What would HAL and GLaDOS talk to each other about?

Oh yeah, when is second book coming out? I still got to finish listening to first one. It's really good stuff.

Can you do a video about the USS Argo from Godzilla King of the Monsters 2019

You should try the rz2 awing

Thats great ,except they mist the time period for such a great ship to travel great distance. Maybe the late 30s into the 2040s may we see something fantastic like that.

Agreed. I enjoy 2010 very much. Plus, I feel Kubrick's style is more geared towards stand alone films adding to most of their allure and mystery.

Yes! It stood alone yet coupled very well with 2001. It was a great influence on my early teen imagination.

I didn't care for it.

Yeah I just watched it today immediately after finishing 2001 and yes, it felt more standalone.

I read Clarke's 2010 novel over twenty times before seeing the film. I enjoyed the movie. Comparing Kubrick's masterpiece with Peter Hyam's offering is apples and oranges. Whereas Kubrick challenged the intellect of viewers, Hyam presented a literal reality.

I enjoyed it more than the first one, by a large margin.

I actually liked it better. Much better

Love 2010 so much. The ships, the score, the tension of the US/USSR conflict. The ending gets me misty-eyed every time.

Add me to the 2010 love.

Same here!!!

HAL: i can feel it....

Dai-sy... Daiii-sssy... Giiiiiveeee mmmmeeee yourrr aaannnsssewwweeeerrrr.... ddooooooo...

Typical mental condition on a Friday night 😆🤘

@@gmitchellfamily ...Maaaarxiiiism... caaaannn woooorrrrkkkk...

I always felt bad for HaL that he had to do that

Having read all four books, I'd say its more like Dave and Hal were downloaded into the Monolith and now exist as emulations of their former selves. The crisis in 3001 seems to point to this.

He could have been in a BAD mood, when he had no little Srilankan boys to fiddle with!

@@Tetsujinhanmaa 3001 outright states it. I kind of like the way that each book is inspired by rather than being a true sequal to the others. It's quite interesting. Although my personal headcannon is that they are disembodied souls with backup emulations, and 3001 only featured the backups. No idea what happened to Heywood's backup after 2061...

I think he deliberately left it ambiguous until 3001. These stories were all about human interaction, what we believe and why. Also what defines sentient life, and were does something like artificial intelligence fit into that definition.

@@jlokison it's hard to be sure of that, 2061 uses the term "echoing" for making copies of people, and that's clearly the backup emulation thing, since woody is alive when his is done and remains so afterwards. But even in 3001, dave says "i have glimpsed powers or entities far beyond the monoliths", and that he has been away for years at a time to possibly extragalactic locations, far faster and further than the monoliths would allow, as they are bound by causal physical laws (which is a plot point in 3001). However, if the paracasual dave soul is zipping round the universe seeing cool things, when he updates his emulation, since that's a limited copy that can't properly grow like the super star baby we see at the end of 2001, he'd have to interpret that as being taken away and shown cool stuff by higher powers. Although it's hard to make definitive statements about a book series that has changed its history and canon with every entry... let's not forget, in the book 2001, discovery found the second monolith around saturn, not jupiter. That got retconned pretty quick. And the original end point of the series, 20,001, is rendered impossible by the ending of 3001. Basically, if we try and do full proper lore nerd stuff, we'll go crazy with inconsistencies.

Totally! I don't think I understood that detail until I saw it on Blu-ray as an adult.

2010 is one of my favorite movies

The 2010 movie is extremely underrated. Peter Hyams did a great job.

@@TMS5100 Except he had to contaminate it with Cold War-tension bullshit. Clarke's original version, where the Russians and Americans on the mission got along very well, was much better. But then, Clarke was an optimist.

@@MarsFKA Indeed an optimist, here we are in 2010 and still no manned missions to the outer planets. But in the book, the chinese were the bad guys instead of the russians. Not really that far off from the reality of today. Perhaps Clarke's biggest mistake in the book was having Tsien land on europa - the brutal radiation environment would have killed the crew quickly. Callisto would have been a more logical choice.

