Conference noted::sf

I found 2010 boring, and think it will make a boring movie.
I give it a 3.
				Steve

I have to agree with the 3 rating.  I also found it very anticlamactic (sp?)
as mentioned in the original note.

    I realize this notes section hasn't been touched in a few years,
    but how about some comments on the movie?  I think it is a very
    good indicator of the way Americans view things today as opposed
    to its source, 1968's "2001".
    What do I mean?  I mean in 1968 the main people who made the movie
    were much more concerned about content than style, although 2001
    was good enough to have both.  2010 is basically a lot of style
    with its producer (the guy who made Capricorn 1 - how's THAT for
    a pseudo-intelligent SF movie) giving it what scientific accuracy
    he can, but really more concerned about feeding off 2001's fame
    and thereby skimping on the plot.
    	I personally wish Clarke had left 2001 alone; it was not meant
    to be sequelized nor was it made in the era of sequelization.  
    I do not think Bowman was created anew to become a cosmic messenger
    boy, but the leader of a more evolved race of human beings.
    Even looking at 2010's science you will find flaws - I'll just bring
    up one:  Remember how the Monolith (TMA-1) was found on Earth's
    Moon in the crater Tycho?  Well, in the beginning of 2010, that
    computer readout states the Monolith as having been found in the
    Sea of Tranquility!  Obviously, the producer wished to know no more
    about the Moon than what the general public does (Apollo 11).
    	Now that you have some idea where 
         i stand on 2010, (OOPS), please give me your comments. Thanks.

    Well, I don't know that I found a whole lot of content in 2001,
    either.  In fact, gobs of style and little content would have be
    one way I would characterize the movie.
    
    I found 2001 visually striking, of course, and enjoyed the accurate
    rendition of zero-g mechanics, but I had a number of objections
    centering on lack of content, meaning the things they don't tell
    us.  There are two main things they don't tell us.
    
    The first is why HAL goes homicidal.  This is explained in the book,
    but only hinted at, if that, in the movie.  I appreciated 2010
    explaining HAL's behavior to the folk who hadn't read the book.
    It also partially redeemed 2001 from the "evil computer" stereotype
    that still tends to haunt movie sf.  (Lucas has made it possible
    for robots to be good guys, but a sheer computer, a voice from a
    box or less, is still a prop or a villain in most movies.)
    
    The second and most important is WHATINHELL IS GOING ON AT THE END?!
    Once again, the book explains, but the movie goes out of its way
    to be enigmatic.  I regard this obscurantism as a sheer artistic
    sin.  Mysteries in a story should be solved, or at least resolved.
    2010 at least shows as much of the aliens' motives as the book does.
    (I still consider it slightly clumsy.)  We can acknowledge that
    the aliens are beyond our fathoming, but at least their actions
    have some meaning we can understand.  In 2001, we can surmise that
    the aliens have turned Bowman into the famed Next Step in Evolution,
    but we have to do an uncomfortable amount of guessing even to reach
    that point.
                  
    Leaving content, let us now consider characterization.  2001 was
    horrid on characterization.  The most interesting person was HAL,
    followed by the monolith, followed by the apes, followed at a
    considerable distance by the humans.  Now, adventure fiction doesn't
    need or even tolerate elaborate characterization, but the characters
    should have engaging and vivid personalities, and not be embarrassingly
    unrealistic steroetypes.  The best characters in 2001 were no better
    than stereotypes, and most weren't even that vivid.
    
    In 2010, we have at least six people (counting HAL) who are passably
    interesting: the three Americans, HAL, the Russian captain, and
    the cosmonaut who helps board Discovery.  Bowman, alas, is interesting
    only as a specially effect.
    
    So on the whole I liked 2001 (for the SFX and music) but I liked
    2010 better.  (It would have been nice if they had magnificent music,
    too, but it would porbably have crowded things too much.)
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    	Kubrick PURPOSELY made the humans in 2001 bland.  Why?
    Because he wanted to show just how depersonalized we are all becoming
    in the age of the high tech machine (a BIG concern in the 1960's
    and still should be even moreso in the 1980's).  This is from Kubrick
    himself, not my theory.  you might want to read THE MAKING OF 2001
    by Jerome Agel.  It helps to explain much, particularly that EVERY
    scene in 2001 has a deep purpose.  A famous author (I cannot remember
    who, unfortunately), said all good works of literature (movies like
    2001 can apply) do NOT explain everything to their readers (viewers),
    otherwise, where's the fun in discovering knowledge for yourself?
    	Comments?
    	Larry    	
    
    
    

re: the movie
2010 was pretty interesting up til the ending.  I just did
not quite believe that what happened in the climax would
really make Russia and the USA suddenly give up their long
standing quarrels and become peaceable.  Too pat.  And too
bad, because the way they built up the tension of what was
going on back on Earth vs. out in space was done fairly well.

    RE: (last several)
    
    I agree, that the characterizations in 2001 were pretty bland compared
    with 2010.  But even in 2010, HAL is the best character.
    
    The ending of 2010 was a little far fetched, but isn't it a nice
    dream?  This is science FICTION you know :^).
    
