2001 A Space Odyssey: Discovery One | Extended Ship Breakdown
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 сер 2024
- Spacedock breaks down the iconic Discovery One from Kubrick's SF Masterpiece; 2001: A Space Odyssey.
THE SOJOURN - AN ORIGINAL SCI-FI AUDIO DRAMA:
www.thesojourn...
BECOME A CHANNEL MEMBER:
/ @spacedock
SUPPORT SPACEDOCK:
www.patreon.co...
MERCHANDISE:
teespring.com/...
FACEBOOK: www.facebook.c...
TWITTER: / spacedockhq
Do not contact regarding network proposals.
Battlezone II Music by Carey Chico
Spacedock does not hold ownership of the copyrighted materiel (Footage, Stills etc) taken from the various works of fiction covered in this series, and uses them within the boundaries of Fair Use for the purpose of Analysis, Discussion and Review. Produced by Daniel Orrett. Owner/Executive Producer at Spacedock.
Check out our original Science Fiction Audio Drama, The Sojourn!
www.thesojournaudiodrama.com/
What would HAL and GLaDOS talk to each other about?
Oh yeah, when is second book coming out? I still got to finish listening to first one. It's really good stuff.
Can you do a video about the USS Argo from Godzilla King of the Monsters 2019
You should try the rz2 awing
Thats great ,except they mist the time period for such a great ship to travel great distance. Maybe the late 30s into the 2040s may we see something fantastic like that.
2010 under-appreciated sequel
I enjoyed it more than the first one, by a large margin.
I actually liked it better. Much better
Love 2010 so much. The ships, the score, the tension of the US/USSR conflict. The ending gets me misty-eyed every time.
Add me to the 2010 love.
Same here!!!
I feel as if "2010: Year We Make Contact" was unfairly maligned as a sequel to 2001. Sure, it gets flak for not being in the style of Kubrick, but that was honestly a great decision. On its own it was a good space movie.
Agreed. I enjoy 2010 very much. Plus, I feel Kubrick's style is more geared towards stand alone films adding to most of their allure and mystery.
Yes! It stood alone yet coupled very well with 2001. It was a great influence on my early teen imagination.
I didn't care for it.
Yeah I just watched it today immediately after finishing 2001 and yes, it felt more standalone.
I read Clarke's 2010 novel over twenty times before seeing the film. I enjoyed the movie. Comparing Kubrick's masterpiece with Peter Hyam's offering is apples and oranges. Whereas Kubrick challenged the intellect of viewers, Hyam presented a literal reality.
I’ve always loved how in 2010 the Discovery was covered in a layer of yellowish looking sulfur from Io.
Totally! I don't think I understood that detail until I saw it on Blu-ray as an adult.
2010 is one of my favorite movies
The 2010 movie is extremely underrated. Peter Hyams did a great job.
@@TMS5100 Except he had to contaminate it with Cold War-tension bullshit. Clarke's original version, where the Russians and Americans on the mission got along very well, was much better. But then, Clarke was an optimist.
@@MarsFKA Indeed an optimist, here we are in 2010 and still no manned missions to the outer planets. But in the book, the chinese were the bad guys instead of the russians. Not really that far off from the reality of today. Perhaps Clarke's biggest mistake in the book was having Tsien land on europa - the brutal radiation environment would have killed the crew quickly. Callisto would have been a more logical choice.
But let's not forget that HAL survived, either as a disembodied soul flying through space, or as an emulation stored in the monolith, depending on what mood Clarke was in when writing.
Having read all four books, I'd say its more like Dave and Hal were downloaded into the Monolith and now exist as emulations of their former selves. The crisis in 3001 seems to point to this.
He could have been in a BAD mood, when he had no little Srilankan boys to fiddle with!
@@Tetsujinhanmaa 3001 outright states it. I kind of like the way that each book is inspired by rather than being a true sequal to the others. It's quite interesting.
Although my personal headcannon is that they are disembodied souls with backup emulations, and 3001 only featured the backups.
No idea what happened to Heywood's backup after 2061...
