burton@inuxg.UUCP (Thomas Burton) (03/16/84)
xx <- two footed stomp In the book ( I know this is net.movies, flames off!), what happened to HAL, and what was Bowman's (and HAL's too?) mission? I felt that the story just dropped them when Jupiter did its thing... My understanding is that they were the in the monolith acting as Watchers over the new life form on (whatever moon it was; you know, the octopus- like things). Just as the first monolith uplifted the apes, HAL and Bowman will do something similar for the (whatever they are). Doug Burton ATT-CP Indianapolis inuxg!burton
hitchens@ut-sally.UUCP (05/04/84)
[Muhammed Ali for D-Con...]
A lot a discussion of 2010 on the net lately. Is Arthur C. Clarke
on the net? I read somewhere a while back that he had access to a
worldwide net thru his satellite dish transmitter, was it ARPA? Are
you out there Mr. C.? If so, keep up the good work.
Ron Hitchens hitchens@ut-sally.UUCP
--------------------------------------------
{Open the pod bay doors Hal...}rh@mit-eddie.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (11/06/84)
Well, I got to see a trailer for this flick just this weekend. It didn't say anything new about the release time (which is sometime in December, last I heard). Peter Hyams is still the director. It has Roy Scheider (sp?) and John Lithgow in it. I don't know how closely they are going to follow the book, but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to have read the book before you see the movie (if it's anything like 2001...). Looks like it should be pretty good. (But then, so did 'Thief of Hearts,' from the trailer...). -- Randwulf (Randy Haskins); Path= genrad!mit-eddie!rh
lwe3207@acf4.UUCP (12/08/84)
<skjdf> *Snore* The best part about this flick was the Russian space ship set and Chandra. No, he isn't Indian, like he ought to be, but he is an excellent imitation of an AI type. Even if the terminal in his office looked like an ADM3A manufactured in the Land of Oz. -- no cute signoff --
pearse@hound.UUCP (S.PEARSE) (12/12/84)
I must admit, I was disappointed with the book first. It was very slow, with poor character development for a writer of Clarke's supposed stature. I was gambling the movie would be an improvement. Nope. They should have left the masterpiece untarnished. Steve Pearse ihnp4!hound!pearse
kevin@voder.UUCP (The Last Bugfighter) (12/14/84)
> They should have left the masterpiece untarnished.
They have, they just messed up it's offspring somewhat.
--
Kevin Thompson {ucbvax,ihnp4!nsc}!voder!kevin
"It's sort of a threat, you see. I've never been very good at them
myself but I'm told they can be very effective."jsoc@lasspvax.UUCP (John Socha) (12/14/84)
In article <> jackh@zehntel.UUCP (jack hagerty) writes: > >...I've decided that Hyames reputation for >playing fast and loose with scientific credibility is intact. > Hyames seems to have gotten some things right in the film that I wouldn't have thought of, like the ring around Jupiter. Yet some of the more "obvious" things he seems to have missed. Like the following: The Leonov reversed it's direction when they got to Juptier while the center section was still spinning. If you've ever tried to rotate a gryoscope, you've discovered that you can't simply rotate an object that's spinning. I think they should have stopped the spin of the central module before turing the Leonov around. But then again, the fighters in Star Wars flew around like airplanes instead of space-craft, and that was quite fun anyway. So perhaps we'll just have to wait until the screen writers can figure out how to make realistic scenes fun. John Socha {cornell}!lasspvax!jsoc
linwood@jett.UUCP (12/15/84)
.
I thought it was excellent and everyone should see it. There is nothing
violent in it and it should be a good movie for the whole family especially
if you have already seen "2001: A Space Odyssey"
- Linwood Varney (Jett Unix System, Huntsville, AL)
{ihnp4|akgua}!jett!linwooderic@milo.UUCP (Eric Bergan) (12/17/84)
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.) -- eric ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!milo!eric
ded@aplvax.UUCP (Don E. Davis) (12/18/84)
> > 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.) > > -- > eric > ...!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!milo!eric Well, Eric, my son Mark is heavy into 2nd grade astronomy, so I put your question to him. He glanced up from his differential equations and said, "Gee, Dad, everyone knows that the average radius of Earth's and Jupiter's orbits are 1.4957E8 km and 7.7814E8 km, respectively, so, ignoring Aphelion and Perhelion for now we have a min and max separation of 6.29E8 and 9.28E8 km. Therefore, at 300,000 km per second, radio waves would require about 70 to 104 minutes to make the round trip. If you want a more precise value, you'll gonna have to wait 'til I enter 3rd grade." I hope this answers your question. It might even be accurate. -- Don Davis JHU/APL ...decvax!harpo!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!ded ...rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!aplvax!ded
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (12/19/84)
> > 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.) > > eric This would be a half-hour after receipt of the message on earth. It would take a half-hour for the message to reach earth, also. This also holds in earth-Jupiter transmissions. Marcel