| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Space - History Forum » 40th Anniversary of 2001:A Space Odyssey
Page 1 of 5 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Al |
 Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 5:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Forty years ago today in D.C. .
Technology detected in the film still as good as gold.... but still
probably 50 to 100 years off in the future. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Al |
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 5:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 2, 10:18 am, Al <aa...@flash.net> wrote:
Quote: Forty years ago today in D.C. .
Technology detected in the film still as good as gold.... but still
probably 50 to 100 years off in the future.
Change 'detected' to 'depicted'! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| eyeball |
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 2, 11:27 am, Al <aa...@flash.net> wrote:
Quote: On Apr 2, 10:18 am, Al <aa...@flash.net> wrote:
Forty years ago today in D.C. .
Technology detected in the film still as good as gold.... but still
probably 50 to 100 years off in the future.
Change 'detected' to 'depicted'!
So it's 3 months older then me....and I'll still be lucky to live long
enough to see it happen...
Although rather then Russians to share the moon with it will be
Chinese... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| BradGuth |
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 9:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 2, 10:48 am, eyeball <eyeball2002...@aol.com> wrote:
Quote: On Apr 2, 11:27 am, Al <aa...@flash.net> wrote:
On Apr 2, 10:18 am, Al <aa...@flash.net> wrote:
Forty years ago today in D.C. .
Technology detected in the film still as good as gold.... but still
probably 50 to 100 years off in the future.
Change 'detected' to 'depicted'!
So it's 3 months older then me....and I'll still be lucky to live long
enough to see it happen...
Although rather then Russians to share the moon with it will be
Chinese...
China has the right stuff as is, although perhaps India too has a
sufficient cache of right stuff, at least for either of those
establishing the initial LSE-CM/ISS as our next Oasis/Depot Gateway.
.. - Brad Guth |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| M |
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 2, 11:26 pm, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
Quote: Al wrote:
Forty years ago today in D.C. .
Technology detected in the film still as good as gold.... but still
probably 50 to 100 years off in the future.
The instrument panels in the spacecraft are very similar to what we use
nowadays.
The space helmet visors that darken would also be quite doable nowadays,
although probably via a photocell rather than manual control as their
major means of operation.
I imagine you could dock a Pan-Am spaceliner to a space station the way
it's shown in the movie, but I think a de-spun hanger area makes more sense.
The big question is of course what exactly is the purpose of the big
human presence on the Moon?
Clavius Base is apparently huge, and one suspects the Russians have one
of equal size.
What makes that expendature of time and treasure worth it to the two
countries?
They seem to get along fairly well on the space station, so apparently
it doesn't have something to do with defense, even though both have
their orbital thermonuclear bomb satellites shown (unexplained, like
most of the movie) in the first scenes after the CPFM throws the bone
into the air.
Pat
But a despun hangar would require a lot of machinery to make it rotate
and despin...
What does not hold up in the movie is a lot of logo artwork, like the
Pan Am livery and the old AT&T Bell.
By the way the movie can be viewed online here:
http://www.watch-movies.net/movies/2001_a_space_odyssey/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Pat Flannery |
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Al wrote:
Quote: Forty years ago today in D.C. .
Technology detected in the film still as good as gold.... but still
probably 50 to 100 years off in the future.
The instrument panels in the spacecraft are very similar to what we use
nowadays.
The space helmet visors that darken would also be quite doable nowadays,
although probably via a photocell rather than manual control as their
major means of operation.
I imagine you could dock a Pan-Am spaceliner to a space station the way
it's shown in the movie, but I think a de-spun hanger area makes more sense.
The big question is of course what exactly is the purpose of the big
human presence on the Moon?
Clavius Base is apparently huge, and one suspects the Russians have one
of equal size.
What makes that expendature of time and treasure worth it to the two
countries?
They seem to get along fairly well on the space station, so apparently
it doesn't have something to do with defense, even though both have
their orbital thermonuclear bomb satellites shown (unexplained, like
most of the movie) in the first scenes after the CPFM throws the bone
into the air.
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Al |
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 3, 1:26 am, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
Quote: Al wrote:
Forty years ago today in D.C. .