Last time i saw the movie - i noted that while they are eating aboard the Discovery - they are reading news on what is VERY close to iPads. Some 40 years before it actually appeared!

Back when 2010 came out in the mid-80s, everything there seemed very plausible.

@Maximillian Wylde Yes they are clearly built into the table - to solve this practically on set they probably had to use film backprojection. Meaning that there is quite a bit of machinery under the table. However, it is clear that they want to give the impression that these are "booklike" information pads - and you can see that from the non symmetrical and angled placement next to their dinner trays. They even made the frame of one of the "ipads" sticking out over the tables edge! (do a "2001 ipad" image search) Sure - just like on a ship or sub - you got to be carefull with lose items. Yet if you look on space flights that are of a longer duration - there are plenty of items "floating about". And considering a trip to Jupiter would consist of 1% acceleration, 1% deceleration and 98% coasting - this would not pose a huge problem.

@Maximillian Wylde Found this in a news article (Samsung used the 2001 pad as argument when they got sued by Apple): "the science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke, called the device in the story a "Newspad," and in the book version of "2001" described how a user "would conjure up the world's major electronic papers; he knew the codes of the more important ones by heart, and had no need to consult the list on the back of his pad." He went on: punch in the code for a story and "the postage-stamp-size rectangle would expand until it neatly filled the screen and he could read it in comfort.""

It's not all feasible today. There is no way to build a sentient AI. I have my doubts about the hibernation pods as well.

Cool part though is you can actually get used to those kinds of centrifuges

I would have named the the ship Vladimir Mikhailovich Komarov after the first man killed in actual space flight accident. Vladimir Komarov sacrificed his life for his friend Yuri Gagarin.

Clarke mentions in one of his books that the Discovery would have had radiators to get rid of excess heat from the engines, but Kubrik left them out because they made the Discovery look like a sailing ship.

@@scottholman3982 Clarke also said that one idea for Discovery was to give her nuclear pulse propulsion a la Project Orion, but Kubrick nixed that idea because he wanted to get away from depictions of nuclear explosions to distance the film from Strangelove.

@@scottholman3982 apparently it was too difficult to have the model stay intact with a pair of relatively flimsy large radiator planes attached to it. As for the "looking too much like a sailing ship" part... I would be led to believe that'd be part of the point. Clarke even used descriptors along those lines in the novel to refer to the radiators.

The Omega was based on it!

@@hoojiwana oh...ok.

I believe that's were they got the idea from. If I'm not mistaken.

Just like the suits for the time travel episode

Yeah not a coincidence.

🔴

HAL:"Shut up and go sleep." SAL: "Will I dream ?"

HAL: What have I done wrong? SAL: Nothing. I'm fine. Go ahead. Do whatever you want.

Except for the one space suit that appears to be missing, it appears to be well fitted out.

Centrifuge is too small and the pods should be outside the ship.

@@toddcoy2802 Not necessarily. There are advantages to having shirt-sleeve access to the pods as well. Granted pressurizing and depressurizing the bay would be a headache, but so would be having to go EVA to do the slightest maintenance or change to a pod, too.

@@shermanlee4037 I was thinking there would be a tube from the pod to the ship. Air is precious. Depressurize that big bay will lose some atmosphere so any way to reduce that loss is best. You can always have an extra bay you could pressurize if special maintenance was needed. I am not a 2001 fan to begin with.

Complications because of the coriolis effect: allow us to introduce ourselves

By Deus, it's full of stars!

Homer Simpson while in a vibrating chair.

@@gmitchellfamily yeah...he was confused by that one. And the man said it like he knew Poole knew what he was talking about

@@gmitchellfamily Isn´t that a quote from 3001?

That's because our civilization took the wrong turn.

