first, and the Space Race escalates from there.
Click to expand...


I cannot deny that I just love the basic premise, because it is grounded in such a wonderful insanity, America, simply on the grounds of stubbornly refusing to admit defeat, insisting on going all the way to fucking Mars, no matter the cost, just out of a sense of "We deserve to win because this is America!"
 
I'm cautiously optimistic. The Space Race is such a wonderful mix of high human ideals and incredible national pettiness: I can absolutely believe that the next step would be a race to Mars.

(Which, ITTL, presumably sparks another TV series where the Soviets get there first- the headlines about the 'Red Planet' write themselves.)
 
Makemakean said:
I cannot deny that I just love the basic premise, because it is grounded in such a wonderful insanity, America, simply on the grounds of stubbornly refusing to admit defeat, insisting on going all the way to fucking Mars, no matter the cost, just out of a sense of "We deserve to win because this is America!"
Click to expand...
A more achievable response would probably be a manned Venus flyby, but I can imagine the politicians would only settle for landing on Mars.

It was pointed out elsewhere that there are a lot of problems with the idea of the Soviets making it to the moon first - I did see one realistic take on it on an AH website, but it required a major disaster in the US programme, the Soviets didn't pull it off till the early 1970s, and even then it was a very Soviet affair with landing multiple unmanned capsules because only one of them might work on the way back up, etc.
 
It was pointed out elsewhere that there are a lot of problems with the idea of the Soviets making it to the moon first - I did see one realistic take on it on an AH website, but it required a major disaster in the US programme, the Soviets didn't pull it off till the early 1970s, and even then it was a very Soviet affair with landing multiple unmanned capsules because only one of them might work on the way back up, etc.
Click to expand...

Not easy to have the Soviets on the Moon first, indeed. Main PITA is the insane rivalries between Glushko (prostituting his tremendous engine knowledge to whoever rocket builder is the present Politburo favorite) and the three strong pig of personalities of rocket builders - Yangel, Korolev, and Chelomei.
So much bright people, so much talent wasted.

The most balanced personality among the three is certainly Yangel but past 1960 both Korolev and Chelomei steamrolled him - plus Glusko is lurking in the shadows to crush everybody and take control - OTL it happened in 1974.

Glushko was really holding the entire space program hostage with his engines, to the point that after running afoull with him Korolev had to pick an aircraft - turbojet / turbofan builder - Kuznetsov - to get his separate rocket engines for the N-1. And we all know how BAD this ended.

I never tried my hand at it - first because I like OTL Apollo, secondly because detailed documentation on the Soviet Union lunar program is still lacking (think NASA NTRS + NASA histories)
 
Last edited:
One thing that seems a bit off from the adverts is the American reaction to the Soviet moon landing, which seems closer to Sputnik rather than say...Gargarin where from what I can find the reaction seemed to be more disappointment with a neutral acknowledgement that it was an impressive feat despite the fact the Americans didn’t get there first.

If China went to the Moon in the late sixties I could imagine there being the sort of panic displayed but by then the Soviets were recognised as an equal in the competition and the reaction wouldn’t have been all that surprised.

That said I realise things tend to be more melodramatic by virtue of being on the telly.
 
I think the disappointment might also be because, unlike the race to put a man in space, the US had spent the best part of a decade telling its population that they were going to get to the moon.
I imagine that there'd also be a feeling that once again the country had let down the vision of the martyred JFK. (I don't think the shine had really come off him yet, though I may be wrong.)
Especially given how grim things were getting in part, I can imagine a real sense that the Soviets beating the US to the Moon just showed how the optimism of the early sixties hadn't led anywhere.
 
Charles EP M. said:
I did think that too - I'd expect some depressed reactions but the trailer presents it as a moment of dread horror, like Mount Rushmore rotted to reveal large decaying skulls underneath
Click to expand...
I think it's being emphasized for us in the advertising because it's taking this moment we think we know from history, one of great national and human triumph, and juxtaposing it with the negative response of the people seeing it to build up the feeling of it being wrong before we're confronted with the actual moment it becomes clear.
 
Japhy said:
Clearly how the Soviets get there isn't that important. The story is what matters, its not going to be some rivet counting AH with 120 minutes of discussion about fuel mixtures, thank God.
Click to expand...
That's right. It will be only 60 minutes of discussion about fuel mixtures. The other 60 minutes will be discussion of rocket design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top