40th Anniversary of 2001:A Space Odyssey

Premiered April 2nd 1968 in D.C., ..... way past 2001 now... and the
technology looks a accurate as ever , but now like in a future that is
100 years from now.

On Apr 2, 4:24*pm, Al wrote:
Premiered *April 2nd 1968 in D.C., ..... way past 2001 now... and the
technology looks a accurate as ever , but now like in a future that is
100 years from now.

Not to me. I think it bears same relationship to future as Bellamy's
"Looking Backwards" does to present. The way things MIGHT HAVE BEEN if
nothing significantly changed since the work was written.

On Apr 2, 3:32 pm, wrote:
On Apr 2, 4:24 pm, Al wrote:

Premiered April 2nd 1968 in D.C., ..... way past 2001 now... and the
technology looks a accurate as ever , but now like in a future that is
100 years from now.

Not to me. I think it bears same relationship to future as Bellamy's
"Looking Backwards" does to present. The way things MIGHT HAVE BEEN if
nothing significantly changed since the work was written.

I meant the technology, Two Stage To Orbit space planes, large
commercial space stations, sophisticated spacecraft to the moon, multi
large Moon bases, Deep Space Nuclear Manned Spaceflight, orbital EVA
vehicles (the Pods), all designed around 1965 by Fred Ordway and Harry
Lange (former Marshall Engineers at that time) still looks not only
viable but somewhat advanced.
Even an AI capability we still don't have!
2001 as a vision has passed into some parallel universe somewhere!

On Apr 2, 4:40*pm, Al wrote:
On Apr 2, 3:32 pm, wrote:

On Apr 2, 4:24 pm, Al wrote:

Premiered *April 2nd 1968 in D.C., ..... way past 2001 now... and the
technology looks a accurate as ever , but now like in a future that is
100 years from now.

Not to me. I think it bears same relationship to future as Bellamy's
"Looking Backwards" does to present. The way things MIGHT HAVE BEEN if
nothing significantly changed since the work was written.

I meant the technology, Two Stage To Orbit space planes, large
commercial space stations, sophisticated spacecraft to the moon, multi
large Moon bases, Deep Space Nuclear Manned Spaceflight, orbital EVA
vehicles (the Pods), all designed around 1965 by Fred Ordway and Harry
Lange (former Marshall Engineers at that time) still looks not only
viable but somewhat advanced.

I too meant the technology. Yes, I expect significant human presence
in Solar system in 100 years. I do not believe it will look much like
"2001: Space Odyssey". For starters, I expect biotechnology will
obviate the need for spin gravity and for attendant massive structures.

Al wrote:
Premiered April 2nd 1968 in D.C., ..... way past 2001 now... and the
technology looks a accurate as ever , but now like in a future that is
100 years from now.

We've been in a holding pattern for a quarter of a century while we
waited for the ill-conceived space shuttle to stop soaking up almost all
of the space budget.

Except that things are not about to improve, with NASA reverting to
disposable hardware, and not even thinking about a reusable launch
vehicle. (BTW, I always assumed that the 2001 launcher was SSTO).

Mind you, the 2001 hardware wasn't entirely credible - why would the
lunar transit vehicle have a retractable landing gear? It just adds to
the mass for no useful purpose.

And if we ever do manage to build an intelligent computer like HAL,
could it possibly be so physically big?

Sylvia.

On Apr 3, 4:55 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
Al wrote:
Premiered April 2nd 1968 in D.C., ..... way past 2001 now... and the
technology looks a accurate as ever , but now like in a future that is
100 years from now.

We've been in a holding pattern for a quarter of a century while we
waited for the ill-conceived space shuttle to stop soaking up almost all
of the space budget.


Large scale manned space exploration can no longer be a One Country
venture.
The economics requires international sharing of expenses, that is why
I can see
that the CEV will get built, but without sharing the cost with other
countries we aint
going back to the moon in 2020!


Mind you, the 2001 hardware wasn't entirely credible - why would the
lunar transit vehicle have a retractable landing gear? It just adds to
the mass for no useful purpose.

And if we ever do manage to build an intelligent computer like HAL,
could it possibly be so physically big?

Yeah they missed that one, but as shown in the movie and as described
in the novel by Clarke,
HAL was not a 'programmed computer' but a 'solid state artificial
intelligence' , alas the terminology
of the mid 60's dictated the word 'computer'.
We are no closer to making a HAL now than we were in 1968!

And if we ever do manage to build an intelligent computer like HAL,
could it possibly be so physically big?

Yeah they missed that one, but as shown in the movie and as described
in the novel by Clarke,
HAL was not a 'programmed computer' but a 'solid state artificial
intelligence' , alas the terminology
of the mid 60's dictated the word 'computer'.
We are no closer to making a HAL now than we were in 1968!

Actually, it is not HAL's size that seems so outdated to me. It is
this line:

"Good afternoon, gentlemen. I am a HAL 9000 computer. I became
operational at the H.A.L. plant in Urbana, Illinois, on the 12th
January 1997. My instructor was Mr Langley, and he taught me to sing a
song. If you'd like to hear it, I can sing it for you."

When "2001: Space Odyssey" was filmed, hardly anyone in the world
understood what software is -- that it is endlessly malleable, easy to
replicate, and largely independent of hardware. The above quote meant,
without any doubt, that the *specific computer* was turned on (and
presumably started learning) on the 12th January 1997. The idea that
once that learning was complete, HAL's memory content could be copied
into another HAL simply would not occur to 1968 movie audience -- let
alone the idea that a *program* is sentient, not the "computer".

BTW, I have no doubt that Clarke understood the difference between
hardware and software -- but vast majority of moviegoers did not.

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 03:50:23 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away, Al
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

On Apr 3, 4:55 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
Al wrote:
Premiered April 2nd 1968 in D.C., ..... way past 2001 now... and the
technology looks a accurate as ever , but now like in a future that is
100 years from now.

We've been in a holding pattern for a quarter of a century while we
waited for the ill-conceived space shuttle to stop soaking up almost all
of the space budget.


Large scale manned space exploration can no longer be a One Country
venture.
The economics requires international sharing of expenses

Nonsense. If it were important, the US could easily afford it by
itself. But it is not, so we don't.

We do international cooperation for international cooperation's sake,
not because it saves us any money. In fact, it probably adds to the
costs, due to all the bureaucratic inefficiencies and politics.

On Apr 3, 7:50 am, (Rand Simberg) wrote:


Nonsense. If it were important, the US could easily afford it by
itself. But it is not, so we don't.

We do international cooperation for international cooperation's sake,
not because it saves us any money. In fact, it probably adds to the
costs, due to all the bureaucratic inefficiencies and politics.

Yeah I hear that flap doodle all the time. Time USA got over this
Xenophobia.

We will have to agree to disagree on that one, I have been part of the
ISS
program for 20 years now and the cooperation with ESA, JAXA and
Canada,
from my experience has been totally worthwhile and amiable
( tho there is one country I won't mention where things a little more
mixed).

On Apr 3, 4:55 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
Al wrote:


vehicle. (BTW, I always assumed that the 2001 launcher was SSTO).

It was not needed for the narrative in the film, but Clarke makes it
very clear
in the novel that the Orion III was the second stage of a Two Stage To
Orbit
vehicle.


Mind you, the 2001 hardware wasn't entirely credible - why would the
lunar transit vehicle have a retractable landing gear? It just adds to
the mass for no useful purpose.

One explanation that has been given is that the Aries vehicle was
stored at the station
and at the lunar base in a volume that required a smaller space , so
retractable gear,
seems a small stretch , but plausible.