    Kathleen

    2001:
    
    I agree that the characters in 2001 were made bland on purpose
    (of course, this should make little difference if you can't
    stand bland characters), for the reasons stated earlier.
    
    As for the end, I saw the movie twice before reading the book.
    I didn't understand the ending the first time. I did the second
    time. I didn't find it particularly difficult to follow.
    
    2010:
    
    I thought this was a passable sequel. Lots of things I liked,
    enough to be willing to spend $30 for a videotape of it, but it
    just seemed sort of... unnecessary.
    
    --- jerry

    Re .7
    
    I had heard that the characters were deliberately bland but had
    not heard that Kubrick had announced this publicly.  It doesn't
    change my mind; it was still an artistic flaw, and if it was deliberate
    it just shows a flaw in Kubrick's judgement.
    
    "No great work of art explains everything"?  I don't ask for EVERYTHING
    to be explained; I just ask for ENOUGH to be explained.  2001 was
    too obscure.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    re .9
    	Why do you think it was far fetched ?  The planet, Jupiter I
    	think, turning into a star, or the escape ?
    
    Jupiter does display the characteristics of a failed star...
    
    
    Dwight

    re obscurity:
    
    When I first saw 2001, when my date and I left the theater, one
    of the staff was hawking programs in the lobby, shouting, "Get'cher
    programs here!  If you want to know what happened in the movie,
    get'cher program. ..."
    
    Now _that's_ obscure!
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

     re.23.12
    	I think what the person meant earlier about 2010's ending being
    far-fetched was NOT that the aliens could turn Jupiter into a star,
    but that the US and the USSR would just up and stop all nuclear
    hostilities just because a new star had been created in the Solar
    Sysytem.  You and I would very probably be deeply moved by such
    an event, but let's face it, how many government officials (on both
    sides) would react positively unless it was something that ABSOLUTELY
    DIRECTLY affected their lives, and therefore their thinking; that
    new star essentially made its most direct effect on the lifeforms
    of Europa - granted, the intelligent lifeforms on Europa's far future
    might have some direct effect on Earth's inhabitants (read the book),
    but that will be long, long after the leaders in 2010 have died.
    I hope I spoke for that reader correctly.
    Comments?
    Larry
    

    Well, to play Clarke's advocate for a bit, there are aspects to
    the aliens' actions that would attract the notice of a politician.

    First, though some or all of the politicians may have known the
    aliens had left artifacts on the moon and in Jupiter orbit, even
    the ones in the know might have dismissed it as scientifically
    interesting but politically irrelevant unless we could learn useful
    technology from the artifacts.  (And it was clearly stated we
    couldn't.)  So there were alien explorers here a million years ago?
    So an astronaut got caught in the works of their old machines and died?
    So what?
    
    NOW, however, we have spectacular proof that the aliens are still 
    around, still interested in what humans do, and VERY, VERY powerful.
    They make stars.  They send radio messages telling humans what they 
    can and can't do.  All the balances of power must be recalibrated.
    
    I'd think the distraction value alone would be enough to delay the
    holocaust for a few months, at the very least.
    
    What I can't believe is that humans would never try landing on Europa.
    I'd expect the next century or so to see many interesting failures.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    For the record, a year or so ago, Clarke had signed a contract for
    another sequel, 20,010.
    
    --- jerry

    re .16
    	Humans did occasionally attempt to land probes on Europa, I
    	think.  After a few 'wasted' probes, they stopped. (Caveate;
    	it's been a while since I read the book, and I have a trick
    	memory...)

    re: .16 (spoiler post <ff>)
    
    The epilogue of the novel 2010 speaks of the Europans seeing shining
    lights climbing toward them from the smaller star (our Sun, to them)
    and watching them get closer and closer until very suddenly they
    disappeared.
    
    Some watchdog with energy weapons, methinks.  .17s memory is not
    playing tricks.  My relating of the events is somewhat foggy, but
    that's the gist...
    
    Dave W.

    Perhaps, if there is interest, this should be another note...
    
    I just finished reading David Brin's "Sundiver" and "Startide
    Rising", then coincidentally watched (at last) "2010".  I got
    the distinct feeling there was a shared assumption.  
    
    Brin's stories expressed dealt with 'uplift'; 2010 (and 2001)
    seemed to be implying a similar attitude.  That is to say, advanced
    galactic species/civilizations forcing the development and progress
    of 'lower' species to join the community of sophants...
    
    Anyone else see this similarity ?
    
