40th Anniversary of 2001:A Space Odyssey

On Apr 6, 10:53*pm, Neil Fraser wrote:
On Apr 3, 1:27 pm, Eric Chomko wrote:

There is much more to 2001 that left moviegoers baffled beyond the
notion of hardware and software.

What baffles me the most is that HAL didn't even try to stop Bowman
from reentering Discovery. *All HAL needed to do was slightly reduce
the speed of the carousell. *Conservation of angular momentum would
have caused Discovery to flip end over end -- as seen in 2010 (though
it should have been a horizontal spin, not a vertical one). *Good luck
getting into the emergency airlock of a non-cooprerative spacecraft,
Dave.

That would have made pretty boring with ONLY HAL surviving. I think
Clarke wanted us to be able to defeat the machine in order to
survive.


Imagine how much fun the Shuttle or ATV would have if the station
decided to play games with its gyros during final approach.

Thanks but no thanks. Spaceflight is a challenege enough without
adding a "games" element.

On Apr 5, 11:14*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 19:57:18 -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, 5:13*pm, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 14:18:23 -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, 9:15 am, (Rand Simberg) wrote:

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

I didn't say it wasn't. *I just said that it didn't save us money.

We have had this argument before, we did not have to build the ATV or
the HTV , or Columbus or Kibo,
ESA and JAXA are providing control and training centers for these
modules at their expense, bunch of stuff would not
have been on the station if they had of not provided it.

Or we could have provided it ourselves, if we did things more
effectively, without having to spend as much as we did. *In any event,
once again, this is beside the original point, which is that we can't
afford to do this by ourselves, which is of course utter nonsense. *We
can easily afford it. *We simply choose not to.

But, we have had this argument before, seems your stance is that
International Cooperation will never
work....

No, that's not my stance. *I guess that you have to argue with straw
men, since you seem to be unable to respond to anything I actually
write.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am afraid your response passed beyond my understanding , a long time
ago.

Do you have have , now, a new solution?

A new solution to what problem?

I believe he's referring to your xenophobia.

"Neil Fraser" wrote in message
...
On Apr 3, 1:27 pm, Eric Chomko wrote:
There is much more to 2001 that left moviegoers baffled beyond the
notion of hardware and software.

What baffles me the most is that HAL didn't even try to stop Bowman
from reentering Discovery. All HAL needed to do was slightly reduce
the speed of the carousell. Conservation of angular momentum would
have caused Discovery to flip end over end -- as seen in 2010 (though
it should have been a horizontal spin, not a vertical one). Good luck
getting into the emergency airlock of a non-cooprerative spacecraft,
Dave.


It wouldn't be much tougher than it was in 2010. And also HAL didn't want
to risk injuring Odyssey or wasting resources (and manevouring fuel is a
resource.)

Imagine how much fun the Shuttle or ATV would have if the station
decided to play games with its gyros during final approach.

You mean like in Armageddon?

On Apr 7, 3:38 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
It wouldn't be much tougher than it was in 2010.

To quote HAL:
"Without your space helmet, Dave, you're going to find that rather
difficult."

And also HAL didn't want
to risk injuring Odyssey or wasting resources (and maneuvering fuel is a
resource.)

No thrusters are required. Discovery had a giant flywheel (the
carousel for the crew) that filled half the volume of the pressure
hull. Decreasing its RPM would result in a counter-spin of the
vehicle. After Dave was no longer a threat, HAL could simply have
revved the flywheel back up to speed and there would be zero
difference.

You mean like in Armageddon?

I have vague memories of Mir exploding (like pretty much everything
else on screen), but I don't remember much from that movie (other than
a desperate will to forget as much of it as possible).

"Neil Fraser" wrote in message
...
On Apr 7, 3:38 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
It wouldn't be much tougher than it was in 2010.

To quote HAL:
"Without your space helmet, Dave, you're going to find that rather
difficult."

Duh, yeah. I was thinking the difficulty was more with the movement then
the extra time required :-)


And also HAL didn't want
to risk injuring Odyssey or wasting resources (and maneuvering fuel is a
resource.)