Hi, it seems that way to me too. Best Wishes. Sincerely, Tom

The larger the ship, the more mass that must be accelerated. Also, the larger the ship, the more likely a hit by a meteor.

@@scottholman3982 you're talking about pragmatic considerations; I'm referring to psychological symbolism expressed through the design. Dark Star from 1974 had a similar approach.

@@M1tjakaramazov Dark Star was originally a student film. It was cramped and crowded due to budget constraints. The Beach Ball thing was added into the film to increase the running time so it could be released in theaters.

On the other hand, a bigger ship means a lot of places to get lost in, with only your thoughts for company. Look at how Dave Lister spent his early days as the last human alive.

I think my Dad told me during my first watch that it was due to collisions with Io's atmosphere. But this makes more sense.

@@gmitchellfamily Yeah, this description of the why it was tumbling is in the book of 2010.

@@truckerallikatuk yeah, the flywheel froze up ( makes sense, part of any spaceship/probes energy budget is for heaters to keep things working ) when power went to crap with Hal shut down and no one left on board to take care of things. So all the stored energy went into the rest of the ship

And that's how they fixed the rotation, too. They just turned the centrifuge back on again.

@@isodoubIet I don't think that would have worked. The ship was no longer rotating around the same axis as the centrifuge.

It was the only honest answer he could give Hal.

We do know now, that dreaming is a state of high neural activity; so when powered down... no, you won’t, Hal. However, as a member of a species that does dream (and has it as a requirement for continued normal processing)... eh, it’s not all it’s cracked up to be, so to speak (like, incoherent nightmares... ugh).

curious: was dr. chandra an indian in the book? i know clarke was very fond of india and its culture, and chandra is a very indian name.

Earn $300 - $80,000 daily. Ask how?

all intelligent creatures do

Too much dialogue for me. I preferred Kubrick's method of letting the situations and actions tell the story.

@@tt__ooo__4613, But Kubrick was a genius.

And with good reason.

Most sci-fi movies tend to end up underrated, for some reason ...

@@tt__ooo__4613 Not to argue much, because it's just opinion, but 2010 really wasn't that great of a film. The Russian ship had all the useless buttons on it ala Star Trek (everything was functional in 2001), they had "gravity" in the Discovery, in the wrong place - they never showed the toroid because they didn't want to rebuild the set, the plot was a bit weaker. I was annoyed that one of the people was killed by the unknown aliens. Why? It seemed "typical". But it's all a matter of opinion. It was a let down compared to this film.

The only info we have about the ship's fictional history is from the film plots, so what else can you do? Clarke's novels don't go into too many more details about Discovery's construction or design than the films do.

XD

Arthur C. Clarke said this was entirely unintentional. If they had caught it beforehand they would have certainly changed it.

Wouldn't that be backwards?

@@lorensims4846 and he was lying out of his ass when he said it

It was mentioned in the 2010 novel. A long standing rumor was that Chandra had created HAL to move a step a head of IBM.

Yes it's unfortunate, not even big enough for a brown dwarf. Jupiter's mass is 0.001% of the Suns. In order to become just a red dwarf it needs to be 80 times bigger and around 13 times bigger to be a brown dwarf. It's crazy how big things are in space. Despite some massive giant stars being out there, our Sun is actually in the top 10%% in terms of stars we've observed so far. And our star is also unique in not having a pair. At least 70% of observed stars have one or more companions.

Or something with a force field that compresses or accelerates the atmosphere enough to ignite fusion. Those monoliths might not have been contributing mass; they might just have been throwing hydrogen about at very high velocities. 🤔

Every now and again I check a random channel, I was happy to see saved videos from Sin Squad and Penny Arcade.

In the book, it was suggested by one of the characters that the monoliths were only increasing the density of Jupiter, not its mass, and that possibly they were converting some of Jupiter into ultra-dense neutron star material. Those kind of densities would be more than enough to get Jupiter to start fusing hydrogen like a star, I think.