    
    Dwight
    

    Now that you point it out, yes, the similarity is marked.  There
    are of course differences in detail.  For instance, in 2001 & 2010
    Terrans and Europans are being uplifted by an original Elder Race
    of godlike technical ability.  In Brin's work, Terrans have no known
    patrons, and there is a continuous scale from the original Progenitors
    down to folks like us and lower.  But the similarity is still marked.
    It would be interesting to know if Brin consciously borrowed this
    from Clarke.  (Though I think the idea goes back even further, to
    "Childhood's End" in Clarke's work and, even further, you could
    probably find it in Stapledon's "Star Maker."  You can find most
    SF concepts somewhere in "Star Maker.")
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    	As much as I admire the superaliens in "2010", several points
    as of late (re 23.20-1) have caused me to express my dissatisfaction
    at how it seems we human beings can seem to do nothing without
    destroying ourselves in the end.  These aliens end up being our
    SF replacement for God.  This is the same mentality as found with
    the "reasons" for UFO's - they are the spaceships of advanced aliens
    come to save us from our primitive, suicidal ways.(This was an excuse
    given by psychologists in the 1960's to explain why people saw UFO's.)
    Considering that humans have not changed all that much in thousands
    of years - and we're still here! - why do we need superalien saviours?
    THEY must have had to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps
    at one time long ago, too.
    	Clarke himself once said that he wished that WE would go to
    the stars, NOT the stars come to us.
    	COMMENTS?
    	Larry
    
    

    One of the interesting things about Brin's books is that the patron
    races TRY to come across as godlike and humanity and its allies
    tell them where to get off.  And the current crop of patrons in
    turn have religions centering on the original Progenitors, making
    the alien=god analogy quite explicit.  In fact, Brin's books are
    a paean to democracy, in a way.  the "bad guys" advocate a rigidly
    aristocratic hierarchy of bullying, snobbery, and toadying.  The
    "good guys" take as little notice as is practical of who was uplifted
    by who when.  So in this way, Brin turns the tired, old von Danekin
    trick on its head.  (Also makes it more realistic, I think.)
    
    Clarke is a different case.  In "Childhood's End" and "The City
    and the Stars" (aka "Against the Fall of Night"), he heaps deliberate
    scorn on religion, in the narrator's voice.  Yet he keeps re-inventing
    God.  The Overmind of "Childhood's End" is very like a pantheistic
    Brahm.  The city computer of Diaspar ("City and the Stars") provokes 
    feelings of awe and reverence in the habitually iconoclastic Alvin.  
    And of course there are the monoliths.
                                          
    James Blish faced this quasi-religious SF theme squarely in "The
    Star Dwellers" and "Journey to the Heart Stars," wherein humanity
    meets a race of energy beings whom we nickname "angels" in uneasy
    jest.  At no time do people approach them with reverence (caution,
    yes), but as the stories go on, the nickname keeps looking more
    and more appropriate.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    re:.23
    
    I wonder if perhaps Clarke, who is an avowed atheist, is trying
    consciously for a more "natural" substitute for the essentially
    supernatural concept of God. It may indeed strike one as a very
    Von Danikenite idea, but Clarke isn't really trying to pass it
    off as Truth.
    
    --- jerry

Here's my two cents on 2010. I liked the book which isn't too unusual since
Clark is my favorite author. I liked the movie. Its nice to see a science
fiction movie where the characters have character and the special effects
aren't spoiled by monumental technical stupidity.

<Spoiller>
The only thing I found hokey about the movie was this "political situation"
that was in the movie. Figure the "situation" started around the time
Heywood Floyd was contacted by the Soviets. Add three months for mission 
preparation, and a year and a half for travel time. That seems like a long
time for the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. to be glaring down each others throats
with boats and planes. Seems to me something like that would be resolved one
way or another by the time Heywood Floyd arrived in the vicinity of Discovery.

So why the differrences between the book and the movie? There was an interview
I saw with the director of the film. In it, he said he wanted to accentuate
the feeling of tension these explorers must feel going off into the unknown.
Knowing that, the differrences between book and movie become clearer.  The
"political situation" set up a feeling of tension that maybe there wouldn't
be a place for these guys to back to. The incident on Europa where the data
was all erased set up the feeling that maybe there was something out there 
that wouldn't let them come back. Lot's of other little things in the movie
were set up to give you that same feeling. Then comes the ending. The monolith
isn't out to get them after all. Its owners are offering mankind new worlds.
The USA and USSR stop quibling. Everybody's happy. I liked the book version
better but even with my nit picken I thought the movie ranks pretty good as
far as SF goes.

Dan Eaton

    	I'm not as well read in the Sci Fi field as most of the noters
    in this file.  But I would be interested to know if any reason has 
    ever been given for the omission of the Chinese expedition in the 
    movie. (I prefered the book to the movie.)  It (the movie) seemed 
    to be missing something without it.

    						Lee

    	re 23.26-
    	
    	The reason the Chinese expedition was left out was because the
    producers felt it would unnecessarily clutter the plot; in other
    words, the Russians would find out soon enough without the Chinese.
    Besides, I don't think the Chinese will be advanced enough by 2010
    to send a manned spacecraft to Jupiter - send a man into Earth orbit,
    maybe, but not Jupiter.  The U.S. doesn't plan on having a manned
    mission to Mars until 2035!, let alone anything to Jupiter!
    
    	Larry
    
    
    	

    	Interesting though, how some space science groups in this country
    are pushing for a joint US-USSR manned mission to Mars by the early
    21st Century.  It makes a lot of sense to me, both in practicality,
    safety, and even politically/socially.
    	I honestly feel that humanity's combined exploration and
    colonization of space will bring the world into a saner, better
    way of existence.  So maybe 2010 DID have a few good points!
    
