40th Anniversary of 2001:A Space Odyssey

Kevin Willoughby wrote:
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.
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. ;-)






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