40th Anniversary of 2001:A Space Odyssey

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.

On Apr 2, 10:18 am, 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.

Change 'detected' to 'depicted'!

On Apr 2, 11:27 am, Al wrote:
On Apr 2, 10:18 am, 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.

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...

On Apr 2, 10:48 am, eyeball wrote:
On Apr 2, 11:27 am, Al wrote:

On Apr 2, 10:18 am, 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.

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

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

On Apr 2, 11:26 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
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 he

http://www.watch-movies.net/movies/2...space_odyssey/

In article 224b6e65-6959-4efe-9bc3-
,
says...
By the way the movie can be viewed online he

http://www.watch-movies.net/movies/2...space_odyssey/

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 lid

Kansas City, this was Air Force One. Will you change
our call sign to SAM 27000? -- Col. Ralph Albertazzie

On Apr 4, 5:08 pm, Kevin Willoughby
wrote:
In article 224b6e65-6959-4efe-9bc3-
,
says...

By the way the movie can be viewed online he

http://www.watch-movies.net/movies/2...space_odyssey/

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.

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

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.
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

On Apr 3, 1:26 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
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.


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.


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!