    	Larry
    

        I still think the Apollo-Soyuz mission was the best thing
        either space program has ever done to date.  Not the most
        spectacular, or maybe even the most productive: but the best.
        I still have the arm patch on my jacket.
        
        A multi-national (why just US-USSR!?) mission to Mars would
        be a magnificent step both for the space program(s) and for
        humanity in general.  Maybe the screwballs in charge would
        be a little slower to push their buttons...
        
        	/dave

    	I too found the Apollo-Soyuz mission to be an excellent step
    in the right direction.  I am just afraid it has become what the
    Apollo lunar missions were - a space spectacular with lots of potential
    that has yet to be used.
    
    	I also thought of another way space colonization could save
    humanity even in a worst-possible-event scenario:  If the superpowers
    ever decide to have a nuclear war, perhaps the self-sustaining colonies
    in Earth orbit and on the Moon and other planets could survive and
    carry on the species.
    	Granted, this is not an original idea, and there are numerous
    factors to work out on this concept:  Perhaps some other ideas in
    this area and on the topic of human survival through space colonization
    in general could work the "bugs" out.  I feel it merits considering.
    
    	Larry
    

    	I believe I have an appropriate quote for this topic:
    
    		"All of us who are concerned for peace and the triumph
    of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence
    reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field."
    
    					- Albert Einstein
    
    

re: .31: space colonies as nuclear war survivors

People have mentioned this occasionally as a reason for colonizing space,
and I've always wondered about it.  Why do you think that a space 
colony would be spared in a nuclear exchange?  If I were targetting 
the missiles, I would certainly spare a couple for these large, 
dangerous bases going by overhead.  They would be just as dangerous 
to me as, say, an aircraft carrier in the South Pacific.  The only 
way a space colony could avoid getting involved in the conflict would 
be if it was far enough away to be politically separate from the superpowers.
The Moon and L5 are too close; it only takes a couple of days to get 
to them.  Maybe Mars or the asteroid belt would be far enough.  If we 
survive long enough to set up bases on Mars, then some other way to 
escape nuclear annihiliation would probably have been found.

/jlr

    Well I finally got around to seeing this film, and I'm sorry I didn't
    see it in a theater so I could make a fairer comparison with 2001,
    but it's probably no comparison anyway.  The big difference was
    that 2001 left a lot unsaid and allowed you to use your imaginations
    and take in the images.  2010 had to keep giving you voiceover letters
    to the missus explaining what the heck is going on.
    
    I watched 2001, and 2010 back-to-back on a VCR this weekend and
    definitely found the latter lacking as a sequel.  It is still mind
    boggling to look at the special effects in 2001, even now knowing
    how each of them was made.  I think Kubrick's work ranks right up
    there as one of the ten watershed movies of the past three decades.
    
    As for Arthur Clarke appearing as a bum feeding pigeons from a bench
    in front of the whitehouse, I looked for somebody on a bench 
    but it must have been cut out of the released tape.
    
    The glitch about the deep programmed instructions from the
    nasty guys at NSC or someplace is evident when you note
    that when Chandra reads them they are dated "2001" at which point
    the Jupiter had been in outer space for eighteen months (or am I
    confused here?).                        
    
    Frankly, with all the buildup for something wonderful that was going
    to happen, I thought the ending was a cheap copout.  The ending
    to "Quiet Earth" had better visuals by far.
    

    re:.34
    
    To a point, I agree. As a sequel to 2001, it was perhaps lacking,
    but as it's own film, it wasn't too bad. I found that seeing it
    on tape a couple of times raised my assessment of it somewhat. I
    appreciated it more for what was there than denouncing it for what
    wasn't.
    	As for the effects in 2001, I can still appreciate them in
    the context of when they were done, but some of the effects seem
    very two-dimensional to me, as if they were obviously background
    matte paintings.
    
    To answer a couple of minor points:
    
    The scene with Clarke feeding the pigeons wasn't actually cut out
    of the tape version, but it was on the bottom of the screen image
    and is thus pretty much cropped out of the tape.
    
    I was under the impression that it was in 2001 that the monolith
    was found on the moon, not when Discovery made Jupiter orbit.
    
    --- jerry

    It was found on the moon but it is also seen in orbit around Jupiter.

    
    
    	They were two separate and distinct monoliths. The are the same
    	relative shape, ie, 1 by 4 by 9 (the squares of 1,2,3), but
    	the one orbiting Jupiter's moon, Io, is several kilometers
    	long, where the one on the moon was only a few meters tall.
    	The function for the monolith on the moon was as a signaling
    	device to the larger one. The larger one was a star-gate to
    	a distant galaxy which was activated by a radio type signal
    	from the one on the moon. This signal was sent when the monolith
    	on the moon was first exposed to sunlight. Supposedly, this
    	was based one the supposition that if man was smart enough to
    	find the monolith on the moon, then he was smart enough for
    	a trip out to Jupiter. Apparently, the star-gate was so
    	powerful that it couldn't be very close to Earth. Floyd (Scheider),
    	states in 2010 that the monolith from the moon was still under
    	investigation, lasers or nothing known to man was able to
    	penetrate it to discover how it worked.
    
