just a confusion with 2001(space odyssey)

[eintonnewstein]

hello everybody.

I just watched this movie for the first time,and I noticed,of course thats my problem,im not sure,anyway...I noticed that during the scene when the astronaut whose name is DAVE i guess goes out of the big or main space craft to save his friend who's thrown out by HAL.
My question is :Is the main space craft moving when the little space craft goes out or is it still(not moving)...if it's moving how can a small space craft which obviously needs to change direction go back and fix a part of the main space craft and then get back in the main space craft ...i mean it needs to accelerate right? but it doesnt have enough fuel and it isnt capable of having the same speed as the main spacecraft...or the opposite does the main space craft slows down so that the small one could catch up......

I need a good explanation.

I'd appreciate it.

bye.

[Chip]

The main spacecraft is moving on its way to the Jupiter system. The little pod craft come out of the bay of the main spacecraft and are at its velocity. There is no friction in space and the little pod craft are in the same frame of reference relative to the main spacecraft. Therefore, from the frame of reference of the pods, the main spacecraft is stationary. The pods can accelerate and decelerate relative to the main craft as if the main craft were still. Just as if you are a passenger on an airline and you get up to walk down the isle and back to your seat. You are only feel as if you are moving relative to the plane, not the ground 35,000 feet below.

The situation might change however if the pods moved too far away from the main craft at a right angle and then slowed down relative to it. This may not be the best explanation but I hope it helps.

[eintonnewstein]

okay,let's settle things...actually what i was asking was not about the pod that comes out and moves along the main space craft but...thanks anyway...

Actually I understood what was goin on ... and it was quite simple...my

confusion was with the small pod that was moving in a direction with angle of

90 degrees in relation to the main space craft thus the frame of reference

changes so the main space craft seems to be movin faster than the small pod

which is actually true...cause its as if the small pod is moving on Y-axis constantly and the main space craft is moving on X-axis so it's quite clear now.

But thanks a lot.

¨Everything is as clear as an unmuded lake. ¨Alex De Large (A Clockwork Orange)

[SaskWatch]

I can't answer your question except by saying that after the movie was finished, Kubrick said there was only one technical error that he missed during shooting. When Heywood Floyd is sipping a drink through a straw in zero gravity, the liquid remaining in the straw runs back down into the container. In zero G, it would remain in the straw.

[Frog march]

what I didn't understand about the film is, that the craft is supposed to be spinning to provide artificial gravity yet when the small craft goes out there is no spin, it's all very illogical.

as to the OP, all velocities are maintained(without a force upon them)in the vacuum of space and anything on the ship will be going at the save velocity as anything else on the ship and will maintain that velocity when it leaves the ship. The ship was not under acceleration, just gliding.

[kucharek]

Not the whole craft is spinning, just a caroussel section inside. The pod garage etc is in the non-spinning part.
I don't agree with Kubrick that the only technical error must be one. When you sip something from a pack with a straw, u often leave an underpressure in the pack. So, if u stop sipping and leave the straw, the liquid inside would run back, even in zero gravity.This behaviour would even be desirable and thus enforced in a zero-gravity drink pack, I guess.

[01101001]

what I didn't understand about the film is, that the craft is supposed to be spinning to provide artificial gravity yet when the small craft goes out there is no spin, it's all very illogical.

Internal centrifuge.

From something on the Web claiming to be a 2001 script:

The equatorial region of the pressure sphere - the slice, as it were, from Capricorn to Cancer - enclosed a slowly rotating drum, thirty-five feet in diameter. As it made one revolution every ten seconds, this carrousel or centrifuge produced an artificial gravity equal to that of the Moon. This was enough to prevent the physical atrophy which would result from the complete absence of weight, and it also allowed the routine functions of living to be carried out under normal - or nearly normal - conditions.