Technology detected in the film still as good as gold.... but still
probably 50 to 100 years off in the future.
The instrument panels in the spacecraft are very similar to what we use
nowadays.
The space helmet visors that darken would also be quite doable nowadays,
although probably via a photocell rather than manual control as their
major means of operation.
I imagine you could dock a Pan-Am spaceliner to a space station the way
it's shown in the movie, but I think a de-spun hanger area makes more sense.
That is the one thing that makes the most sense, the massive
interconnect of a
spinning outer hub and non rotating inner hub would be complicated and
expensive.
Rotating the space craft would be a logical and cheap way of doing the
docking.
Quote: The big question is of course what exactly is the purpose of the big
human presence on the Moon?
Common currency in modern science fiction prose from the late 30's to
the
present.... and people still dream of it ....think of the O'Neill
cylinder an even
grander concept.
Quote: Clavius Base is apparently huge, and one suspects the Russians have one
of equal size.
What makes that expenditure of time and treasure worth it to the two
countries?
That probably missed the mark, I don't think , even in 1964-1968
anyone had a firm
grasp on how expensive that would be.
Had Kubrick/Clarke extrapolated that it would have been economically
possible as a vast joint
international venture they would have been more on the mark! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Andre Lieven |
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 11:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 4, 5:08 pm, Kevin Willoughby <kevinwilloug...@acm.org.invalid >
wrote:
Indeed. A good home theatre system can do it some justice, but I can
well recall my pleasure at seeing it at the end of 2001 in a 70MM film
house.
In spite of the fact that this was in NYC, just three months after
9/11,
once that curtain went up and the film started, all that just left me
for
well over two hours. Ahh....
Andre |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Kevin Willoughby |
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <heedndKvTq4N92nanZ2dnUVZ_rOqnZ2d@northdakotatelephone>,
flanner@daktel.com says...
Quote: Al wrote:
Forty years ago today in D.C. .
Technology detected in the film still as good as gold.... but still
probably 50 to 100 years off in the future.
The instrument panels in the spacecraft are very similar to what we use
nowadays.
Careful about cause and effect. A while back, I read a story in an IEEE
magazine about how some NASA researchers were developing next-generation
displays based on the panels in the movie.
There are times when the distinction between fact and fiction gets very
fuzzy. (Spinal Tap, for example.)
Quote: I imagine you could dock a Pan-Am spaceliner to a space station the way
it's shown in the movie, but I think a de-spun hanger area makes more sense.
Only from the point of view of the pilot of Orion. From the POV of the
designer of Space Station Five, a de-spun hanger has gobs and gobs of
nasty engineering issues.
Quote: The big question is of course what exactly is the purpose of the big
human presence on the Moon?
Clavius Base is apparently huge, and one suspects the Russians have one
of equal size.
What makes that expendature of time and treasure worth it to the two
countries?
That's simple enough. Both the US and the USSR are mining the lunar
mcguffins. (http://www.essortment.com/all/alfredhitchcoc_rvhd.htm)
--
Kevin Willoughby kevinwilloughby@acm.org.invalid
Kansas City, this was Air Force One. Will you change
our call sign to SAM 27000? -- Col. Ralph Albertazzie |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Kevin Willoughby |
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <224b6e65-6959-4efe-9bc3-
d60b885238fc@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, otakenji@bigvalley.net
says...
The movie was designed to be viewed from a 70mm print, with a 6 channel
sound system. To watch it on a 12" laptop LCD with two dime-sized
speakers just 12 inches apart is kinda like trying to appreciate a fine
meal while being waterboarded.
--
Kevin Willoughby kevinwilloughby@acm.org.invalid
Kansas City, this was Air Force One. Will you change
our call sign to SAM 27000? -- Col. Ralph Albertazzie |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Andre Lieven |
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 5, 12:28 am, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
Quote: Andre Lieven wrote:
Indeed. A good home theatre system can do it some justice, but I can
well recall my pleasure at seeing it at the end of 2001 in a 70MM film
house.