    	Actually, these were monoliths two and three. Number one appeared
    	on Earth during it's early development, when man still resembled
    	apes. It suddenly appeared one day near a group of apes and
    	supposedly stimulated their brains to higher thought. They
    	discovered that an old bone when struck against another object
    	caused severe damage to it. The next scene shows every ape in
    	the group, each with it's own bone/club and busily eating a
    	small animal. Naturally, the next thing the apes discovered
    	was how to kill each other with these newly discovered tools.
    	BTW, the apes leader was know as Moonwatcher, 'cause he was
    	facinated by the moon and would stare at it for hours.
    
    zack
    

    RE: .35 "Date of monolith discovery on moon"
    
    Jerry, the opening titles of "2010" state that a monolith was
    discovered on the moon in 1999, and then eighteen months later,
    in 2001, the jupiter probe lost contact and has not been heard of
    since.                         
    
    It also bothered me that there was reference to Bowman sending a
    message back in 2001 saying that HAL had malfunctioned and that
    he had jettisoned the bodies of the hibernating crewmembers.  I
    don't remember anything like that happening in 2001 and how would
    he send the message after doing the lobotomy on HAL?

    
    
    	Indeed, Bowman did not jettison any bodies in the movie, 2001.
    	I think this was an effort in 2010 to clear up possible
    	inconsistancies.
    
    	However, Bowman could have sent a message after doing a lobotomy
    	on HAL. HAL did take care of aiming the AE-35 unit for
    	transmission, but this was a lower order function, like
    	digestion or breathing. It required no intuative thought
    	to acomplish it.
    
    zack
    

    In the book, Clarke describes the "burial at space" and the problems
    Bowman had keeping the antenna aligned without HAL's help.  So the
    events are "canonical" if you allow for the book.
    
    (Of course, there's the little discrepancy about which planet they
    went to.  In the book, it was Saturn, not Jupiter.  Clarke changed
    it back to Jupiter for the book version of 2010.)
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    re:.back_a_few
    
    Right. I'd forgotten the date reference.
    
    re:.40
    
    Actually, it had been planned to use Saturn for the original movie,
    but the special effects people couldn't come up with a satisfactory
    look for the rings, so they moved the locale to Jupiter (what's
    a gas giant between friends?).
    
    One of the reasons I heard that SILENT RUNNING was set out by
    Saturn was that Doug Trumbull refused to admit defeat.
    
    --- jerry

    	I mentioned this quite a while back in this note, but amongst
    the numerous technical errors in 2010, one of the biggest was that
    the narration in the beginning had TMA-1 (the Monolith on the Moon)
    located in the Sea of Tranquility, while in 2001 (and the novel),
    it was found in the crater Tycho, thousands of miles from Tranquility.
    That's why the Monolith was designated TMA-1; the T was for TYCHO.
    
    	The other error was the color of Jupiter and especially its
    moon, Io.  They are NOT as brilliant in color as they seem from
    the Voyager photos - they were computer enhanced to bringout details
    in the planet and moons to aid scientists in studying them.  Later
    work done to show these worlds in their true colors shows Jupiter
    as being rather pale, and Io as being more of a greenish-yellowish
    gray!
    
    	Of course 2010 is not as scientifically accurate as 2001.  It
    was made by Peter Hyams, the man who made 1978's CAPRICORN ONE!
    Anybody who thinks an Apollo Lunar Craft system could take men to
    Mars and back successfully (as well as pretend an entire manned
    mission) is not to be counted on for accurate details (like Kubrick).
    
    	Larry
    
                                             
      

    Didn't TMA stand for Tycho Magnetic Anomaly?

    	I said there was a TYCHO in there somewhere! :^)
    
    	Bit of trivia -
    
    	The Apollo 8 crew, the first men to orbit the Moon, had planned
    to tell Capcom (Capsule Communications) that it saw a black monolith
    floating in lunar orbit as a joke, but then decided against it,
    as when a Gemini crew jokingly said they saw a UFO being pulled
    by eight tiny reindeer, NASA actually got WORRIED for a while! 
    So you can imagine what they'd do if the Apollo 8 crew had mentioned
    the monolith!
    	This was December, 1968, and 2001 was still very fresh in
    everyone's mind.
    
    	Larry
    

           <<< SSDEVO::SYS$SYSDEVICE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MOVIES.NOTE;1 >>>
                             -< You be the critic >-
================================================================================
Note 69.9                            2010                                9 of 15
TOPDOC::LYNCH                                        18 lines  12-DEC-1984 11:35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I spotted a *major* inconsistency between 2001 and 2010 and wonder if anyone
can either explain it or confirm it...

In 2010, there is a scene late in the film in which Chandra explains the
"schizo" behavior of HAL. He says that secret orders were given to HAL by
the <mumble> (surrogate CIA/NSA?) to conceal the real mission of Discovery
from the crew. Floyd explodes at this point, ranting that he knew nothing
about this deception and that this gets him off the hook for the failure
of the mission.

Hold on! Wasn't it Heywood Floyd's recorded message that Bowman uncovers when
he is "dismantling" HAL in 2001? How could Floyd record that message explaining
the real mission to the crew if he didn't know that the real mission was to be
concealed?? I'm sure that Clarke never wrote the story this way!