The carrousel therefore contained the kitchen, dining, washing, and toilet facilities. Only here was it safe to prepare and handle hot drinks - quite dangerous in weightless conditions, where one can be badly scalded by floating globules of boiling water. The problem of shaving was also solved; there would be no weightless bristles drifting around to endanger electrical equipment and produce a health hazard.

Around the rim of the carrousel were five tiny cubicles, fitted out by each astronaut according to taste and containing his personal belongings. Only Bowman's and Poole's were now in use, while the future occupants of the other three cabins reposed in their electronic sarcophagi next door.

Excerpt text and diagrams at Atomic Rockets: Artificial Gravity

[Frog march]

Yes I see, but it would make far more sense if you were designing a ship like that to just make the whole think revolve and then if they had to send out the pod they could stop the spin for a while. What is the point of making a carrousel?

[SaskWatch]

I don't agree with Kubrick that the only technical error must be one.

Apparently, you're right. The Wikipedia entry on 2001 lists about ten "minor faults in scientific accuracy", a few of them deliberate for aesthetic reasons. I don't know why Kubrick would say there was only one.

[ToSeek]

I would say the worst fault is the billowing dust on the Moon. No air, no billowing.

[Nowhere Man]

From something on the Web claiming to be a 2001 script:
(quote cut)
Excerpt text and diagrams at Atomic Rockets: Artificial Gravity

That's actually a direct steal from Arthur C. Clarke's novel. At least they acknowledge the source on the page.

Stopping and restarting the spin of the entire ship would be wasteful in terms of energy and propellant. And you'd have to build it to withstand the tension forces from spinning as well as the compression forces generated by the engines. And looking out the windows would drive you crazy.

Fred

[01101001]

That's actually a direct steal from Arthur C. Clarke's novel. At least they acknowledge the source on the page.

Just in case: the Atomic Rockets web site I cited isn't the same one as the unnamed one I labeled as the 2001 script site. I first found the script, perhaps as you say the actual novel, then found that excerpt from the script/novel plus diagrams at Atomic Rockets -- which indeed does credit its sources. I'll leave it up to Clarke to determine whether it is a steal.

[Nowhere Man]

Trust me. That excerpt is from the novel.

Fred

[ToSeek]

Moved from "Bad Astronomy Stories" to "Small Media at Large."

[Inferno]

hello everybody.

I just watched this movie for the first time,and I noticed.....

But what did you think of the movie?!!

[captain swoop]

it put me to sleep

[94z07]

I am amazed though at how well 2001 di the space baby sequence. At the time the movie and book it was based on came out, space baby research was in its infantcy.

[gwiz]

Is the main space craft moving when the little space craft goes out or is it still(not moving)...if it's moving how can a small space craft which obviously needs to change direction go back and fix a part of the main space craft and then get back in the main space craft ...i mean it needs to accelerate right? but it doesnt have enough fuel and it isnt capable of having the same speed as the main spacecraft...or the opposite does the main space craft slows down so that the small one could catch up...

Similar situation to a Shuttle astronaut moving away then back again from a vehicle going 8 km/s, using only the small jets on his backpack.

[Swift]

I am amazed though at how well 2001 di the space baby sequence. At the time the movie and book it was based on came out, space baby research was in its infantcy.

:groan:

[DaveC426913]

The situation might change however if the pods moved too far away from the main craft at a right angle and then slowed down relative to it.

No, you're falling prey to the same mistake you're trying to correct.

The spacecraft is, for all intents and purposes of the pod, stationary. Period.

If the pod moves far away from the mother craft - it will be far away. If it then accelerates in a direction toward the rear of the mother craft, well, it will now be moving toward the rear of the mothercraft. If it turns around and accelerates in the other direction, it will come back. With enough fuel, the pod can do rings around the mothership with free abandon.

Nothing the pod does will change the fact that the mother craft will behave as if stationary.

[greenfeather]

But what did you think of the movie?!!

