Message-ID: <263@umd5.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 9-Dec-84 22:21:51 EST
Article-I.D.: umd5.263
Posted: Sun Dec  9 22:21:51 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Dec-84 03:22:24 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: U of Md, CSC, College Park, Md
Lines: 81
Xref: watmath net.movies:5164 net.sf-lovers:5352

What follows is a review of the movie "2010" reproduced here without
prior permission from the Washington Post "Weekend" section.
==============================================================================

		            2010: Odyssey Two
		Mankind's Spaced Out Again, by Jupiter
	        	     By Rita Kemply

  In the beginning, Arthur C. Clarke created "2001: A Space Odyssey."  The
next 15 years, he rested.  Now Peter Hyams presents the sequel to the
metaphysial cliffhanger, a larger-than-life work based on Clarke's
"2010: Odyssey Two," a cerebral story of second genesis.

  Keir Dullea returns as [sic] John Bowman, the astronaut who made
contact with the Eerie Beings in the classic directed by Stanley Kubrick.
And Canadian Douglas Rain reprises his role as the voice of H.A.L 9000,
the computer who went mad on the original odyssey. Bowman's last
transmission from the now-silent Discovery, "My God, it's full of
stars," gives us the starting point in "2010."

  A team of Russian and American scientists takes the Soviet spacecraft
Leonov to investigate the [sic] Jupiterian monoliths that turned Bowman
into the big Star Baby.  Is Bowman a god, the Messiah, a close relative
of the Kwistaz Haderach?  And what about H.A.L.?  Who was behind the
secret message in his circuits? Was it the CIA or IBM?  And what is a
higher life form anyway?

  They'll learn the Big Answers to the Big Questions in this chapter of
the cosmic soap opera.  But the revelations are equivocal, faithful to
the ambiguity of the original.  The major difference between films is
"2010's" greater emphasis on people.  The performances are all
excellent, but Helen Mirren is utterly convincing as the formidable
commander of the Leonov.  Roy Scheider costars as the former head of the
Space Agency, with John Lithgow as the [sic] enginer of Discovery and
Bob Balaban as the father of H.A.L.

  The great Lithgow's bout with acrophobia as he crosses the void from
Leonov to Discovery is one of the film's best, most human moments.
Balaban's relationship with H.A.L. is also tender. (He cries.)  But an
attempt to warm things up by including Scheider's family and pet
dolphins just slows things down.

  Space is slowww.  And it is vast.  Like the original, "2010" is a
celebration of spaciousness and tomorrow's technology.  But current
technology has surpassed the author's imagination for now.  Sometimes
the crew looks out on Io or Europa and gasps as the wonder of it.  But
it really isn't as interesting as a live Voyager transmission.

  Much of the science of "2010" is questionable in the face of what we
knew, know and are learning.  A new star appears in the solar system and
the earth escapes without a tremor.  The Leonov embarks without enough
fuel to either return or slow down.  They do "air braking" (without air)
to slow Leonov as she whips around the planet and into a new orbit.
How's that for science friction.

  Still "2010" is a repectable production despite the disappointments.
But sometimes a move just cries out for a wise old rubber Muppet.  But
now, not so much as a hairy paw.

=========================================================================
[Flame on, NOVA intensity]

I'm not sure what to think about a movie after a review like this.  I really
wonder if Rita Kempley actually saw this movie.  How could someone screw up
Dave Bowman's name??  John??  And Jupiterian, I would think that the simple
adjective "Jovian" would do just fine.  Some of the not-so-fine plot details
which the movie seems to go out of its way to point out are completely 
missed.  The Leonov doesn't depart without enough fuel.  The early departure
from Jupiter is makes the kludge with Discovery necessary.  And "air braking"
is not science fiction made up for the movie, it was even featured on the
cover of Popular Science a year or so ago.

I'm sure glad I was saw 2010 (on opening day, first show) before I read
this review.

