Cosmonaut Conspiracy Outreach Gets Live-Action Trailer

We all know the United States faked the moon landing by covering the floors of Universal Studios with cocaine and then tramping through it in slow motion wearing spacesuits. That’s a FACT. But we don’t know the Russian conspiracies of the Space Race. Outreach [official site] is hoping to fix that. It’s a first-person mystery set on a Soviet military space station during the 1980s. You play a cosmonaut who’s been sent up to investigate why the crew have gone silent. When you get there, they are nowhere to be seen. Now the creators have made a live action trailer offering no answers but just more questions.

God dammit, Radomir, you are a LOOSE CANNON. Hand in your space badge.

It’s billed as a realistic zero-gravity recreation of an old space station, with all the technology, environments and tools based on their real-world designs. You’ll be floating around, pushing yourself from one wall to another and grabbing onto handrails to keep yourself from falling off into space. “Your coordination and reflexes are the only protection you have from the void,” we are told.

All the while you need to uncover details about the old crew – their original mission and their motives. It’s also going to feature the voice of Adam Harrington, who you might remember as being the arm-rippingly impatient Bigby Wolf in Telltale’s The Wolf Among Us. Unfortunately, there’s no still actual video of the game as it is played. But here’s a teaser from last year which shows off the inside of the Russian space station.

If anything, I would just be happy to get a Soviet version of ADR1FT, which Alec thought was impressive but also nauseating in all its VR accomplishment. A dirtier, 1980s retelling of an orbital Mary Celeste sounds much more appealing to me than a flickering futuristic HUD and endless vistas of pristine solar panels.

Outreach is being developed by Pixel Spill and is expected to launch some time in 2017.


  1. Penguin_Factory says:

    Damn, between this and Tacoma people who like mysteriously empty space stations (and I am very much one of those people) are spoiled for choice.

  2. DelrueOfDetroit says:

    Off topic but, a game where you have to fake the moon landing could be a fun time. Lots of sneaking around and tying up of loose ends. Kerbal Space Program could do it as an April Fool’s update.

  3. Llewyn says:

    Silly Brendy, they only faked the moon landing footage with cocaine.

    More seriously, I share Umberto Eco’s opinion that the Russians would have known whether the moon landings happened and had an interest in discrediting them if possible.

    But the Americans certainly faked moon landing footage, both photo and video. To not do so, to leave entirely to chance that the real footage would come through when needed, would have been utterly stupid. Cocaine probably featured strongly in proceedings!

    • LennyLeonardo says:

      This is not just tinfoil, it’s Marks and Spencer triple-shine psionic resonance inhibiting tinfoil.

      • Llewyn says:

        Really? What’s tinfoil about stating that I, as I think most rational people do, disbelieve the common conspiracy theory around the moon landings?

        Or perhaps you think that believing that NASA would have taken precautions to ensure they’d have useable footage of the landings to use regardless of technical issues is in the realm of conspiracy nutjobs? The whole Apollo program tried to leave as little as possible to chance.

        Or is it the first line you object to? Perhaps you think I read Brendan’s humorous line and thought “Yes, cocaine! That’s what they used for fake moondust!”?

      • P.Funk says:

        The funny thing is that the Soviets actually are known to have faked at least one live broadcast from the moon on the Luna 10 mission which was supposed to broadcast The Internationale live from lunar orbit. When they went to do it on the day live to Moscow they found out that the device malfunctioned since the test the night before, so they just faked it by broadcasting the successful test broadcast from orbit and nobody was the wiser for 30 years.

    • Koozer says:

      Well that’s a new one. I would ask what the evidence is but I know it would only wind me up.

      • Llewyn says:

        OK, the “certainly” was OTT. I wasn’t entirely serious about any of it, as I thought the repeated references to Brendan’s cocaine comment might hint.

        That said, it would seem unlikely that, thorough as NASA were in most regards, they’d have left it to chance that the broadcasts and images from Apollo 11 would come through successfully and risk having nothing to show for it. After all, both the American and Russian space programs were as much about propaganda as scientific advancement.

        I suppose my underlying point is that even if some of the landing footage we’ve seen is faked – and to be honest I’ve never cared enough to look for all the alleged flaws – all it would show is that landing footage was faked, not that the landings were. If anything, it’s an inverse conspiracy theory.

        • Kelvin says:

          I don’t think they made any fake moon landing footage. They didn’t need to. The US was not in the same boat as the USSR when it came to the space race; a failure would just mean another launch, with another rocket. The US was swimming in credit and could afford mistakes and relaunches, whereas the USSR on the other hand was running out of money for domestic issues let alone space.

          Besides, I don’t think it stands up to the “Rich People” conspiracy test.

          Do rich people breath bottled air? No. No chem-trails.

          Do rich people still die of cancer? Yes. No secret cure.

          Do rich people think we landed on the moon? Elon Musk. We landed on the moon.

          • Llewyn says:

            I think you underestimate how incredibly difficult and expensive the Apollo 11 mission was. Yes, a mission failure would have been merely a setback, but there’s a big difference between the entire mission failing and the propaganda objective failing due to a minor issue.

            Failing to land men on the moon in that mission would have been acceptable. Achieving it and having nothing to show for it wouldn’t.

            Your ‘rich people test’ doesn’t seem applicable here – I’m not touting a conspiracy theory, merely claiming that NASA planned things thoroughly.

    • GWOP says:

      Here’s writer/director SG Collins explaining why it was technically impossible in 1969 to fake the moon landing.

      It was literally easier to send a man to the moon than to fake it.