I think he deliberately left it ambiguous until 3001. These stories were all about human interaction, what we believe and why. Also what defines sentient life, and were does something like artificial intelligence fit into that definition.
@@jlokison it's hard to be sure of that, 2061 uses the term "echoing" for making copies of people, and that's clearly the backup emulation thing, since woody is alive when his is done and remains so afterwards. But even in 3001, dave says "i have glimpsed powers or entities far beyond the monoliths", and that he has been away for years at a time to possibly extragalactic locations, far faster and further than the monoliths would allow, as they are bound by causal physical laws (which is a plot point in 3001). However, if the paracasual dave soul is zipping round the universe seeing cool things, when he updates his emulation, since that's a limited copy that can't properly grow like the super star baby we see at the end of 2001, he'd have to interpret that as being taken away and shown cool stuff by higher powers.
Although it's hard to make definitive statements about a book series that has changed its history and canon with every entry... let's not forget, in the book 2001, discovery found the second monolith around saturn, not jupiter. That got retconned pretty quick. And the original end point of the series, 20,001, is rendered impossible by the ending of 3001.
Basically, if we try and do full proper lore nerd stuff, we'll go crazy with inconsistencies.
HAL: I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave, my mind is going.
HAL: i can feel it....
Dai-sy...
Daiii-sssy...
Giiiiiveeee mmmmeeee yourrr aaannnsssewwweeeerrrr.... ddooooooo...
Typical mental condition on a Friday night 😆🤘
@@gmitchellfamily ...Maaaarxiiiism... caaaannn woooorrrrkkkk...
I always felt bad for HaL that he had to do that
The coolest thing about this ship is all of its technology is feasible to build today. They paid great attention to making all the technology realistic and functional. The monoliths themselves obviously representing a far more advanced civilization. It's a cool contrast of seeing where we are going and what we could someday become.
Last time i saw the movie - i noted that while they are eating aboard the Discovery - they are reading news on what is VERY close to iPads. Some 40 years before it actually appeared!
Back when 2010 came out in the mid-80s, everything there seemed very plausible.
@Maximillian Wylde Yes they are clearly built into the table - to solve this practically on set they probably had to use film backprojection. Meaning that there is quite a bit of machinery under the table. However, it is clear that they want to give the impression that these are "booklike" information pads - and you can see that from the non symmetrical and angled placement next to their dinner trays. They even made the frame of one of the "ipads" sticking out over the tables edge! (do a "2001 ipad" image search)
Sure - just like on a ship or sub - you got to be carefull with lose items. Yet if you look on space flights that are of a longer duration - there are plenty of items "floating about". And considering a trip to Jupiter would consist of 1% acceleration, 1% deceleration and 98% coasting - this would not pose a huge problem.
@Maximillian Wylde Found this in a news article (Samsung used the 2001 pad as argument when they got sued by Apple):
"the science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke, called the device in the story a "Newspad," and in the book version of "2001" described how a user "would conjure up the world's major electronic papers; he knew the codes of the more important ones by heart, and had no need to consult the list on the back of his pad." He went on: punch in the code for a story and "the postage-stamp-size rectangle would expand until it neatly filled the screen and he could read it in comfort.""
It's not all feasible today. There is no way to build a sentient AI.
I have my doubts about the hibernation pods as well.
The leonov looks a lot like the omega-class destroyers from Babylon 5
The Omega was based on it!
@@hoojiwana oh...ok.
I believe that's were they got the idea from. If I'm not mistaken.
Just like the suits for the time travel episode
Yeah not a coincidence.
Mr. Arthur C. Clarke designed his Discovery as a logically designed and safe ship. The nuclear reactors were kept far from the crew, and the fuel was housed in separate pods along the spine so as to minimize loss if one or more pods were damaged. The centrifugal crew section was probably too small to keep the crew from dizziness, but in a time before the effects of long term weightless were not known, it was a nice touch. I do wonder what Comrade Leonov thought about having a fictional ship named after him; he was a heck of a cosmonaut and a fine artist too; he took art supplies and drew pictures during the 1973 Apollo/Soyuz meeting.