In spite of the fact that this was in NYC, just three months after
9/11, once that curtain went up and the film started, all that just left
me for well over two hours. Ahh....
Saw the whole thing twice in 70 mm film and Cinerama
As far as movies go, it's the cinematographic form of the "The
Emperor's New Clothes".
Spectacular as long you buy into the "revolutionary " aspects of its story.
Other than that, a very expensive and unimaginative version of the
"Forbidden Planet" school of Sci-Fi with a lot less imagination shown in
its plot, portrayal, and story than "The Day The Earth Stood Still" or
"It Came From Outer Space" - both of which managed to pre-describe the
story concept of "2001" with far less screen-time and money spent on
production.
The point is that 2001 blended the Clarkian story with the then
current
NASA no emotion crew images.
Further, it told an SF story in a visual medium where the humans do
not
succeed in interacting or understanding the aliens and their
civilisation
and motives. Its far too conventional a trope of much visual SF that
the
humans and aliens will be able to interact, communicate, and deal with
each other on comparable planes. Yet, the very real possibility also
exists that we won't be able to do with, and that at least some aliens
are
so alien as to give us no real basis for communication.
If for nothing else, 2001 is a valuable addition to the visual SF
patheon
for that very reason. The rest is all gravy, albeit very nice gravy.
Quote: One of the top-ten most over-rated films ever done in American cinema -
by Stanley Kubrick in particular; all of his other movies were
masterpieces that are worth watching time and time again ....or at least
worth watching once (I imagine I've seen "Dr. Strangleove" around 50
times, and immediately go to it or "Jaws" by the flip of a coin every
time I see it running on TV because those are two of _The Great
Movies_ ever done by great American director's in the past century.
Any of Kubrick's other films makes "2001" looking pretty mediocre by
comparison, when viewed with the space-fan blinders off.
I would somewhat disagree with that conclusion, but I do come to 2001
with the SF fan " sensawonda " view. I'm quite pleased to own the 2
DVD
copy.
Andre |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Pat Flannery |
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Kevin Willoughby wrote:
Quote: The instrument panels in the spacecraft are very similar to what we use
nowadays.
Careful about cause and effect. A while back, I read a story in an IEEE
magazine about how some NASA researchers were developing next-generation
displays based on the panels in the movie.
Our present spacecraft and airliners control panel concepts came as an
extrapolation of the the fighter plane control panels of the late
1970's-early 1980's with the idea that the pilot should have a interface
with the instrument panel that required him to take his hands off of his
throttle and control stick as little as possible, and be able to read
all critical aircraft operating status items while looking at the
instrument panel as little as possible, so he could keep his eyes up and
scanning the sky for threats as much time as possible.
This meant a multifunction CRT or LCD display at the center top of the
control panel made sense.
On the other hand, the layout of the bridge of the starship Enterprise
is a dead ringer for the SOAS (Submarine Operational Automation System)
proposed by Martin-Marietta and DARPA in the late 1980's- early
1990's...swiveling captain's chair and all.
Quote: There are times when the distinction between fact and fiction gets very
fuzzy. (Spinal Tap, for example.)
I imagine you could dock a Pan-Am spaceliner to a space station the way
it's shown in the movie, but I think a de-spun hanger area makes more sense.
Only from the point of view of the pilot of Orion. From the POV of the
designer of Space Station Five, a de-spun hanger has gobs and gobs of
nasty engineering issues.
I've already been jumped on this quite a few times since I posted the
original thought on the subject; okay, I'm wrong... spinning the Orion
up to enter the bay makes more sense than de-spinning the bay.
BTW...who paid for the station's construction?
It doesn't look cheap by any stretch of the imagination to build, and
seems to support both private and government-controlled space operations
from all around the world.
Who put forward the capital outlay for its construction?
Whoever built it seems to be doing well, if the new half under
construction in the movie goes.
Or, like Babylon 5, MIR, and ISS was it originally intended to be
bigger, but ran into funding problems?
If that's the case, then that was one hell of a prophetic movie. ;-)
Quote:
The big question is of course what exactly is the purpose of the big
human presence on the Moon?