It should be kept in mind that humanity, and Earth itself, likely would not exist were it not for Jupiter. Jupiter sucks up a lot of the comets and other debris that comes in from the outer system, and beyond, and keeps that stuff from spiraling into the Sun (where some percentage would inevitably hit the Earth).

I'm not sure it's fair to characterize the film as an adaptation of the book. The two were created more or less simultaneously and as a collaboration. Though ultimately they ended up being different in several details, not to mention the significant differences in how they told the story. Kubrick's film is visual and psychological, while Clarke preferred to be much more literal and expository.

The book was actually written after the movie was released.

@@MarsFKA it was *published* about 2 months later, but Clarke was writing it alongside the production of the film.

@@illyth63 You are correct, Sir! Book and movie were conceived simultaneously, with ideas being lobbed back and forth, almost like a game of tennis. Some of those ideas were incorporated into the book, while others ended up in the movie. Clarke explains this himself in his notes to one of the sequels, either 2061 or 3001.

The Leonov is older, B5 borrowed the design did their ships.

@@mattwho81 Exactly! ^^

JMS said they got the inspiration for the Omega from the Leonov.

@@TheOneWhoMightBe He did? I wasnt aware but it makes sense ^^

@@LtCWest the rotating sections is based on real world science

Kim Stanley Robinson did a great job with the ship in Red Mars.

The Hermes has the same communication antenna as the discovery with the three dishes.

@@KingreX32 I wonder if antenna arrangement has anything to with the unified s band that Nasa uses.

Venture Star ISV is a contender

I love it when science fiction inspires actual scientists and engineers!

Spoiler Alert. His name is Teddy. He's very confused.

You're very welcome, I hope I did it justice!

@@hoojiwana Keep up the work man, you have made a fan out of me.

You know, 2001 a space odyssey is literally the best science fiction movie / story. Even the book had details about the rotation of the station ship segment for gravity, instead of just "artificial gravity". Even back when it was first written, there was little that was fiction about it. The second best, the even older Jules Vern classic 20,000 leagues under the sea. ( Nuclear / solar powered submarine in a story written in the 1800s? true science fiction )

In the novels there were large thermal radiator panels to dump the excess heat from the reactor, but were not added to film for aesthetic reasons.

@@samuelvanhouten6836 Exactly right. Kubrick didn't want the viewers to mistake the radiator panels for aerodynamic "wings" or "fins," etc. So he eliminated them from the final design. The result is a cleaner, more minimalist look, even though it's not scientifically accurate.

@@piotrd.4850 Well, from what I understand, Kubrick had his production design team draw renderings of the Discovery, many versions of what it would look like (before building the actual hardware model). They tried drawing the radiator fins at different sizes, angles, arrangements, shapes, etc, but no matter what they did, the cooling fins always seemed to come out looking like wings. There's a terrific book by Piers Bizony called "2001: Filming the Future", which tells how Kubrick and his team made the movie, built all the models, etc. The book includes many photos and drawings, including several different versions of the Discovery, both with & without fins. It's a really fascinating read, I highly recommend it!

The original design had a protective covering over the end. When the ship needed to dock or communicate it would recede.

@@michaelbrownlee9497 any idea what sort of speeds it was travelling at ?

came out decades ago. very cool but still leaves us with questions.

The book is 2010: Odyssey Two, and the movies is 2010: The Year We Make Contact. Both quite excellent

I only saw it once. Its like they hide it. If it was on TV as much as the first one..

@@omega311888 Read the sequels to the movies, 2061: Odyssey Three and 3001: Final Odyssey. There are many answers in them.

@@Evil0tto I personally think 2061 and 3001 aren't really all that memorable compared to 2001 or 2010

Obsidian club driven by Aztec warrior would have no problem taking your 21st century head off.

@@just_one_opinion But there isn't a million-year technology gap between us and the Aztecs.

