Talk:Technologies in 2001: A Space Odyssey

False inaccuracy

Geophysicist Dr. David Stephenson in the Canadian TV documentary 2001 and Beyond notes that "Every engineer that saw it [the space station] had a fit. You do not spin on a wheel that is not fully built. You have to finish it before you spin it or else you have real problems".

Even if it is a circular rotating object, an orbital space station is not a wheel: it has no axle. So it is probably not a big issue to make it spin even though it is not fully built yet (no gravity, no frictions, no wheel balance needed). Actually, it is even possible to say that it is not spinning at all.

So it could even be seen as an accuracy: they purposedly made it uncomplete to show that it is possible to make it spin even if it is not finished. And it is very likely that Athur C. Clarke was aware of this.

88.179.202.15 (talk) 09:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem here isn't the basic physics. Of course the Station can be spun before it's finished. The problem is logistical. It's very much more problematic to build while spinning than while idle. Many thousands of tonnes of building materials must be distributed to their respective construction sites. If the Station is idle, the materials can be easily trucked to their sites without even docking in the hub. They can even be stored by just lashing them to the existing superstructure. With the existing structure under rotation, the materials must be docked and stored in the hub, then carried by conveyor from the hub to the perimeter. If construction is being handled by human laborers, then there's a significant safety issue to be dealt with. Anyone who slips off the rotating structure will be flung away tangentially. So, each worker must have firm surfaces to stand upon, safety rails, and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

"The appearance of outer space is problematic, both in terms of lighting and the alignment of astronomical bodies. In the vacuum of outer space, stars do not twinkle." Just where do twinkling stars appear in the film? Reference? aajacksoniv (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Technical Adviser (Under Accuracy)

Harry Lange should be listed as a technical adviser because he was at Marshall Space Flight center with Fred Ordway. And hired by Kubrick ... Ordway and Lange as a pair. Yes he did production design but , even if Ordway was the lead, Lange was also an engineer as well as a crack technical illustrator, and did some technical advising too. aajacksoniv (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The Pod Air Lock

"The sequence in which Bowman re-enters Discovery shows him holding his breath just before ejecting from the pod into the emergency airlock. Doing this before exposure to a vacuum—instead of exhaling—would, in reality, rupture the lungs. In an interview on the 2007 DVD release of the film, Clarke states that had he been on the set the day they filmed this, he would have caught this error.[16][17] In the same scene, the blown pod hatch simply and inexplicably vanishes while concealed behind a puff of smoke.[18]" First that is not a 'puff of smoke" that is saturated cabin air in the POD that condenses as it meets the cold vacuum in the emergency air lock. Many discussions of where the air lock went center on the possibility that it rotated into a slot on the side of the POD for that purpose. This is very a reasonable engineering solution. Alas we don't have a reference for it.aajacksoniv (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

That's all very reasonable. The problem people have is in the fact that the door's explosive bolts are very plainly shown to the audience multiple times. If the door just slides away in an emergency, then why the bolts? Explosive bolts are to summarily break a hatch completely off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

In-flight movies

Currently, the article claims in-flight movies didn't come about until the early to mid-90s, which is not the same as what the source used says. The source mentions in-flight movies in use since the 60s (also check out this 2006 issue of Smallformat which has a 70s photo of a Super8 projector installed in a plane on the cover: [1]). What the 90s date is referring to are other technologies, such as live television and videogames on commercials flights. In any case, it should be made clear that in-flight movies were rather common at the time of the film's release. --2003:71:4E6A:C947:4D33:62C1:D5F9:7BD2 (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Flatscreens

Flatscreens were around long before 1972. The first effective flatscreen TV was the Aiken tube, in development since the early 1950s and built in 1958. Due to a UK lawsuit by Dennis Gabor, it never saw any use outside the military. The next step in IRL flatscreen design were TV plasma displays, which were invented as early as 1964. So flatscreen TV technology was definitely around by the film's release. Nor was 2001 the first sci-fi film in which flatscreen TV monitors were seen, as at least an earlier occurance is seen in the Polish-East German film First Spaceship on Venus (1960). --79.242.222.168 (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Russia

"Many reviewers thought the Russian scientists met by Dr. Floyd in the space station were affiliated with the then-extant Soviet Union.[49][50][51] Nonetheless, the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. (Aeroflot, then the Soviet state airline, is now a privately owned carrier, but still considered the de facto national airline of the Russian Federation, much as Air Canada is considered the de facto national airline of Canada, even though it has been privately owned since 1988)."