I'm afraid the movie didn't age well. In 1968 the book was so exciting I stayed up all night to read it. The movie was... well, it was a FIRST. Aside from Star Trek, there were very few realistic SF/space movies. And I liked the book, so... I was loyal to the movie. A lot of others who saw it were like "huh? What did it MEAN?" (they hadn't read the book.) And lots of hippies went to see it for "the light show".

My kids & I watched the movie in the 80's and it put us all to sleep. By that time, Space Movies had become much faster and flashier. 2001 was, um, a Dinosaur.

[Metricyard]

I'm afraid the movie didn't age well. In 1968 the book was so exciting I stayed up all night to read it. The movie was... well, it was a FIRST. Aside from Star Trek, there were very few realistic SF/space movies. And I liked the book, so... I was loyal to the movie. A lot of others who saw it were like "huh? What did it MEAN?" (they hadn't read the book.) And lots of hippies went to see it for "the light show".

My kids & I watched the movie in the 80's and it put us all to sleep. By that time, Space Movies had become much faster and flashier. 2001 was, um, a Dinosaur.

Hey, that was me! The one with the glassy eyed stare. All I can say is what a rush

[Chip]

No, you're falling prey to the same mistake you're trying to correct...

[creepy-calm-computer voice]Perhaps you're right, DaveC426913. I would recommend we test this in the pods at 0800.[/creepy-calm-computer voice] (Sorry, couldn't resist.

It's a wonderful film though. Still seems very profound to me. I love the music, especially the pieces by Ligeti, which, as with all the other music was originally composed for concert performance and not written as movie music. I also like how the film predicts instrument panels that are computer screen generated rather than mechanical dials and switches. It ends with one of the best light shows on film and the strikingly long beginning, with early ancestors, still packs a dramatic wallop.

[Lord Jubjub]

The movie is awesome visually. A little bit slow in the plot. The off-Earth gravity sequences are as good as the Apollo 13 zero-G scenes.

That ending. . . . . . is indescribable--and that's not a compliment.

[SAMU]

I have a question.How did they get from the flight deck to the pod bay? Presumably through the hub of the centrifuge but I never saw an opening through there or a hatch.

[Disinfo Agent]

How did they get from the flight deck to the pod bay? Presumably through the hub of the centrifuge but I never saw an opening through there or a hatch.

You do see an opening. David Bowman gets into the centrifuge through it, the fist time he is shown in the film.

[Swift]

You do see an opening. David Bowman gets into the centrifuge through it, the fist time he is shown in the film.

This picture shows the link from the cetrifuge side. There is also a shot in the film of the astronauts entering from the non-rotating side. Scroll a little more than half-way down this page for more photos and drawings.

[X-COM]

Apparently, you're right. The Wikipedia entry on 2001 lists about ten "minor faults in scientific accuracy", a few of them deliberate for aesthetic reasons. I don't know why Kubrick would say there was only one.

I guess he ment the only error that they was aware of at the time. Besides science have evolved since then so we know even more know. Finally it may have been the only error that he could remember, 1968 was some time ago after all.

"This picture shows the link from the cetrifuge side."

Sorry swift but that link are forbidden, I guess some kind of registration are needed.

[Swift]

Sorry swift but that link are forbidden, I guess some kind of registration are needed.

It worked at work, but at home it doesn't. Humf. The other link seems to work and has the that picture on it.

[SaskWatch]

I guess he ment the only error that they was aware of at the time. Besides science have evolved since then so we know even more know. Finally it may have been the only error that he could remember, 1968 was some time ago after all.

Kubrick said that shortly after the film was finished, maybe a year or two later. I think I read it in Jerome Agel's book, The Making of 2001. You're probably right that it might have been the only error he was aware of at the time.

I was in high school when 2001 first came out and was bowled over by it, but when people asked me, "What's it about?" I couldn't tell them. I had no idea, and that seems to have been the experience with a lot of people at the time. I occasionally wonder how that could be--how a movie with such an obscure storyline could have such a powerful effect