Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: notesfiles - hp 1.2 08/01/83; site hp-pcd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!hao!hplabs!hp-pcd!mfc From: mfc@hp-pcd.UUCP (mfc) Newsgroups: net.movies Subject: Re: Re: another 2010 mistake Message-ID: <6500035@hp-pcd.UUCP> Date: Sat, 15-Dec-84 18:45:00 EST Article-I.D.: hp-pcd.6500035 Posted: Sat Dec 15 18:45:00 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 15-Dec-84 02:19:15 EST References: <1115@ut-ngp.UUCP> Organization: Hewlett-Packard - Corvallis, OR Lines: 17 Nf-ID: #R:ut-ngp:-111500:hp-pcd:6500035:000:533 Nf-From: hp-pcd!mfc Dec 12 15:45:00 1984 One pod in the pod bay should not be a mistake. However if the pod in the bay still had it's door in place (I saw the movie my- self and didn't notice) then that would be a mistake. In the book, Clarke says that after re-entering the Discovery and dis- connecting HAL, Bowman retrieved the 2nd pod by remote control and then used the 3rd pod to explore the monolith. The pod we saw in the pod bay in the movie should have been that 2nd pod. Mark F. Cook HP-PCD Corvallis, OR ...hplabs!hp-pcd!mfc