mfc@hp-pcd.UUCP (mfc) (12/09/84)
The material covering the Discovery is raw sulfur spewn up from the volcanic activity on Io. If you read any of Voyager findings about the Jovian system, you will recall that a tremendous amount of magnetic and electrical flux constantly exists between Jupiter and it's satellites. It seems logical to me that any metallic object (like a spacecraft) remaining in this type of environment is bound to pick up at least a small surface charge. Since sulfur is not a balanced charge element it is reasonable to assume that it might react to such a surface charge and be electro-magnetically attracted back towards the skin of the Discovery. Mark F. Cook HP-PCD Corvallis, OR ...hplabs!hp-pcd!mfc
cmaz504@ut-ngp.UUCP (Steve Alexander) (12/11/84)
Another mistake in the film (other than Heywood Floyd knowing that the monolith hadn't been discussed with the crew) 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? 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.
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (12/12/84)
As long as we're at it (the "mistakes" are about the most diverting
features of this fiasco) how about the scene when the space-walking
astronauts first approach the docking bay of the Discovery? It's
covered with some kind of space dust, like dirty clay, and one
of their first actions is to brush the surface with their hands.
This space dust is rather earthbound, for it doesn't scatter in a
cloud as you might expect (assuming that dust would settle on a
spaceship anyway) but acts remarkably like the dust on my coffee
table, being attracted to the surface, just like gravity.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPArcb@rti-sel.UUCP (Randy Buckland) (12/12/84)
> As long as we're at it (the "mistakes" are about the most diverting > features of this fiasco) how about the scene when the space-walking > astronauts first approach the docking bay of the Discovery? It's > covered with some kind of space dust, like dirty clay, and one > of their first actions is to brush the surface with their hands. > This space dust is rather earthbound, for it doesn't scatter in a > cloud as you might expect (assuming that dust would settle on a > spaceship anyway) but acts remarkably like the dust on my coffee > table, being attracted to the surface, just like gravity. That is because the dust and the Discovery is electrically charged. The effects between Jupiter and Io produce a great deal of sulfer dust and causes large static discharges between them. Every time Discovery passed between them, it was charged and some dust built up. This is what was causing the orbit to decay. This is all in the book. Read it! Randy Buckland Research Triangle Institute ...!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb
lkt@ukc.UUCP (L.K.Turner) (12/13/84)
Keywords:2010 mistakes <Line Eater : I aint afraid of no mail -> munch...munch...munch...> In article <1115@ut-ngp.UUCP> cmaz504@ut-ngp.UUCP (Steve Alexander) writes: > > ......................... 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? In the book 2010 it explains that after Bowman had finished with HAL , he bought back the pod (The one he lost while entering the ship manually ) under remote control to the pod bay. > .................................... 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 agree , this does seem to be a mistake. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!lkt ( L.K.Turner)
faigin@ucla-cs.UUCP (12/14/84)
In article <1115@ut-ngp.UUCP> cmaz504@ut-ngp.UUCP (Steve Alexander) writes: > >Another mistake in the film (other than Heywood Floyd knowing that the >monolith hadn't been discussed with the crew) 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? I believe that it is that way in the book, and so the film is just being true to the book. As to whether the book is in error, I am not sure. -- | Daniel P. Faigin | (This space intentionally University of California at Los Angeles | left blank) | UUCP: {cepu|ihnp4|trwspp|ucbvax}!ucla-cs!faigin | ARPA: faigin@UCLA-CS.ARPA | USPS (Home): 11743 Darlington Avenue #9 | Los Angeles CA 90049 | (213) 826-3357 |
ron@wjvax.UUCP (Ron Christian) (12/15/84)
*********************Warning! Slight spoiler!!!*************************
On the mysterious "returning" pod:
According to the book, Bowman went EVA and retrieved the
pod he left by the manual entry door. (That means the
one in the movie SHOULD have had the door missing. Did
anyone catch that? I can't remember.) Also according to
the book, the rescue team used this pod by remote control
to examine the monolith. This unmanned pod was the one
that got destroyed when Bowman returned. I guess the director
thought that wasn't dramatic enough. (Let's kill someone off!)
I think Bowman's suit when he disconnected Hal was red, with
a blue helmet. That makes the headless blue suit in the launch
bay the other half. (I may have the colors mixed up.)
I thought the Discovery sets looked cheap. The perspective
was wrong in some cases, like Schnider's first glimpse of
Bowman in the carousel. I heard a rumor that they had to
rebuild the sets from footage of 2001, as the plans and original
sets were destroyed. Can anyone confirm this?
They really screwed up the zero gravity scenes. There is gravity
only in the carousel (in Discovery) or the spinning section of
the Russian ship. Yet you couldn't tell by the way people moved,
objects rested, etc. which part of the ships they were in.
Zero gravity depictation is probably an area where movies like Star
Wars have actually done damage.
Why was the method used to stop the Discovery's spin passed over?
Probably because the director didn't understand it himself. See
above.
The control room of the Russian ship didn't look believable to
me, either. No headrests on the chairs. Lots of protrusions
to bang your head against in (supposedly) zero gravity. Low
resolution graphics on most of the displays. (In 2010???)
I *did* like the Russian launch bay. Aside from the fact that
everyone was standing around, (AAAARRGH!!!) the set *looked*
functional.
I didn't hear anyone else complain about the complete axing of
the Chinese expedition part in 2010 the movie. Like cutting
out half the book. The whole point of the movie was the emergance
of life on Europa, and this point was almost completely passed over.
Hey, did anyone notice the resurgance of 1984 clothing styles
in the year 2010? The apparent fad of wearing antique wrist
watches? How about thirty-five year old calculators? Bah! The
director should be shot.
--
Ron Christian (Watkins-Johnson Co. San Jose, Calif.)
{pesnta,twg,ios,qubix,turtlevax,tymix}!wjvax!ronfetrow@entropy.UUCP (David Fetrow) (12/15/84)
(Insert Witicism Here) Let us not forget however that the sfx involving Heywood were flawed in 2001. The only technical error I remember there was when fluid within a straw he was drinking from went *down* in zero-G. As for the pod still being present in the bay (Betty I believe) in the book (2001) it was recalled before the final odyssey. -Dave Fetrow On a computer that couldn't for a moment be mistaken for SAL
mfc@hp-pcd.UUCP (mfc) (12/16/84)
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. Mark F. Cook HP-PCD Corvallis, OR ...hplabs!hp-pcd!mfc
cmaz504@ut-ngp.UUCP (Steve Alexander) (12/16/84)
Once again someone has mentioned the infamous 'straw' mistake in 2001. Over the years I have heard various things about this - some claim that it is a true error and others say that because of surface tension etc that it really should happen albeit perhaps more slowly. With all the NASA people on the net perhaps someone could suggest that on a future shuttle flight they put the matter to rest once and for all. (if they already have let me know and I'll put myself to rest once and for all).