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