For All Mankind

[phantom000]

I think part of the reason the USA lagged behind the Soviets in the early stages was because in the beginning the USA was more focused on weapons development which was a much more short term goal. When the Soviets launched Sputnik 1 the US did not have any rockets that could put a satellite into orbit because we were more focused on ballistic missiles. Sputnik might have been a political coup for the Soviets and an important milestone in space exploration but its military applications were non-existent, all you could do with it was scientific research as actual ICBMs were still decades into the future.

To match the Soviets the US would have to pool all their scientific and technical resources together into a single institution that would be solely focused on research and development that would have the full support of the military but ultimately would be lead by civilian scientists and engineers, and thus they created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

[clearspira]

Chuck glosses over Ted Kennedy's car accident, and in fairness that isn't what the video is about. But for those of you who don't know, He killed a woman (albeit accidentally) and then fled the scene of the crime. And this wasn't a small momentary bout of forgetfulness. It took him anywhere up to ten hours to come clean as to what happened.

Fleeing a death you caused is a big no, no. It shows huge moral failings of character.

And that is actually the generous interpretation. Because it was also concluded that he must have been driving his car far too recklessly for the road and conditions as opposed to this being a mere simple accident. A man less famous may have been brought up on manslaughter.

I realise that there have been far worse candidates for the presidency since Teddy, but this man was not fit for the big office.

[Orel]

I think part of the reason the USA lagged behind the Soviets in the early stages was because in the beginning the USA was more focused on weapons development which was a much more short term goal. When the Soviets launched Sputnik 1 the US did not have any rockets that could put a satellite into orbit because we were more focused on ballistic missiles. Sputnik might have been a political coup for the Soviets and an important milestone in space exploration but its military applications were non-existent, all you could do with it was scientific research as actual ICBMs were still decades into the future.

To match the Soviets the US would have to pool all their scientific and technical resources together into a single institution that would be solely focused on research and development that would have the full support of the military but ultimately would be lead by civilian scientists and engineers, and thus they created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

It's actually kind of the other way around. One thing to keep in mind about early ICBMs is that, as weapons systems, they kind of sucked. They were inaccurate, and they took hours to fuel up--hours when they were sitting vulnerable in open fields far from cover. Early hydrogen bombs were also really, really heavy--so you needed a gigantic missile to carry one anyway (and you needed a big hydrogen bomb to guarantee a kill because of how inaccurate the missile was). The US lagged behind on ICBM tech because it was immature and unready for the role of nuclear deterrent in 1957, and because the US already had lots of nuclear-capable B-47 (and increasingly B-52) bombers ready to rain fire. The US did not prioritize missile development as a weapon during the Eisenhower administration. Instead, they were already laying the groundwork for spy satellites, which they expected to become relevant in the early 1960s. The CIA as early as 1954 made that a priority, and deployed them in 1959.

The USSR, however, poured resources into getting a first-gen ICBM online because they didn't have another effective way to strike at the US. Their bomber force was smaller and less sophisticated, and crucially could not operate from bases relatively close to the US (unlike American planes flying out of Britain and Japan and Turkey to strike the USSR; Cuba wouldn't fall into their lap for another few years). And because they had to make a big missile to carry the big early-gen bombs, they, intentionally or not, gave themselves a very heavy-weight satellite launcher by 1957. It was only after they had developed the R-7 as a missile that they started looking for other applications for it--like putting a tiny radio transmitter on the tip, or loading a dog into it, or a capsule with a passenger. To put my earlier remark about spy satellites into context, the first Soviet spy satellite would not fly until 1961--and that was actually a repurposed Vostok crewed spacecraft (just replacing the passenger with a camera).

In other words, the USSR was more missile-focused, because they needed missiles to counter the US bomber force, and that gave them an edge in the early part of the space race. The R-7 was still a pretty mediocre weapon system, but it was still better than what the Soviet had before (which was a strategy of saying "ah, not the face, not the face!"). Crucially, the fact that the thing was enormous meant that the Soviets could rack up lots of early Space Race wins by just modifying the basic Semyorka design slightly, whereas the US had to bring entire new rockets online (and why their program visibly fell behind when they reached the limits of what R-7 could do, and then *they* had to wait for new rockets).

There is also a somewhat obscure legal question in the early space race that impacted American decision-making, and the spy satellite goal was at the center of it. Consider: shooting down a foreign plane over your territory is generally not a controversial action. Shooting down a satellite that passes just a few kilometers higher, however, is. Why is that? And did that have to be the case? Imagine if the US had launched the first satellite...and the Soviets raised a diplomatic fuss about a violation of their airspace when the orbit inevitably passed over the USSR. And then a few years later, shot the satellite down. In those days, when space law was uncharted territory, there would have been no precedent saying they were wrong to do so. And spy satellites would have become just as vulnerable as spy planes. This is why the Eisenhower Administration was so obsessed with making sure the first American satellite was launched by a more-or-less civilian agency (they preferred the Naval Research Lab to either the Army or USAF missile agencies--and Von Braun's German history was a factor in that, since he worked for the Army) and was generally understood as a peaceful mission of science--to make the above scenario unlikely. So a large amount of the early American space effort went into a rocket that had no military application whatsoever--Vanguard. (Eisenhower was really a canny political operator; how he managed to spin himself as a wise old detached grandpa in public memory is a mystery to me)

Of course, after Sputnik, that point became moot, since the USSR had launched the first satellite and so enshrined Freedom of Space into international custom (they couldn't very well complain about American satellites over them when the US hadn't complained about Sputnik overflying them). So after the Vanguard team screwed up their attempt, Von Braun finally got his green light. But not before a certain hotshot Massachusetts Senator and a Texan political genius made a career out of calling Eisenhower soft on defense and calling for big changes to address the missile gap...but that's a story for another time.