"extant" should IMHO read "existant". Aeroflot IS still a state carrier, as the Russian Federation own the majority of Aeroflot stock. cf Wikipedia... And btw, they still have hammer and sickle in the company's logo :-) 134.247.251.245 (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Took a look and deleted all that and refactored rest of section, way too much WP:OR. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Sun, Earth positions from the Moon

Under "science," "inaccuracies," the following passage is confusing, and probably a bit overly critical: "Also implausible is the Sun reaching its zenith so soon after a lunar sunrise, and the appearance of a crescent Earth near the Sun is in complete discontinuity with all previous appearances of Earth, whose position from any spot on the Moon varies only slightly due to libration." First, that sentence has too many complicated ideas crammed into a tight space. Second, I think the part about the sun is nitpicky, I would drop it entirely. We don't know how much time passed between the shot of the astronauts taking pictures with the monolith and the shot with the monolith, Sun, and Earth. It could've been a week, so the sun could've reached its zenith in that undetermined amount of time. We also don't know the exact angle between the camera, top of the monolith, and the sun, so the accuracy of the position of the Sun in that shot is debatable. Third, the part about the Earth needs some work. I think a clearer way to say what was intended is the following: The shot of the astronauts on the Moon going into the pit with the monolith in it shows the Earth near the horizon. The subsequent shot of the monolith, Sun, and Earth shows the Earth overhead. This is impossible, unless the monolith had moved a long way, and there's no indication of that. For any fixed location on the surface of the Moon, the position of the Earth doesn't change in the lunar sky, except for the nearly imperceptible movements caused by libration, because the Moon is tidally locked to the Earth. Citizen127 (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Some "inaccuracies" missing from the article

The crescents in the opening scene are too thick. Just look at the Moon when it's actually some "distance" from the Sun. It's razor-thin.

The Sun would be absolutely blinding. You wouldn't see any stars. Even with just the Earth in view, you probably couldn't see many stars, if any.

The pen is not spinning about its center of mass.

The alignment and the relative sizes and distances of the moons of Jupiter at the very end of the Jupiter scene are completely off -- ridiculous, even.

When Moonwatcher looks up at the monolith and sees the Sun directly above, we see what looks like a sunset sky. The sky would be mostly the white glare from the blinding sun. The moon wouldn't be visible at all, and if it were, its crescent would be thinner. Yes, it looks like a sunrise or sunset directly above, with the Moon with too thick a crescent.

When Poole is drifting away, the stars keep moving down (or up?). The only way this would happen would be if the camera were "orbiting" him.

Each of Hal's eyes has a little yellow light at the center. Shouldn't there be a lens there? If there were a little yellow light at the center of your own eye, you wouldn't be able to see too well, would you, now? Betaneptune (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Besides being unverified observations, these have nothing to do with "Technologies", the article's topic. I would note that most of the "Inaccuracy" section should be deleted, the entries are about "artistic license", not "Technologies". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I was talking about the section called "Science." I was going by that. If that's not part of "Technologies," it should be moved to a new article or the article should be renamed.

As technology is based on science, it may not be easy to draw a clear line between the two.

The problem with "artistic license" is that the movie was purported to be scientifically accurate. And it is not, as I pointed out.

Betaneptune (talk) 05:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Unverified? They're plain as day! It would be like verifying that 2 + 3 = 5. Would you want me to find an addition table on the web somewhere, perhaps with someone explaining what addition is?

You're telling me I need a reference saying the sun is blinding when well above the horizon? To find something on the web that explains this fact that everyone over the age of 5 finds obvious?

The stars keep moving behind Poole. Do I need to quote a dissertation? Is this really a mind-boggling problem in perspective and geometry?

Sunset sky at noon? I need to verify that this never happens? Is there really likely to be a reference of any kind that states this beyond obvious fact?

Do you seriously think a little yellow light in the center of your vision is a good idea? Will I find something on the web or in any book explaining this?

If a simple word in one of the titles was spelled wrong, would I need to reference a dictionary?

Unverified?