Clavius Base is apparently huge, and one suspects the Russians have one
of equal size.
What makes that expendature of time and treasure worth it to the two
countries?
That's simple enough. Both the US and the USSR are mining the lunar
mcguffins. (http://www.essortment.com/all/alfredhitchcoc_rvhd.htm)
Dear God... Slaver Stasis Boxes!
I should have known!
Now, the origin of cellphones becomes clear! :-D
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Pat Flannery |
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 11:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Andre Lieven wrote:
Quote: Indeed. A good home theatre system can do it some justice, but I can
well recall my pleasure at seeing it at the end of 2001 in a 70MM film
house.
In spite of the fact that this was in NYC, just three months after
9/11,
once that curtain went up and the film started, all that just left me
for
well over two hours. Ahh....
Saw the whole thing twice in 70 mm film and Cinerama
As far as movies go, it's the cinematographic form of the "The
Emperor's New Clothes".
Spectacular as long you buy into the "revolutionary " aspects of its story.
Other than that, a very expensive and unimaginative version of the
"Forbidden Planet" school of Sci-Fi with a lot less imagination shown in
its plot, portrayal, and story than "The Day The Earth Stood Still" or
"It Came From Outer Space" - both of which managed to pre-describe the
story concept of "2001" with far less screen-time and money spent on
production.
One of the top-ten most over-rated films ever done in American cinema -
by Stanley Kubrick in particular; all of his other movies were
masterpieces that are worth watching time and time again ....or at least
worth watching once (I imagine I've seen "Dr. Strangleove" around 50
times, and immediately go to it or "Jaws" by the flip of a coin every
time I see it running on TV because those are two of _The Great
Movies_ ever done by great American director's in the past century.
Any of Kubrick's other films makes "2001" looking pretty mediocre by
comparison, when viewed with the space-fan blinders off.
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Pat Flannery |
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 3:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Andre Lieven wrote:
Quote: NASA no emotion crew images.
Further, it told an SF story in a visual medium where the humans do
not
succeed in interacting or understanding the aliens and their
civilisation
and motives. Its far too conventional a trope of much visual SF that
the
humans and aliens will be able to interact, communicate, and deal with
each other on comparable planes.
Remember how well humanity interacted with the Martians in Pal's "War Of
The Worlds"?
We held up a white flag; they burned us down to ash with a heat ray.
Then they started taking out everything with their meson charge nullifier.
They had no more concern about us understanding them, or them
understanding us, than a person trying to figure out what the ants in
their yard were thinking when the insecticide hit.
Even in "The Day The Earth Stood Still" our relationship with a alien
race consisted of: "Take our advice, or this solar system is going to
have a asteroid belt between Venus and Mars as well as one between Mars
and Jupiter. We can do that; it'd cost a lot to do, but believe me, we
can do that. We did it before regarding the planet that used to be
outboard of us; we can do it again regarding the one inboard of us."
They should have put that in the movie, that would have really shaken
people up. :-D
Quote: If for nothing else, 2001 is a valuable addition to the visual SF
patheon
for that very reason. The rest is all gravy, albeit very nice gravy.
Boring.
"Silent Running" had a better story, better visual effects, and came in
at around 1/10th the cost.
"Forbidden Planet" beat either of those movies for outright imagination,
and a intriguing storyline.
"2001's" ending was very cryptic in its meaning (at best).
"Forbidden Planet" was a examination of Lord Acton's concept of "power
corrupts; and absolute power corrupts absolutely" driven forward as not
only as a challenge to Prof. Morbius...but to all humanity, by realizing
what had happened to the Krell's civilization.
That's a pretty deep concept when you come right down to it.
Is the end of technology to be gods of gold with feet of clay?
"Silent Running" had the profound concept of "don't give a tree-hugging
loon access to nuclear detonators, or all hell is going to break loose".
Rush Limbaugh has been warning us about this for over a decade.
Both concepts sure beat the hell out of split-screen filming technology
with reversed colors over Alaskan ice fields, a old fart dropping his
wine glass, and a fetus hanging around in HEO.