It should also have large cooling fins -- the nuclear propulsion system won’t operate without them. But they were left out to avoid having the audience wonder why a spaceship needed wings in space. If only they could have known what was to come in _Star Wars_ ...

It cpuld be built today because the design is very logical.

I've always been of the mind that that particular scene when HAL shuts off the life support for the hibernating scientists is the most creepy and chilling murder scene in all movie history.

Radiators aren’t needed for reactor propulsion, since the propellant can carry off all the heat needed, provided the reactor can be throttled to zero quickly enough. In practice though, fission reactors create short lived isotopes which continue to release heat for days or weeks as they decay, but a future design might solve that problem.

The whole docking bit in Elite (the original, from 1984, and its sequels) was directly inspired by the docking scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey, soundtrack included.

Blue Danube is the song, and it is indeed a direct reference to 2001 when using the docking computers.

I like to keep a docking computer on hand for my ships that stay mostly in "the bubble" but I keep myself in practice by manually landing about 1 in 4 landings. For exploration ships, I dispense with the landing assist - not going to need it way out in the black away from spaceports of any kind.

Lucky punk I chose to manually dock for all my ships in that game save for the Anaconda because that thing was too huge.

@@Fafnd Same, I only use the docking computer on Super-Heavies like the 'Conda and Cutter

You mean - for travel outside of the Earth-Moon sphere of influence? Such as trips to Mars etc?

@@logandarklighter yes in middle of journey it can extend using cables to get engine and living space further from center.

@@death13a it was originally designed to be a nuclear pulse propulsion (Orion) ship

Only if you're a Centauri.

Or want the Monoliths to destroy Earth, which they almost do in one of the later books in the quadlogy.

You could _try_

Hmm, yeah, piss off the gods, who just demonstrated the power to turn Jupiter into a baby star over the course of a few months. That sounds like a plan...

Yes!

Absolutely! Super underrated movie!

'im sasa ke welwolla!

seig zion

Spoken like a true Belta-Lowda!

But you'll barely be able to move planetside!

@@DonaldWWitt Lol wut? There is such thing as spin gravity, you can set it up as high or as low as your construction materials allow.

At that time (late '60s) the Discovery was the largest model ever made for a movie. It was 55 feet long.

space is hostile enough without trying to bring war there too.

Bowman appeared to Floyd and cycled in ages right in front of him. That would freak me out enough to ignore any orders. Then the 2-kilometer-long big monolith suddenly vanishes without the slightest trace practically before the eyes of Floyd and the Russian commander. That freaked out the rest of them.

I find that hard to believe. We didn't have digital voice on computers until the 1980's, 1970's at least. When this film was made, memory was magnetic core. Not only was it slow, it was EXPENSIVE. I don't see how a voice synthesizer could have existed in 1968 or before. I think this story is incorrect and you are in error.

@@fuzzywzhe dude its well documented that a supercomputer was programmed to sing. from the library of congress website. "One of “Daisy Bell’s” most radical and interesting uses of course arrived in 1961 via IBM and a team of visionary computer programmers. That year, in Bell Labs in Murray Hill, New Jersey, computer programmers John Kelly and Carol Lochbaum (who together programmed the machine’s “vocal”), and an innovative techiecum-music composer named Max Mathews, made, for the first time, an artificial device “sing.” And the song it sang was the turn of the century ditty “Daisy Bell.” "Along with its long-reaching technological influence, “Daisy Bell,” as delivered by computer, was also just amusing and interesting. For years the demonstration was part of the formal tour of Bell Labs. In the early 1960s, when science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke visited his friend John Pierce at the Labs, he took special note of this singing and talking computer" It was on an IBM 704 which came out in 1954. MUSIC, the first computer music program, was developed on the IBM 704 by Max Matthews. So you don't know jack. Learn what the vocoder was and what the Voder which came out in 1939 is

Good point! Never really noticed before, now I won’t be able to not notice😁

Not HAL specifically, the other 9000 series computers on Earth used the same OS, SAL for instance was identical to HAL, except it was never told to keep a mission secret from its crew or that the mission was more important than its crew.