Am I right or what?

-- Bill
================================================================================
Note 69.10                           2010                               10 of 15
RAYNA::LATHAM                                        25 lines  12-DEC-1984 19:21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although I thoroughly enjoyed the book and all the sub-plots, I don't
think it would have been possible to include all of it into the movie.
I don't think the sub-plot involving the Chinese was necessary to the
movie's story.

I won't even try to compare the movie with 2001; its has a totally different
style, as does the book.  I had a few problems with the movie.  Although
some of the scenes do a good job portraying the lack of gravity, there
were definitely discrepancies in others, most noticeably the indication
of gravity in the Leonov control room when the centrifuge had been
stopped and the actors leaning or sitting on sets in the non-gravity areas
of the Discovery (even assuming the use of the velcro shoes). I also
found the Leonov too 'comfortable' and spacious for a Soviet ship that 
was quickly thrown together to beat the Americans and the erosion of
Discovery's orbit.

On the other hand, I did enjoy the movie and found it suprisingly 
suspenceful.  I'm also glad they paid attention to the photographs
that Voyagers I and II returned of the Jovian system in their matte
drawings.  I'd give the movie an 8 1/2 (on a 10 scale) for those who have
read the book.  I'm not sure the movie is clear enough for those that 
haven't read the book?

				Barry
				<-/->

>I'm also glad they paid attention to the photographs
>that Voyagers I and II returned of the Jovian system in their matte
>drawings.  

Not matte drawings, but computer generated animation!
A representative of the team from Digital Productions presented a paper
at SIGGRAPH last month explaining how Jupiter was recreated.
In short, a planet probe photo montage was initially digitized,
then animated by application of simple two dimensional hydrodynamic
equations.
The animation runs at about 100 (that's one hundred) times faster
than Jupiter's actual motion, since the producers wanted to show the
planet in motion.  Elsewise they couls have just used a matte photo.
About two minutes of animation are used and re-used for about 30 minutes
of screen time.

- tom powers]

    	In the October 1989 issue of ANALOG magazine, there is an article
    by Martyn J. Fogg entitled "Stellifying Jupiter" about speculation
    on turning the planet Jupiter into a star to aid in terraforming the
    the Jovian world's Galilean moons (Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto) -
    much as what occurred in 2010 - only this project is to be done by
    our very distant descendants with highly advanced technologies.
    
    	The basic plan calls for transporting a primordial collapsar 
    (black hole) to Jupiter to be used in the process of "stellifying"
    the giant gas planet.  The project would last hundreds of millions 
    of years, and one would have to take care not to either let Jupiter 
    fizzle out or turn into a miniature supernova in the heart of our 
    solar system.

        The article does make for an interesting thought experiment.
    
    	Larry
     

    Re: .48 
    
    [Stellifying Jupiter]
    
    There may be an easier way: go out to the cometary halo and drop a few
    comets into Jupiter. A comet moving at 35 km/sec is going to do wonders
    for Jupiter's energy budget. Especially if you can hit the solid
    hydrogen core. You may not get a Sol-type bright star, but you'll get
    one with greatly enhanced IR output, which would solve the major
    problem of the Jovian moons (as human residences) -- heat.
    				- hbm

From: [email protected] (R. Pogge)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-lovers,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Stellifying Jupiter in the October ANALOG.
Date: 30 Aug 89 02:42:51 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, UT Austin
 
    Larry Klaes ([email protected]) writes:

>     	In the October 1989 issue of ANALOG magazine, there is an article
>     by Martyn J. Fogg entitled "Stellifying Jupiter" about speculation
>     on turning the planet Jupiter into a star ...
> [details omitted] 
>     	The basic plan calls for transporting a primordial collapsar 
>     (black hole) to Jupiter to be used in the process of "stellifying"
> [details omitted]
>     The article does make for an interesting thought experiment.
 
    Yeah, which was also an evil question that got thrown at me during
my Ph.D. candidacy orals a few years ago.  It's been a little
obsession ever since. It's a really cool, really subtle problem.  I'm
going to attempt to sketch the problem here, at a slight risk of
over-simplifying, possibly at a risk of blowing people away. 

    The bottom line (for those who can't wait) is:  sorry, can't do it
- meaning turn Jupiter into a "star".  The reason is subtle, and
related to the minimum sizes of "stars", by which we mean gas bags
capable of producing energy through sustained thermonuclear reactions.
Simply, nature conspires to keep you from ever reaching the critical
temperature for nuclear reactions. Squeeze it hard as you please, it
just won't get hotter than a certain temperature. 
 
    Before getting too far, you have to answer the question "How hot
do I need to get the surface?"  Then you start wondering about where
to get the energy to get it hot and KEEP it hot. 
 
    You need to get the surface to about 1200 degrees K to make things
on Europa comfy (using simple arguments).  Easier said than done, the
energy required is still big - about 10^22 Watts.  Making that much
energy inside Jupiter (however) might be tough.  A mini black hole is
entertained, but the realities of Jupiter's inner structure might make
it a very unlikely source. 
 