[Nobody700]

Oh jeez that Nixon and Kennedy pardon line gonna get people mad.

[clearspira]

Oh jeez that Nixon and Kennedy pardon line gonna get people mad.

I dunno about ''mad'' but it is one of history's finest examples of having the right friends at the right time. Frankly, I think it had nothing to do with ''trying to move the country forward''. I particularly like this snippet from Wikipedia:

In a Washington Post story published the night Ford died, journalist Bob Woodward said that Ford once told Woodward he decided to pardon Nixon for other reasons, primarily the friendship that Ford and Nixon shared.

On the plus side, Ford was rewarded with being booted out of the White House by the American public and was replaced by Jimmy Carter. I wasn't alive back then so I can't comment on whether he deserved only one term in office, but his Nobel Peace Prize says all that you need to know about his later life.

And as if to back up my obvious dislike of Ted Kennedy, the man decided in 2001 to award Ford the ''Profile in Courage Award'' for ''doing the right thing'' in pardoning Nixon. Somewhat ironic for a man who fled the scene of an accident ''handing out courage awards'' but sure.

[Makeshift Python]

A Kennedy isn't morally upstanding???

[Nobody700]

Time to make a confession.

While I very much enjoy the For All Mankind review vids... I find the show VERY boring. It's just, it's not stupid... but I don't care for any characters, the timeline changes just are not interesting to me despite their great potential, the whole show just has this malaise of stage acting. Nothing is egregious about the show and the quality of it, it just feels like this should have been a film, not a very long show that kills any interest in the premise because it just becomes very weird boring fanfic from a tech geek.

[phantom000]

Time to make a confession.

While I very much enjoy the For All Mankind review vids... I find the show VERY boring. It's just, it's not stupid... but I don't care for any characters, the timeline changes just are not interesting to me despite their great potential, the whole show just has this malaise of stage acting. Nothing is egregious about the show and the quality of it, it just feels like this should have been a film, not a very long show that kills any interest in the premise because it just becomes very weird boring fanfic from a tech geek.

Meh, I won't argue with you because you are not wrong. A big part of why I watched the first 2 seasons was the alternate history aspect and the early NASA aesthetic, so I will admit its not for everyone. As for it being a film rather than a series, I'm not sure. Season 2 could have worked as a film but you would need season 1 as a foundation so...

But yeah, I think the series should have ended with season 2. The third season just was not worth coming back for and so I am in no hurry to see season 4.

[J!!]

I kind of agree; if not for chuck's reviews, I probably wouldn't have made it to the end of the season.

I dig the technical aspects, the politics, the alternate history, and the problem solving. But the show insists on spending so much time focusing on tedious melodrama with the characters; it's just a slog to get to the good parts.

A person breaking down over the loss of their young child is tragic, but boring. A person breaking down over the loss of their young child, while on the moon, is fascinating.

I have the same problem with Planetes; It's a show I really want to like, because I love the concept, the world building, & the supporting cast. But the two main characters are just so uninteresting that it kills my engagement with the show. And it's not like I don't care about human drama, because I read the comic, which actually focuses more on the two leads, and less on the technical aspects, but just does it much better than the cartoon.


I'm glad I stuck it out with For All Mankind though, because these last two episodes really picked up the pace and kept me on the edge of my seat. Maybe I'll give season 2 a shot.

[phantom000]

I kind of agree; if not for chuck's reviews, I probably wouldn't have made it to the end of the season.

I dig the technical aspects, the politics, the alternate history, and the problem solving. But the show insists on spending so much time focusing on tedious melodrama with the characters; it's just a slog to get to the good parts.

A person breaking down over the loss of their young child is tragic, but boring. A person breaking down over the loss of their young child, while on the moon, is fascinating.

I have the same problem with Planetes; It's a show I really want to like, because I love the concept, the world building, & the supporting cast. But the two main characters are just so uninteresting that it kills my engagement with the show. And it's not like I don't care about human drama, because I read the comic, which actually focuses more on the two leads, and less on the technical aspects, but just does it much better than the cartoon.


I'm glad I stuck it out with For All Mankind though, because these last two episodes really picked up the pace and kept me on the edge of my seat. Maybe I'll give season 2 a shot.

Season 1 & 2, in my opinion, are just great! Season 1 manages to have its own story while also setting up for season 2 which is perfect continuation.

Season 3, not so much. It feels like they wanted to take the series in a new direction but don't really have a plan as to how.