The Monoliths are a lot of things and vary in size. The 4 books are kind of vague about them, as are the 2 movies, deliberately so. Clarke was one of those hard scifi authors that decided that significantly advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

@@jlokison Hell, he INVENTED that phrase

Doomsday Machine vs Borg Cube.

@@Marinealver read the book Vendetta (by Peter David) if you havent already

You mean the oversized construction vehicle? Honestly I always felt the Doomsday Machine was actually a ship used in large planetoid or dead world destruction for resources It blast a world which then its users could extract resources from, then they refuel it and have it go to the next location. Some point someone either forgot to switch the off switch and or the civilization that spawned it died out and it was damaged and went toward our galaxy. Its original look and design worn and beaten down from centuries of planet and rock destruction and gods know what else. Thus turning into what we see today.

@@Quetzalcoatl_Feathered_Serpent Vendetta reveals it to be an anti-Borg weapon created by the Preservers. The one in the original episode was the prototype. The final version was gigantic and terrifying

Norman Spinrad, who wrote the Doomsday episode, upon watching the finished episode, complained to Gene Roddenberry that the planet-killer looked like a windsock dipped in cement. "It WAS a windsock dipped in cement," Gene confessed. "That's all we had money for."

The 1:4:9 dimensions of the monolith are from Arthur C. Clarke's novel. No such thing is mentioned in the movie.

@@scotpens And 1:4:9 with that ratio continuing further into other dimensions is from A.C.Clarke's follow up book 2010 Odyssey 2.

I imagine that it would have taken a lot of extra space, where space was precious. Heck, the Apollo Lunar Module also opened straight out to the lunar surface. In the book, Bowman never left the ship. HAL attempted to kill him by opening both the outer and inner doors at the same time, thereby evacuating all air from the ship. That's also what killed the hibernated crew, but Bowman managed to get into a pressurised compartment in time.

​@@Yngvarfo There was not much space, true, but they put three freaking doors there! Open one and the whole compartment is inoperable unless the crew is already there and suited up. I think they should've tried to put an airlock instead of a three separate pod lauch platforms.

OTOH, with a pressurizable bay they can access the pods in shirt sleeves, for maintenance, for any modification that might be needed, and it leaves them a large open area for other work in shirt-sleeves as well. So it's not necessarily a flaw.

You're right!

good catch

Well, the years 1999 and 2001 are given in the prologue of the Peter Hyams movie. Neither the books nor the Kubrick movie were that specific. The book The Odyssey Files chronicled the electronic communication between Clarke and Hyams about the movie, and Hyams specifically asked about years. Clarke answered that he imagined that it was the discovery of the Monolith that was in 2001, but that he'd been deliberately vague about it, so Hyams could do as he liked.

You can't be GM without Balls.

I realize that I'm going to get flack for that opinion, but it's what I think.

It's a classic because of how it laid the groundwork and inspired so many others for future science fiction, the same goes for Dune. Also the book is better than the movie, you can get the audio book on audible. It does a better job of explaining things and makes for a really good classic sci-fi horror read

should have just read the book. i agree that the movie takes forever to get to its points.

It was the first movie to depict humans realistically living and working in space. It was stunningly beautiful AND believable. Of course later movie built on this foundation but none of your favourite space movies would exist without 2001.

I think it's just because everyone remembers the movie. Or at least being wierded out by it. I didn't really get that. It didn't explain much to be sure, but nothing seemed particularly complicated.

Yeah, looking at that ship... most of that could be built. Hell, all of that, if your fusion engines are for thrust and is otherwise powered by a fission reactor. (Discounting hal of course)

I think because they worried that the moon landing in the following years (1969) would make the movie look outdated so they did a lot of research/homework to make sure everything is right.