----------------
END OF SUMMARY:
----------------
 
    Consider first a big gas bag, contracting gravitationally under
its own weight.  As the gas bag contracts, the work of contraction
generates heat, and this in turn generates pressure, since the gas
behaves like a perfect gas, with pressure proportional to density and
temperature.  Pressure counteracts the inward force of gravity,
slowing the contraction.  But, since the gasbag is warm, it radiates,
losing some of the heat generated, dropping the pressure a little,
which allows it to contract some more, so it heats up, so it radiates
some more, so it contracts... it's a thermal runaway problem. 
 
    This is called the "Kelvin-Helmholtz Mechanism".  
 
    The gas bag radiates because it is hot.  How much it radiates is
dictated by how big it is.  It *must* radiate that amount of energy,
no more no less.  It must get the energy from somewhere, and the
somewhere is the gravitational field, which it taps by a simple act of
contraction. 
 
    Now, this runaway should proceed indefinitely, *PROVIDED THE RULES
OF THE GAME DON'T CHANGE*.  To quote Shakespeare: "Aye, there's the
rub..." When the rules change, the fun begins. 
 
    In gas bags bigger than 0.08 the mass of the sun, the rule change
is that thermonuclear reactions start at a temperature of about 10
million degrees and densities of a few hundred g/cc.  The gas bag can
now provide for all of the energy lost due to radiation (it shines
`cause its hot) by nuclear reactions in the core, so it doesn't have
to tap the gravitational field. The star stops contracting and settles
down burning hydrogen to helium just as happy as you please (like the sun). 
 
    In smaller gas bags (say, Jupiter-size), before the core gets hot
enough for nuclear reactions to light off, the rules change in a
different way. In this case, the "equation of state" changes.  The
equation of state for a perfect gas is P=nkT, (n is density, P
pressure, T temperature).  Squeeze the gas (contract the gas bag), and
it gets hotter.  But, at a certain density, the gas can become
degenerate, and P ~ n^5/3.  This is when the electrons get squeezed so
close together that the quantum exclusion principle adds an additional
quantum mechanical contribution to the gas pressure.  With this rule,
Pressure depends only on density, so if you squeeze a degenerate gas,
the temperature *STAYS THE SAME*.  So, while the degeneracy may be too
small to halt the collapse (yet), the temperature will cease to rise. 
Eventually the degeneracy pressure will rise to the point that the
collapse will stop and you're left with something that looks very much
like a cold white dwarf with a thin envelope of normal gas [I'm going
to regret saying it this...] The hot non-degenerate gas outside will
heat the degenerate core a little, but not enough to do much good.  
The gas bag is doomed to never make it as a star. 
 
    So, before you get to thermonuclear ignition temperatures, the
rules change on you, and though it continues to contract, the
temperature stops going up.  You never reach the critical temperature,
so no fusion.  [That, by the way, was the oral exam question.] 
 
    Jupiter-sized gas bags can't do it *naturally*.  
 
    The question now, finally getting around to the subject at hand,
is can you *make* it light off somehow.  Do something to the gas bag. 
The trick is get the temperature high enough inside to initiate
thermonuclear fusion and KEEP IT GOING.  It's not density, it's
temperature that counts.  Gotta get those protons past the coulomb
barrier. 
 
1) Squeeze it harder from the outside (kinda like the ending of 2010).
 
   Same problem, the degenerate gas doesn't care where the pressure comes
   from.  Squeeze it, pound it, pummel it with billions of black monoliths
   and its density will rise just fine without raising the temperature one
   iota.
 
2) Squeeze it from the inside (dump a primordial Black Hole into it and get
   it come to rest at the center without oscillating back and forth ala the
   "Krone Experiment.")
 
   The stuff around the BH is still degenerate, you squeeze it, it won't
   heat up...  Gas falling into a BH heats up and radiates X-rays and stuff
   because it is low density and non-degenerate, and follows the perfect gas 
   law (i.e., squeeze it and it gets hot).  Dumping degenerate gas into the 
   hole won't buy you much.
 
    You just can't win.  Can't get it hot enough to start fusion.
 
    BUT, you've got to ask yourself: "Do I really NEED thermonuclear fusion?"
 
    Maybe not.
 
    All we have to do is make the surface hot.  After all, that's the
whole idea, right?  Think a minute, we need a Sun-sized gas bag with a
6000 Kelvins surface to keep us warm at a distance of 1 AU.  But, when
you're as up close and personal as you are on the Galilean satellites,
how much do you need then? 
 
    We need enough light so that at the Galilean satellites the
incident flux is equivalent to the solar flux at the earth's surface
(a good benchmark).  And we don't need to worry (directly) about it's
spectrum (OK, if it's heavy on the UV or so IR that it won't pass
through the atmosphere we're screwed). How much is that? 
 
	F(solar) = 1.36 x 10^6 erg/sq cm/sec  (or in power/area: 136 mW/sq cm).
 
