Review: For All Mankind Offers an Alternate History of Moon Exploration
What if Russia had landed on the moon before the United States?

For four seasons, Apple TV+'s For All Mankind has presented an alternate history of the space race, starting in a world where Russia, not America, put the first person on the moon. That single incident creates a domino effect on history: In the first season, set in the 1960s and '70s, the United States allows women into the NASA pilot program. In the 1980s, both America and Russia build small manned bases on the moon. By the 1990s, American and Russian space programs are competing not only with each other but with private space tourism efforts, including a massive orbital hotel.
In the fourth season, set in 2003, the U.S., Russia, a private space exploration company, and North Korea have set up a joint settlement on Mars. But tensions run high when the workers revolt, staging a strike just as an asteroid ripe for mining drifts through the solar system. There are black market operations and an illegal speakeasy, high-stakes geopolitical negotiations, and deadly outer-space operations. The show presents space exploration, under whatever national or corporate aegis, as risky, difficult—and gloriously necessary for the growth of humanity.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "For All Mankind."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"For All Mankind" sounds like some nerdy socialist's pipe dream.
We haven't built moon bases because there is no point to it: there are no currently useful resources on the moon that are not cheaper available elsewhere.
Space exploration and exploitation hasn't been held back by a lack of women either. If anything, it has been held back by a lack of smart robots.
"For All Mankind" is some nerdy socialists' pipe dream.
The first season was entertaining, mostly because it wasn't too far-fetched. There really was a group of women selected as possible astronaut candidates but, they couldn't meet the same grueling standards set for the men. Also, someone realized that having men die in the space program was bad enough for PR; having a woman die would be catastrophic. The US wouldn't be able to cover it up like the Soviets did. So, the idea was dropped. But, it still made for an interesting hypothetical.
As the series progressed through later seasons, it moved further away from reality. The Soviets got to the moon first, which history has shown was extremely unlikely based on the Soviets' own records. Then, water ice was discovered on the moon, something that only happened thirty years after the events in the show. Finally, the show went woke, with gay and lesbian characters - one of whom goes on to be the first female vice-president, in the 80's no less. Again, this didn't happen until 2020.
Season 3 was about a race to Mars, which the major powers believed was between NASA, the Soviets and a private space company. However, [SPOILER ALERT] when they get there, they discover the North Koreans have beaten them by sending some poor sucker on a one-way trip. By this point, the show had become truly ridiculous. North Korea still doesn't have anywhere near the ability to send someone to the Moon, let alone Mars.
The 4th season is largely about the politics of space colonization and, to be quite honest, much of it is quite boring. The writers completely gloss over the many trillions of dollars/rubles this whole exercise in flag-planting would have cost by having a McGuffin asteroid appear that would, when mined, supposedly recoup all the money spent to this point. The only way to do this is to send the asteroid to Earth, nevermind the potential risk this hare-brained idea would entail. But, [SPOILER ALERT] some of the Martians decide to hijack the asteroid and keep it for themselves.
The season ends at this point, with none of the Martians being charged with treason or piracy. The final shot insinuates that the Mars colony continues on, as if nothing bad has happened, mining the asteroid for their own benefit - while the 8 major powers that funded the whole thing get to suck lemons. It was a very unrealistic and unsatisfactory end, in my opinion.
I'm not even going to mention all the technical flaws in the show, that demonstrated repeatedly how little the writers actually understand about the dangers of living in space. Yes, some characters died in ways that were realistic but, given that the bases were all built above ground, many more people would have died in real life if it was done that way.
The whole show was one giant piece of propaganda to sell the lie: "Look how easy it would be if we all worked together!" It's only easy because, they are doing it in a studio and it's a hell of a lot cheaper too.
" there are no currently useful resources on the moon that are not cheaper available elsewhere."
There is lots to be had on the moon, just as there has been lots to be had in low earth orbit and geo synchronous. The question will forever be whether or not the cost of accessing those resources and capabilities is higher than the benefits.
The greater problem has been that the US (the dominant market maker, after the moon landings) decided to nationalize the space shipping industry. For 30+ years, while market forces were making everything from air-travel, to freight, to electronics cheaper and more dependable, the US depended on an aging fleet of shuttles.
Once those shuttles could not be relied-upon, it busted the market and the cost of launching has fallen through the floor. It now makes financial sense to throw hundreds of cheap satellites into orbit whose life span in years can be measured on one hand. 20 years ago you'd be laughed out of a board room if you proposed that.
The issue is the supplying of resources to elsewhere in the Solar System. Suppose we have a major space station on one of the Earth-orbit Trojan points. It will be more energy-efficient long-term to get water from the Moon than from the Earth.
I always thought that Bezos tossed away a place in history by not setting up an ESOP or the like. An Amazon warehouse on the moon ,
with puffing panting underpaids racing around in bulky spacesuits is what the world will remember Bezos by. Change that means going somewhere else is not change at all.
It would give the flat-earthers a different villain than NASA.
I tried watching it. Got really stupid really fast. The major theme of female empowerment prevailing over stupid male stereotypes made it just plain unwatchable after several episodes. The main takeaway I got from it was that the authors must really hate men.
Exactly. Muscled through a couple seasons, but just kept getting increasingly foolish. Last episode I watched was when the gay guy came out on a national broadcast from the moon. I think I turned it off before he was done.
The print edition of reason has TV listings?
Never seen the show, I strongly suspect it is unwatchable junk.
But two paragraphs makes a review? WTF reason?
Watched the first four or five episodes then lost interest.
"What if Russia had landed on the moon before the United States?"
Russia did land on the moon before the United States. They accomplished this in in 1959 after several failed attempts. Russians were also the first to land on Venus and Mars, the first to launch a satellite into space, the first to launch a man into space, a female, a dog, and a female dog.
The only interesting fiction written so far speculating about what a moon colony might look like has been Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress." Heinlein was a genius at actually analyzing the economic advantages of the being at the top Earth's gravity well, unlimited vacuum, unfiltered uninterrupted solar energy and severely limited resources otherwise.
Watch "From the Earth to the Moon"..reality trumps woke Apple shit.