No thrusters are required. Discovery had a giant flywheel (the
carousel for the crew) that filled half the volume of the pressure
hull. Decreasing its RPM would result in a counter-spin of the
vehicle. After Dave was no longer a threat, HAL could simply have
revved the flywheel back up to speed and there would be zero
difference.

Yeah, I was thinking you'd need to desaturate the spin, but you want it
back. (Well not really since HAL doesn't care, but yeah, you're right.)

Now, stupid question, but I've never been able to quite figure out the
orientation of the flywheel.

I thought it was in one direction, but after 2010, I'm confused.



You mean like in Armageddon?

I have vague memories of Mir exploding (like pretty much everything
else on screen), but I don't remember much from that movie (other than
a desperate will to forget as much of it as possible).


--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

On Apr 9, 6:03*pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
"Neil Fraser" wrote in message

...

On Apr 7, 3:38 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
It wouldn't be much tougher than it was in 2010.

To quote HAL:
*"Without your space helmet, Dave, you're going to find that rather
difficult."

Duh, yeah. *I was thinking the difficulty was more with the movement then
the extra time required :-)



*And also HAL didn't want
to risk injuring Odyssey or wasting resources (and maneuvering fuel is a
resource.)

No thrusters are required. *Discovery had a giant flywheel (the
carousel for the crew) that filled half the volume of the pressure
hull. *Decreasing its RPM would result in a counter-spin of the
vehicle. *After Dave was no longer a threat, HAL could simply have
revved the flywheel back up to speed and there would be zero
difference.

Yeah, I was thinking you'd need to desaturate the spin, but you want it
back. (Well not really since HAL doesn't care, but yeah, you're right.)

Now, stupid question, but I've never been able to quite figure out the
orientation of the flywheel.

I thought it was in one direction, but after 2010, I'm confused.



You mean like in Armageddon?

I have vague memories of Mir exploding (like pretty much everything
else on screen), but I don't remember much from that movie (other than
a desperate will to forget as much of it as possible).

--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting * * * * * Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql *(at) *greenms.com * * * * *http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

Check out 'project rho' under the title 'artificial gravity'.
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3u.html

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
...

Now, stupid question, but I've never been able to quite figure out the
orientation of the flywheel.

It would be logical to expect it to be at right angles to the spine of the
ship. When the ship was under thrust, a person in the centrifuge would have
to very slightly lean into the acceleration, but this is no different than
for any vehicle. Mount the centrifuge parallel to the spine, and when under
thrust one would experience a very slight G-force but one rapidly and
constantly changing direction. Probably asking for nausea there.

I thought it was in one direction, but after 2010, I'm confused.

I'd have to grant that what we saw in 2010 would almost imply that the
centrifuge was in the orientation I suggested would not be logical. But
that's assuming the spin was a consequence of the centrifuge slowly grinding
down to a halt.

On the other hand, the spin may have started out as a barrel roll, and then
gradually changed to the axis we saw in the movie. There is a tendency for
objects much longer than they are wide to do that.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We must be staunch in our conviction that freedom is not the sole
prerogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable and universal right of all
human beings... It would be cultural condescension, or worse, to say that
any people prefer dictatorship to democracy.

Ronald Reagan at Westminster Abbey, 1982

wrote in message
...
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.


....Thus condemning space travellers and station ocupants to the ever-present
danger of accidentally swallowing or inhaling someone else's floating snot,
spit or urine bubble...or possibly little bits of toe jam or little chunks
of unvacuumed fecal matter...
I saw one of those videos on YouTube from the ISS where an astronaut was
working on something, and a spit bubble floated up to his face...he knew he
was on camera so he couldn't make the sort of comment he would have
ordinarily wanted to make, so he simply swatted at it to get if off of his
face...
Zero G can be fun for recreation, but for day-to-day living (including using
the restroom), nothing beats having some gravity - that's why I hope the tre
nd will go to rotating stations - living one's life in total zero-G would
really start to suck after a while.