    How hot must we make Jupiter so that the flux at (say) Europa is
136 mW/sq cm? A rough estimate: 
 
	   F(Europa) = L(Jup)/4 pi [D(Eur) - R(Jup)]^2
 
           L(Jup) = Jupiter luminosity
	   R(Jup) = Jupiter radius = 71,300 km (at equator)
	   D(Eur) = Europe orbit radius = 671,000 km (from Jupiter center)
 
   From the Stephan-Boltzmann law, we get (assuming black body):
 
	L(Jup) = 4*pi R(Jup)^2 s T^4
 
   T = surface temp
   s = stefan-boltzmann constant. = 5.6696 x 10^-5 erg/sq cm/sec/Kelvin
 
    what is T such that F(Europa) = 136 mW/sq cm??  (crunch,crunch,crunch...)
 
	T(Jup) ~ 1200 Kelvin
 
    It's about 120 Kelvin now.  You've got to increase the Jovian
surface temperature a factor of 10 - AND KEEP IT THERE.  How much
energy is that? We need to get Jupiter to a luminosity of about
0.000016 the luminosity of the Sun.  That's about 6x10^21 Watts.  One
heck of a lot of energy still. Where can you get it?  Probably need
another energy source - nuclear reactions once again.  Or maybe
accretion onto a black hole: 
 
  1) Assume the BH is accreting flat out the most it can (i.e., it's so-called
     Eddington Luminosity.  Above L(edd), the accretion produced enough
     radiation to choke itself off).   To make L(edd) = 0.000016 L(sun) we
     need a minimum BH mass of about 10^22 grams (a decent size asteroid
     mass).  One of the primordial type might fill the bill.  This one would 
     be about 3 microns across.  That's got to make efficient accretion tough.
 
  2) But pressing on, assuming 10% efficiency times mc^2 of accretion, 
     regardless of the BH size, you'd need to suck up about 7000 kg/sec or 
     about 2x10^11 kg/year.
	
  3) First, you've got to get it to the center of Jupiter before the core 
     gets degenerate.  Oops, problem.  It seems the core is probably pretty
     close to a state that behaves like it was degenerate.  Some might go so
     far as to say it IS degenerate, but solid-state physics isn't in my bag
     of tricks.  This makes things real messy for accretion.  I have no idea 
     how to deal with this...
 
  4) If you DO get it into the center, and get it accreting and radiating
     energy, and you've got 6 x 10^21 Watts of power pouring out.  You've 
     got to get it to the surface somehow.  That's a non-trivial amount of 
     energy, hard to say what it would do to Jupiter's structure.  No doubt 
     awful things which makes the problem worse.  Any gas bag pundits out 
     there want to take a stab at it?
 
    Finally, I think #3, the state of the material within the real
Jupiter core, is the fatal flaw.  It's not really a gas bag, much less
an ideal-gas bag. My humble guess is that it would probably hollow out
a sphere around itself pretty quick, but the tidal force gradient is
so steep that after a certain point, the stuff outside a certain
radius will be able to be supported by the stresses in the stuff
around it (remember, the zone of heavy-duty GR influence for a black
hole is only a few times its Schwarzschild radius. which is only a few
microns in the case we've been entertaining.)  Any of you geologist
types out there want to take a crack at figuring the tidal stresses
vs. the rocky core material structural forces?  Could it hold up?? 

    re .50, heating Europa.
    
    Interesting.  Of course, radiating from the whole surface
    of Jupiter is a waste--you only want to radiate at the large
    moons, in a "spotlight" type set-up, to avoid merely shining
    on empty space.
    
    Perhaps there is a way to pulse a powerful laser at the
    surface of Jupiter to induce temporary fusion in Jupiter's
    atmosphere?
        			-John Bishop

    	There is a recent book available on Clarke's life:
    
    	McAleer, Neil, ARTHUR C. CLARKE: THE AUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY, 
           Contemporary Books, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, 1992
           ISBN 0-8092-4324-5, 430 pages, $25
    

Article: 3672
From: [email protected] (UPI)
Newsgroups: clari.local.california,clari.tw.space,clari.local.sfbay
Subject: Extraterrestrial search project obtains funding
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 12:11:07 PST
 
	SANTA CRUZ, Calif. (UPI) -- Organizers of a project searching
for intelligent life in space announced Wednesday they have collected
more than $4 million in private donations to make up for NASA funding
cuts. 

	Bernard M. Oliver, senior technical adviser to the Search for
Extraterrestial Intelligence (SETI), said $4.4 million of the group's
$7.3 million funding goal has been collected so far. 

	Among those who have made donations are David Packard and
William Hewlett of Hewlett-Packard Corp.; Gordon Moore, chairman of
the board of Intel Corp.; Paul Allen, co-founder of Microsoft; and
science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke. 

	``We are gratified, but not surprised, that among the major
donors are knowledgeable, visionary corporate leaders,'' Oliver said. 

	The funds will allow the SETI project to modify and improve
the digital receivers developed while the effort was being funded by
NASA.  The equipment is scheduled to be deployed at the Parkes Radio
Astronomy Observatory in New South Wales, Australia, for a six-month
search of space from the southern hemisphere. 

	The group hopes to zero in on Alpha Centauri, the closest
neighboring star system to Earth that is best observed from the
southern hemisphere.