Good News - there are other forms of life than us in the universe, far
more advanced than we are, that wish to bring us their knowledge.
Bad news - that knowledge consists of the concept: "Acid is groovy man!
Dig this endsville star-trip we are laying on your heads. Fetus _FLYING
AROUND_ your planet! Can you dig it, man? Can you REALLY dig it? It's a
pure Zen super-mellow brain-change."
Babylon 5 addressed the problem far better in regards to the Vorlons and
humanity.
The Vorlons are trying to tell us something, and their way of thinking
and communicating and our way of thinking and communicating are so
completely different that both sides are very confused about what one
is trying to tell the other.
To us, their statements seem cryptic and evasive; to them, our
statements probably sound about as comprehensible as gibbering baboons.
Imagine if we could actually crack the complete dolphin language, and
ended up with a whole pile of info on water depths, size of squid
schools, and how thermal layers in the water affect your nose
sonar...with philosophical insights based on those inputs?
It might be very profound to the dolphins and their world view, but we'd
be very hard-pressed to interact with them in any form that wouldn't
completely confuse them as to what we were trying to talk about.
Christ, it would be like William F. Buckley sitting down to have a
insightful heart-to-heart conversation with ex-president George W. Bush.
(I leave the extraordinary possibilities of that surreal event to the
reader's imagination; Buckley wisely died at the right time, which is
more than can say about Dubya... that time, in his case, being during
his infancy. Where's SIDS when you really need it? The little tike
might have rolled over in his crib, gurgled out something about wanting
a cup of "aw-aw", emitted a snide snicker, and turned blue.)
Now, let's run into a alien race. Sure, we could agree that 2+2 = 4, and
maybe that pi is pretty difficult thing to put a end on...but beyond
anything concrete like that, we are going to be a real morass regarding
anything subjective in regards to our world views because we are
different species with brains wired to work in different ways.
It might be like this:
"You have the ability to destroy stars, aren't you concerned that
some of those stars might evolve species that could be friends to you at
some future point from the planets around them?"
And we are expecting a answer like this:
"We are very conservative... we consider any species that might evolve
in the universe to be a potential future threat to us and destroy those
stars as a means to protect ourselves against that possible future threat."
But instead we get back: "Total energy to destroy a selected star is
lower than the energy our Bussard ramscoops derive from traversing the
hydrogen bubble created by the star's destruction. Are you saying that
you intend to pose a threat to us at some future point? The energy
required to destroy your star, "Sol", is more than the hydrogen bubble
created by its destruction would generate. We do not understand why you
would suggest you are a threat to us that would lead us to destroy your
star, as the math is not in our favor. You are a very confusing species,
and we don't understand what you are trying to tell us."
Quote:
One of the top-ten most over-rated films ever done in American cinema -
by Stanley Kubrick in particular; all of his other movies were
masterpieces that are worth watching time and time again ....or at least
worth watching once (I imagine I've seen "Dr. Strangleove" around 50
times, and immediately go to it or "Jaws" by the flip of a coin every
time I see it running on TV because those are two of _The Great
Movies_ ever done by great American director's in the past century.
Any of Kubrick's other films makes "2001" looking pretty mediocre by
comparison, when viewed with the space-fan blinders off.
I would somewhat disagree with that conclusion, but I do come to 2001
with the SF fan " sensawonda " view. I'm quite pleased to own the 2
DVD
copy.
I want to see the monkeys getting violent, then wake me up when HAL goes
crazy. I'll happily sleep through all the rest.
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| David Lesher |
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Pat Flannery <flanner@daktel.com> writes:
Quote: Saw the whole thing twice in 70 mm film and Cinerama
I too was sure I saw it in Cinerama, but it was filmed in Super
Panavision 70, not Cinerama's 3-camera extravaganza. Through the wonders
of renaming brands, however....
[You can read Wikipedia for just a hint of the confusion..]
I've seen it maybe a dozen times since 1968, and saw the new
"anniversary" print at the Uptown in DC, the last real theater around..
it was still & always stunning....
ACC and Kubrick could not have asked for a better legacy.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 5 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Jul 25, 2008 7:43 pm
|
|