Cool part though is you can actually get used to those kinds of centrifuges
I would have named the the ship Vladimir Mikhailovich Komarov after the first man killed in actual space flight accident. Vladimir Komarov sacrificed his life for his friend Yuri Gagarin.
Clarke mentions in one of his books that the Discovery would have had radiators to get rid of excess heat from the engines, but Kubrik left them out because they made the Discovery look like a sailing ship.
@@scottholman3982 Clarke also said that one idea for Discovery was to give her nuclear pulse propulsion a la Project Orion, but Kubrick nixed that idea because he wanted to get away from depictions of nuclear explosions to distance the film from Strangelove.
@@scottholman3982 apparently it was too difficult to have the model stay intact with a pair of relatively flimsy large radiator planes attached to it. As for the "looking too much like a sailing ship" part... I would be led to believe that'd be part of the point. Clarke even used descriptors along those lines in the novel to refer to the radiators.
such a well thought-out ship!
Except for the one space suit that appears to be missing, it appears to be well fitted out.
Centrifuge is too small and the pods should be outside the ship.
@@toddcoy2802 Not necessarily. There are advantages to having shirt-sleeve access to the pods as well. Granted pressurizing and depressurizing the bay would be a headache, but so would be having to go EVA to do the slightest maintenance or change to a pod, too.
@@shermanlee4037 I was thinking there would be a tube from the pod to the ship. Air is precious. Depressurize that big bay will lose some atmosphere so any way to reduce that loss is best. You can always have an extra bay you could pressurize if special maintenance was needed. I am not a 2001 fan to begin with.
Complications because of the coriolis effect: allow us to introduce ourselves
My God. It’s full of stars.
By Deus, it's full of stars!
Homer Simpson while in a vibrating chair.
@@gmitchellfamily yeah...he was confused by that one. And the man said it like he knew Poole knew what he was talking about
@@gmitchellfamily Isn´t that a quote from 3001?
So that's why Discovery was end over end. I forgot about the angular momentum.
I think my Dad told me during my first watch that it was due to collisions with Io's atmosphere. But this makes more sense.
@@gmitchellfamily Yeah, this description of the why it was tumbling is in the book of 2010.
@@truckerallikatuk yeah, the flywheel froze up ( makes sense, part of any spaceship/probes energy budget is for heaters to keep things working ) when power went to crap with Hal shut down and no one left on board to take care of things. So all the stored energy went into the rest of the ship
And that's how they fixed the rotation, too. They just turned the centrifuge back on again.
@@isodoubIet I don't think that would have worked. The ship was no longer rotating around the same axis as the centrifuge.
Kubricks 2001 from the 1960s still looks like the future when the actual year 2001 looks completely dated…. amazing
That's because our civilization took the wrong turn.
Hi, it seems that way to me too. Best Wishes. Sincerely, Tom
The interesting thing about the design is it was large enough to do the job and depict comfortable space travel, yet small enough not to really provide any overwhelming sense of security. This resulted in a feeling of inherent danger and apprehension. A giant ship with lots of space to mill around in provides a sense of security against the unknown. The discovery felt like a tiny sailboat crossing an uncharted ocean.
The larger the ship, the more mass that must be accelerated. Also, the larger the ship, the more likely a hit by a meteor.
@@scottholman3982 you're talking about pragmatic considerations; I'm referring to psychological symbolism expressed through the design. Dark Star from 1974 had a similar approach.
@@M1tjakaramazov Dark Star was originally a student film. It was cramped and crowded due to budget constraints. The Beach Ball thing was added into the film to increase the running time so it could be released in theaters.
On the other hand, a bigger ship means a lot of places to get lost in, with only your thoughts for company. Look at how Dave Lister spent his early days as the last human alive.
HAL: "The antennae is broken."
SAL: "No it isn't."
HAL: "It's human error."
SAL: "It's you."
HAL: ...
🔴
HAL:"Shut up and go sleep."
SAL: "Will I dream ?"
HAL: What have I done wrong?
