Shackleton Crater, possible container for ice. NASA plans a risk maneuver midflight. Will they land successfully or not...? All credits go to Sony and Apple.
But this is in fact, essentially a rewrite. This is how Hollywood would prefer history had happened - with women in Mission Control, and women in the space craft. This was completely impossible at the time, and therefore makes this series unbelievable. But hey, Hollywood is not shackled by needing to be realistic. They can do whatever they want. If you lived through that time period though, the suspension of disbelief is difficult to maintain when watching this.
@@brians9508You also cry for Man in the High Castle or Bridgetown? Is not meant to be accurate, for that you watch a documentary. You take "what if" shows so serious. You cannot rewrite history if creators explicitly state that is only a reimagined version or a fantastic/highly improbable scenario. Jada Pinkett was trying to do that, Moore doesn't.
So, why why why? Maybe come up with an alternative apollo number and don't use an actual mission number! Maybe call it Hermes 15. The question I have is why to do this and on a major network? Why why why? For FN sake it is rewriting history. But maybe the fact that most Americans don't have a clue of history or for that matter reality (Ukraine war losing, Gaza genocide, Syria occupation,...) rewriting history doesn't make any difference. 😂 Lol
@@MarkMcelligottPeaches The show is about how the Apollo program changes after the Soviets landed, one of those changes is women playing a larger role in NASA after the Soviets put a female cosmonaut on the moon. The crew on this mission in the show was originally all men but the chief of the astronaut office threw in Molly Cobb last minute because of the woman the soviets landed. TBH all of the big changes like that are treated with a lot of weight (original crew conflicting with Cobb because she replaced their friend) and it makes the show really good.
@@MarkMcelligottPeaches what do you mean major network. This show is from Apple’s streaming service and its alternate history like Man in the High Castle. Most of the timeline changes in the show makes sense for the most part only in the latest seasons have the writers asked the audience to believe so truly unbelievable things.
Immortal words: “ I have never wanted a cigarette 🚬 more in my entire life.” Molly “ That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” Neil Armstrong
The inabiliity of some people to grasp the concepts of 'fiction' and 'alternate events',taking it for an attack of their own opinions, is both concerning and not surprising given the most recent US political years.
@@PixYann I don't think you understand the meaning of the word propaganda and how pop culture and pop entertainment have been abused by tyrants throughout history to manipulate the population.
Watch from the beginning. In this series Russia is first to the moon. Nothing about wokeness. A very good programme and a different angle on the space race
Nothing about wokeness? What is that woman doing in Mission Control, and the other woman in the spacecraft in the 1970s? If that is not wokeness, I don't know what is. It is not unusual to see that these days, certainly, and thank goodness for that. But in the 60s and 70s? Never. Making the 70s woke is hilarious.
@@brians9508please, Poppy Northcutt was a working in mission control since apollo 8 in real life. Even before the series portrait of Margo. Geraldine Cobb was a NASA consultant since 1961 and before that part of mercury 13. Sally Ride was at the very least a divorced Bisexual, the first American women in space. That you couldn't see it don't mean it never happened.
@@ACS2 yes, all of that is true, but you are naming very rare exceptions and irl these people did not rise to nearly the level of importance that women are portrayed in the show. Northcutt and Cobb worked at NASA and in mission control, but not sitting at a dedicated console in the front of mission control!!!! That would have NEVER happened in 1969. They were engineers that played a very minor role in comparison to the women in the show. Sally Ride was the first US woman in space in . . . yes, that's right . . . 1983. Certainly not 1969 - again, that would have been impossible. If they are going to have a show with an alternate history, that is great - but at least attempt to make it somewhat realistic.
@@brians9508 but realism was never the main drive of the series. It was about plausible setting for an idealistic story. That's why it's a sci-fi drama. The moment Sergei Korolev not only did survive but in just 3 years solve the N1 rocket, settle internal feud, and get enough budget to get a man on the moon before America is enough background to notice wishful thinking; not as a flaw but, a symbol of what this show aim.
this is a tv show in reality the thrust of the lunar module’s engine was incredibly low on top of this the engine would be shut off a meter or two from the surface also in a vacuum they exhaust of the engine is spread out at a 90 degree angle from the nozzle as soon as it exits the nozzle
So, you don't believe science...because the more authoritative reference is a TV show, right? Descent thrust on the LEM - the only true space ship - was throttleable from its rated maximum, about 10,125 lb, down to almost 10% of that at Touchdown/Contact Light. Thrust occurs in the combustion chamber - not at the 59 inch engine bell rim - where that thrust exhaust is shared across the rim area of 2,700 sq. ins. Go ahead and do the calculation then tell me what you get per square inch at the rim. Not huge, is it? That exhaust is then dissipated further by the vacuum and Entropy - this is why the dust sheet disappears at Engine Off - no air currents for it to swirl in, so it just flies from the surface in a long and very gentle ballistic curve. I think the people who could engineer repeated 100% successful Saturn V launches without even an engine loss, were capable of organising a crater if they thought that was a natural consequence of descent thrust. The reason they didn't, is because it isn't. Plus, one of the first things commented on by Armstrong on the surface was the lack of a crater and the radial pattern of disturbance from the exhaust which did interact with the regolith. Three separate independent technical studies of Apollo films relating to regolith ballistics have been published. All conclude that Apollo films were shot in vacuum and one-sixth gravity. This is also proven by the Apollo 14 SEQ Bay Pendulum, an accidental occurrence which can only be explained by a lunar location and several pages of complex mathematics. _You're welcome._
3:54 ...i like space movies but...this is nothing but a piece of ...💩💩💩...This is blasphemy folks !!!... I can't understand why in the world if played in the alternative time-line the producers haven't changed the iconic names like Apollo to something like Endeavor or something....🤮🤮🤮...or they did this to us on purpose ???
Because Apollo was around when it diverged from our timeline. It's like if NASA were to have randomly changed the name of the Gemini program halfway through it.
@@altchannel5095....🙄🙄🙄.you are right bro. For a moment I was worried that people paying millions of dollars for the making of such movies are driven solely by nobel ideas . They are absolutely beneficial in their intentions towards us and don't want brainwashing us by crapping on historical moments like the Apollo program was for Mankind....📺📺📺
@@Jogeta5a great show but a lot of comments are beyond stupid. It’s a television 📺 series not reality 😂 it’s scary that so many people are this stupid 😂
It’s not a historical show. The premise is how the space race might have gone if Nikita Khrushchev, First Secretary of the USSR Communist Party hadn’t died. He was a major proponent of space, and his death Derailed the USSR space program. We also didn’t have a permanent base on the moon or 500 people living on mars but I don’t see you complaining about that happening in the show.
