okamoto@ucbvax.ARPA (Jeff Okamoto) (01/09/85)
An anonymous person posted: > This *GARBAGE* about "2010" and "Dune" light switches, cloud > cover, Pan Am posters and the like is ruining this net! > .... I realize that my age is probably higher than > that of the average user of this net..... > .... I would hope that > this "Me Too, Me Too!" mentality that is being displayed in these postings > does not belong to people who actually have positions that influence > a product or service. > > So, to put it simply, MOVE THIS JUNK TO NET.FOLLOWUP. Thank you. (hiss...) To this person: The solution is simple. When you see an article about 2010, Dune, or any other movie you consider "*GARBAGE*", just don't read it. Let the rest of us post in peace. > From: cmaz504@ut-ngp.UUCP (Steve Alexander) > > Another mistake ... is the lone EVA pod in the > docking bay of Discovery. I had always thought that there were only 3 > and if one was lost with Frank Poole, another when Bowman had to enter > the ship manually (ahem) and the last when Bowman heads toward the > monolith then why is that one there? and > From: mfc@hp-pcd.UUCP (mfc) Mark F. Cook > > One pod in the pod bay should not be a mistake. However if the > pod in the bay still had it's door in place (I saw the movie my- > self and didn't notice) then that would be a mistake. In the > book, Clarke says that after re-entering the Discovery and dis- > connecting HAL, Bowman retrieved the 2nd pod by remote control > and then used the 3rd pod to explore the monolith. The pod we > saw in the pod bay in the movie should have been that 2nd pod. Well, the pod in the bay of Discovery should NOT have a door. In the book it is mentioned that he brought the pod back in after lobotomizing HAL and that he didn't have any time to re-attach a new door. Sigh. > From: cmaz504@ut-ngp.UUCP (Steve Alexander) > > The suit without the helmet in the > docking bay may also be a blooper (shouldn't it be a helmet without a > suit?) but I haven't seen 2001 in awhile. I think the reason that the suit doesn't have a helmet is because that is the suit from which Bowman got his helmet from after his entry back into Discovery. > From: sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) > > Speaking of technology, wasn't anyone else dismayed at the 1950's level > of user-interface on the Leonov: buzzes, whistles and all sorts of gee-gaws, > and row upon row of SWITCHES! I believe that in the book Clarke mentions that for certain applications, the feel of a button or a switch is preferable to touch pads. I do agree that there are too many of them there though. > From: jackh@zehntel.UUCP (jack hagerty) > > 1) Aerobraking - > Even so, there were several major problems with the way Hyames > portrayed it. > he, and the frightened Russian girl, would have been standing > upside down on their necks during the entire sequence. I agree completely, though, visually, it was a stunning bit of work. > > 2) Political subplot - > It is well documented that both American > and Soviet crews have disobeyed direct orders from ground controllers if > they considered them to be arbitrary or of low priority. Really? Could you mail me some examples? > > 3) Gravity Problems - These are so numerous as to be one continuous mistake. YES! Peter Hyams does not understand the effects of free-fall. (See below) > > 4) Odds and Ends - > The Leonov, accelerating at 1/10 g, being able to outrun the shock > front from an imploding star ("Warp factor one, Mr. Sulu"). They didn't. It hit them, remember? Plus I don't remember seeing anything that said that Leonov had only 1/10 g acceleration. I do remember that that was what Discovery's acceleration was. though. > From: mfc@hp-pcd.UUCP (mfc) Mark F. Cook > Newsgroups: net.movies > > What makes you think there was gravity in the pod bay? Did you > actually see anything react to gravity (i.e. fall from mid-air to > the floor)? No. What you saw were a bunch of people using the > same 3-dimensional reference to each other, keeping their feet > firmly placed in that same "floor". > > Haven't you ever hear of velcro? NO! This is my major complaint with the gravity sequences. There are definite problems with making this assumption. Recall Skylab. In the kitchen area, a table was provided like those you see in RV's. But, in microgravity, the human body tends to like to remain