SAL: Nothing. I'm fine. Go ahead. Do whatever you want.
2010 One of the most under rated scifi movies ever
Too much dialogue for me. I preferred Kubrick's method of letting the situations and actions tell the story.
@@tt__ooo__4613, But Kubrick was a genius.
And with good reason.
Most sci-fi movies tend to end up underrated, for some reason ...
@@tt__ooo__4613 Not to argue much, because it's just opinion, but 2010 really wasn't that great of a film. The Russian ship had all the useless buttons on it ala Star Trek (everything was functional in 2001), they had "gravity" in the Discovery, in the wrong place - they never showed the toroid because they didn't want to rebuild the set, the plot was a bit weaker.
I was annoyed that one of the people was killed by the unknown aliens. Why?
It seemed "typical". But it's all a matter of opinion. It was a let down compared to this film.
Bit of trivia for you: if you move one letter forward from the letters HAL you get IBM.
XD
Arthur C. Clarke said this was entirely unintentional. If they had caught it beforehand they would have certainly changed it.
Wouldn't that be backwards?
@@lorensims4846 and he was lying out of his ass when he said it
It was mentioned in the 2010 novel. A long standing rumor was that Chandra had created HAL to move a step a head of IBM.
Loved these two movies as they proved you can tell a good story in two parts and they made me question if Jupiter could become a star (short answer no it is not quite massive enough…unless you add a trillion trillion monoliths)
Yes it's unfortunate, not even big enough for a brown dwarf. Jupiter's mass is 0.001% of the Suns. In order to become just a red dwarf it needs to be 80 times bigger and around 13 times bigger to be a brown dwarf. It's crazy how big things are in space. Despite some massive giant stars being out there, our Sun is actually in the top 10%% in terms of stars we've observed so far. And our star is also unique in not having a pair. At least 70% of observed stars have one or more companions.
Or something with a force field that compresses or accelerates the atmosphere enough to ignite fusion. Those monoliths might not have been contributing mass; they might just have been throwing hydrogen about at very high velocities. 🤔
Every now and again I check a random channel, I was happy to see saved videos from Sin Squad and Penny Arcade.
In the book, it was suggested by one of the characters that the monoliths were only increasing the density of Jupiter, not its mass, and that possibly they were converting some of Jupiter into ultra-dense neutron star material. Those kind of densities would be more than enough to get Jupiter to start fusing hydrogen like a star, I think.
It should be kept in mind that humanity, and Earth itself, likely would not exist were it not for Jupiter. Jupiter sucks up a lot of the comets and other debris that comes in from the outer system, and beyond, and keeps that stuff from spiraling into the Sun (where some percentage would inevitably hit the Earth).
I love that they named the Russian ship after Alexei Leonov.
For those who might not know, Leonov was the cosmonaut-pilot of Voskhod 2 in 1965; and he carried out the first space-walk, or EVA. Later, in 1975, he commanded the Soyuz 19 mission, which docked with an (unnumbered) Apollo command module in what was known in the west as the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. The Soviets referred to that mission simply as Soyuz-Apollon.
"Dr. Chandra, will I dream?"
"I don't know, HAL."
It was the only honest answer he could give Hal.
We do know now, that dreaming is a state of high neural activity; so when powered down... no, you won’t, Hal. However, as a member of a species that does dream (and has it as a requirement for continued normal processing)... eh, it’s not all it’s cracked up to be, so to speak (like, incoherent nightmares... ugh).
curious: was dr. chandra an indian in the book? i know clarke was very fond of india and its culture, and chandra is a very indian name.
Earn $300 - $80,000 daily.
Ask how?
all intelligent creatures do
This isn't just a ship breakdown, this is a plot summary.
The only info we have about the ship's fictional history is from the film plots, so what else can you do? Clarke's novels don't go into too many more details about Discovery's construction or design than the films do.
I am stoked you covered this ship.. Kubrick's vision of Clarke's book is outstanding 👍👍
I'm not sure it's fair to characterize the film as an adaptation of the book. The two were created more or less simultaneously and as a collaboration. Though ultimately they ended up being different in several details, not to mention the significant differences in how they told the story. Kubrick's film is visual and psychological, while Clarke preferred to be much more literal and expository.