Louis A. Mamakos
Computer Science Center - Systems Programming
University of Maryland, College Park

Internet: louie@umd5.arpa
UUCP: ..!seismo!cvl!umd5!louie

Message-ID: <262@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 11-Dec-84 20:19:48 EST
Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.262
Posted: Tue Dec 11 20:19:48 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Dec-84 00:55:16 EST
References: <263@umd5.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Co., Seattle, WA
Lines: 52
Xref: watmath net.movies:5188 net.sf-lovers:5366

>   Much of the science of "2010" is questionable in the face of what we
> knew, know and are learning.  A new star appears in the solar system and
> the earth escapes without a tremor.  The Leonov embarks without enough
> fuel to either return or slow down.  They do "air braking" (without air)
> to slow Leonov as she whips around the planet and into a new orbit.
> How's that for science friction.
> 
> missed.  The Leonov doesn't depart without enough fuel.  The early departure
> from Jupiter is makes the kludge with Discovery necessary.  And "air braking"
> is not science fiction made up for the movie, it was even featured on the
> cover of Popular Science a year or so ago.
> 
     First of all, the term is 'aerobraking'.  Yes it is possible (we are
studying it here at Boeing.  In fact, Dr. Dana Andrews, who does aero-
propulsion design, has a patent on the concept and was a technical
consultant for 2010.) No, it was not accurately portrayed in the film.
A one-half orbit around Jupiter at cloud top level takes 88.6 minutes.
In the film it is portrayed as taking 1-2 minutes.  The aerobrake trail
would be too small to see on the scale of Jupiter as a whole.

     Credit goes to the filmmakers for getting a reasonable design
for the aerobrake, a multiple-ballute type.  They got the color right,
it would be dark so as to radiate the absorbed heat flux.  You would
probably jettison them as in the film.

     While on the subject of technical mistakes, the Discovery is found
rotating endwise.  Initially, the carousel stopping would leave it 
spinning around its' long axis.  This is unstable and would decay into
the end-for-end rotation.  But, when you spin up the carousel again, it
wouldn't stop rotating end-for-end, it would be a combination motion.
The spinning Discovery would also be pulling about 5 g's at the command
center.

     The apparent motion of the clouds on Jupiter works out to more
than escape velocity (good stiff breeze).  Your hair floats in zero-
gravity (see any shuttle tapes).  They probably knew about this one
but passed because of cost.  They did know that stars are not visible
in space when the sun or a planet is out, but felt the audience would
accept it better with stars.

     When they are escaping from Jupiter, it implodes just as they 
burn out the Leonov's engines.  Surface escape from Jupiter is 67
kilometers/second (151,000 mph)  in the few minutes since they
started to escape, their distance would have changed insignificantly.
If Jupiter is as bright at Europa as the Sun is at Earth, then
Jupiter as seen from the Earth would be as bright as a first-quarter
moon.  In the daytime you would have a hard time finding it.

Dani Eder / Boeing Aerospace Company /  ssc-vax!eder / (206)773-4545

p.s. The aerobrake flight demonstration is scheduled (Congress willing)
for 1988. It won't be 'untried'.

Message-ID: <562@voder.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Dec-84 17:14:57 EST
Article-I.D.: voder.562
Posted: Thu Dec 13 17:14:57 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Dec-84 05:14:13 EST
References: <263@umd5.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara
Lines: 34
Xref: watmath net.movies:5231 net.sf-lovers:5383

>   Much of the science of "2010" is questionable in the face of what we
> knew, know and are learning.  A new star appears in the solar system and
> the earth escapes without a tremor.  The Leonov embarks without enough
> fuel to either return or slow down.  They do "air braking" (without air)
> to slow Leonov as she whips around the planet and into a new orbit.
> How's that for science friction. 

   Questionable?  To who?  Yes a new star does appear and if it popped up out
of nowhere there would be problems - but it didn't, the mass of a currently
exsisting object (one which many scientists believe is a failed star due to
insufficient mass) was increased until it collapses inwards and the pressure
ignites nuclear fusion and bingo!  Besides, it stands to reason that the ones
creating the new star would have checked things out to insure there would be
no catalysmic consequences.
   The Leonov had just enough fuel to go to Jupiter and return provided she
stuck to her previously computed schedule and left Jupiter when the Earth
was in the right position, the "launch window" mentioned in the film.  Due
to the warning they have to leave NOW, not in two weeks when the Earth will
be in the right position, but NOW.  And for that there was insufficient fuel.
   Aero-braking is a valid concept, although I don't think the film was
accurate as to the duration of the braking event.  Any planet with an atmo-
sphere has various layers depending on the types of gases found.  The Earth's
layer of hydrogen and helium extend for many miles beyond it's oxygen layer
and Jupiter is practically all atmosphere.  Although thin at the Leonov's
altitude it's thick enough, considering the Leonov's speed, to create con-
siderable drag.  The approach is computed to "skim" through this layer, slowing
the ship down just enough so it has the proper orbital velocity as it leaves
the atmospheric drag.

-- 
Kevin Thompson   {ucbvax,ihnp4!nsc}!voder!kevin

"It's sort of a threat, you see.  I've never been very good at them
  myself but I'm told they can be very effective."