OK, maybe the crescents being too thick needs some verification. I doubt one could find this easily on the web. Maybe if you scour hundreds of books on- and off-line you might find something. But I've got things to do. Just go and look at the moon for yourself! You don't need a telescope or other special equipment.

The center of mass bit: If you even know what center of mass is, you don't need a reference. If you don't know, what good would a reference be, unless it goes into great detail on what center of mass is? Betaneptune (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Drawing conclusions from looking at a copy of the film is original research. If these observations have some merit several sources would cover them. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Really? I need a source that explains how a yellow light smack dab in the middle of your eye will ruin things? Really?

So where are the references for the following paragraph?

"2001 accurately presents outer space as not allowing the propagation of sound, in sharp contrast to other films with space scenes in which explosions or sounds of passing spacecraft are heard. 2001's portrayal of weightlessness in spaceships and outer space is also more realistic. Tracking shots inside the rotating wheel providing artificial gravity contrast with the weightlessness outside the wheel during the repair and Hal disconnection scenes. (Scenes of the astronauts in the Discovery pod bay, along with earlier scenes involving shuttle flight attendants, depict walking in zero-gravity with the help of velcro-equipped shoes labeled "Grip Shoes"). Other aspects that contribute to the film's realism are the depiction of the time delay in conversations between the astronauts and Earth due to the extreme distance between the two (which the BBC announcer explains have been edited out of the broadcast), the attention to small details such as the sound of breathing inside the spacesuits, the conflicting spatial orientation of astronauts inside a zero-gravity spaceship, and the enormous size of Jupiter in relation to the spaceship."

And many other parts of this article are just as source-free.

Original research? Common sense is not original research!

If you don't watch the movie, how the hel do you even know what you're writing about?

Excuse me, where's the reference for the following single sentence?

"2001 accurately presents outer space as not allowing the propagation of sound, in sharp contrast to other films with space scenes in which explosions or sounds of passing spacecraft are heard."

Where's the reference, dude? My statements are no worse. And by your standards, we'd probably have to remove half of the content of all of Wikipedia.

"Velcro-equipped shoes"? Reference please!!!

"Although the predictions central to the plot—colonization of the Moon, manned interplanetary travel and artificial intelligence—did not materialize by that date, some of the film's other futuristic elements have indeed been realized."

Reference, please!!! There's no reference because it is plainly obvious that this is true. But sometimes you have to mention the obvious.

Really? I need a reference for how the overhead sun is blinding? How there are no sunset colors at noon? Reference? Really? It's so obvious that no one would bother writing about it. But if we are going to list all the inaccuracies, and especially for a film that is praised for its "realism," it should be listed. OK, _maybe_ it's in some book somewhere. It's not worth looking. Are you really surprised that the sun is blinding at noon? If you tried to look at the sun at noon, would you really be surprised? BTW, NEVER LOOK DIRECTLY AT THE SUN.

Now, if I said the anomalous precession of Mercury is 43 arc seconds per century, yes, I would need a reference. But for the blinding sun? Really?

Let's have some consistency and common sense here. Betaneptune (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's a reference about the sun over the monolith, and the opening shot!

https://www.quora.com/Were-Kubrick-and-Clarke-aware-that-the-crescent-moon-next-to-the-sun-above-the-oblisk-in-the-first-sequence-of-2001-is-not-possible

Does this count as original research? Betaneptune (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Would this count: David Raynor's answer in https://www.quora.com/Were-Kubrick-and-Clarke-aware-that-the-crescent-moon-next-to-the-sun-above-the-oblisk-in-the-first-sequence-of-2001-is-not-possible

So are Quora posts legitimate resources?

Oh, he misses the point that the sun would be blindingly bright. But he mentions the crescent problem and the sunset sky problem. Betaneptune (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Quora ---> Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

What about other content?, not really a good reason to add more. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

If this is in reply to me, then it is only fair that you move to remove the sections I pointed out that don't have sources; otherwise, we have a double standard here. Betaneptune (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

?, Editing Wikipedia is not compulsory. Feel free to bring content on line with reference as long as you don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

But others, evidently, don't need references. Have you read anything I've written here?

Disrupt Wikipedia? I'm sorry, what? My posts on this talk page are disruptive? Really? I think there's a different answer. Betaneptune (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)