fairly straight, with arms hanging slightly forward. The astronauts' biggest complaint was with that table and the "benches". They simply could not maintain that sitting position and, in fact, their abdominal muscles were the only ones to come back stronger than before they left! Think of that when you look at the movie. > From: kevin@voder.UUCP (The Last Bugfighter) Kevin Thompson > > > 2) John Lithgows walk in space ("Pant Pant!"). Come on, you think anyone > > responsible for Discovery's design and construction hasn't been > > spacewalking around the Earth or Moon for most of his time? Really > > stupid. > > I don't think that that's all that valid. How many of the designers of the > Lunar Lander or the Space Shuttle have ever flown in them? If Curnow did indeed oversee most of the construction of Discovery, it makes perfect sense that he WOULD have gone out in space - Discovery was built in space. > From: kevin@voder.UUCP (The Last Bugfighter) > > Yes a new star does appear and if it popped up out > of nowhere there would be problems - but it didn't, the mass of a currently > exsisting object (one which many scientists believe is a failed star due to > insufficient mass) was increased until it collapses inwards and the pressure > ignites nuclear fusion and bingo! and > From: del@dataio.UUCP (Erik Lindberg) > > > > > I thought the monoliths merely increased the *density* of Jupiter, > > not the mass. The observation from the Leonov that Jupiter is shrinking > > would support either idea, though. > > > Actually, the theory is that Jupitor was very close to being a sun > anyway, so only a little upset was necessary to push it over the edge. > The monoliths were supposed to add enough *mass* to cause it to > implode, causing a tremendous increase in *density*. Adding mass to Jupiter to cause it to ignite through fusion would be disastrous to the Solar System. Its mass would have to be increased eleven-fold, increasing its gravity by that much more. Orbits would be perturbed like hell. Incidentally, does anyone know how long the now-ignited Jupiter would burn? Considering it doesn't have all that much mass compared to stars, it seems like it would be a very short time (I know, aske net.astro, not net.movies). > From: phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) > > I haven't seen anyone else mention the Russian maneuvering units. > Am I expected to believe that 25 years from now their EVAs will > use equipment more primitive than what we have NOW? I whole-heartedly agree! Thsose units they were using were more like those you see used underwater. What about our MMU's that have been proven to work by the shuttle astronauts? > From: eric@milo.UUCP (Eric Bergan) > > At the risk of starting another "2010" argument - can anyone tell me > how long it takes for a radio transmission round trip to Jupiter? I seem > to remember ground control getting upset that they hadn't heard a response > to a request sent an half hour earlier. Is this reasonable? (I thought I > remembered a bigger fuss being made over this in 2001.) Actually, the line was, "<name> to Discovery. It's been TWELVE hours since my last transmission!...." > From: pdbain@wateng.UUCP (Peter Bain) > > I don't know whether I remember incorrectly, or whether this is a real > boo-boo. Can someone confirm/deny this? > When Floyd was sitting in > the bridge of Discovery, Dave "drops in". Floyd walks (!) astern to > the corridor, then athwartships (across the breadth of the ship, > parallel to the bridge windows), and > ends up in the pod bay. This means that the pod bay must be beside the > bridge. However, the pod bay is obviously BELOW the bridge. What's up? > (down?) This is something that's plagued me since I saw 2001 for the first time. Does anybody have anything resembling a blueprint of the command module of Discovery? The mdoule seems way too small to contain all the corridors that we see in 2010. Any suggestions? I've tried in vain to come up with my own plan of Discovery to no avail. And now for something of my own: Did anybody notice that the nameplate of the computer (Sal) in Chandra's office actually said "SAL 9000"? Wasn't Sal supposed to be one of the "ground-based 9000's" from 2001? If so, it should be a HAL 9000, not a SAL 9000. What the heck does SAL stand for anyway? Jeff Okamoto okamoto@ucbvax.ARPA ..!ucbvax!okamoto