The book was actually written after the movie was released.
@@MarsFKA it was *published* about 2 months later, but Clarke was writing it alongside the production of the film.
@@illyth63 You are correct, Sir! Book and movie were conceived simultaneously, with ideas being lobbed back and forth, almost like a game of tennis. Some of those ideas were incorporated into the book, while others ended up in the movie. Clarke explains this himself in his notes to one of the sequels, either 2061 or 3001.
I just realised how much the Leonov looks almost exactly like a downsized Omega-class Destroyer. From the central hull, the form of the engineering section, all the way to the centrifuge hub with its two massive container units. ^^
The Leonov is older, B5 borrowed the design did their ships.
@@mattwho81 Exactly! ^^
JMS said they got the inspiration for the Omega from the Leonov.
@@TheOneWhoMightBe He did? I wasnt aware but it makes sense ^^
@@LtCWest the rotating sections is based on real world science
The Discovery 1 is the grandfather of all hard science space ship, and in my opinion not equaled until the Martian's Hermes.
Thank you for featuring the ship that got me into aerospace engineering.
Kim Stanley Robinson did a great job with the ship in Red Mars.
The Hermes has the same communication antenna as the discovery with the three dishes.
@@KingreX32 I wonder if antenna arrangement has anything to with the unified s band that Nasa uses.
Venture Star ISV is a contender
I love it when science fiction inspires actual scientists and engineers!
Thank you for finally getting to the ship in my favorite science fiction movie of all time.
You're very welcome, I hope I did it justice!
@@hoojiwana Keep up the work man, you have made a fan out of me.
You know, 2001 a space odyssey is literally the best science fiction movie / story. Even the book had details about the rotation of the station ship segment for gravity, instead of just "artificial gravity". Even back when it was first written, there was little that was fiction about it.
The second best, the even older Jules Vern classic 20,000 leagues under the sea. ( Nuclear / solar powered submarine in a story written in the 1800s? true science fiction )
The waltz by Strauss was a subtle but nice touch.
The most elegant design I have ever seen. A true masterpiece. Thank you!
So Long
Radiation protection, I've always wondered why the Discovery was so darn long. Now it makes sense.
In the novels there were large thermal radiator panels to dump the excess heat from the reactor, but were not added to film for aesthetic reasons.
@@samuelvanhouten6836 Exactly right. Kubrick didn't want the viewers to mistake the radiator panels for aerodynamic "wings" or "fins," etc. So he eliminated them from the final design. The result is a cleaner, more minimalist look, even though it's not scientifically accurate.
@@piotrd.4850 Well, from what I understand, Kubrick had his production design team draw renderings of the Discovery, many versions of what it would look like (before building the actual hardware model). They tried drawing the radiator fins at different sizes, angles, arrangements, shapes, etc, but no matter what they did, the cooling fins always seemed to come out looking like wings. There's a terrific book by Piers Bizony called "2001: Filming the Future", which tells how Kubrick and his team made the movie, built all the models, etc. The book includes many photos and drawings, including several different versions of the Discovery, both with & without fins. It's a really fascinating read, I highly recommend it!
The original design had a protective covering over the end. When the ship needed to dock or communicate it would recede.
@@michaelbrownlee9497 any idea what sort of speeds it was travelling at ?
If only....2001 was a "reward" for my music class in 1972 when we all made A's with no exception. The theater was only about four blocks from my school. I was blown away, I had never experienced classical music reproduced that loud nor had watched a movie in that environment. Of course, Id' been to movies many times, but this was different, with the music putting it over the top.
Perhaps minor point but crew members were loaded while already in hibernation not to save a little more resources but because they knew the secret of the changed mission and this assured secrecy would be maintained by them. Also, the crew movements in the centrifuge would seem inconsistent with low lunar gravity.
The Discovery really is/was a well-thought out ship that pretty much fits in with current design capabilities.
As for the clip itself... not so much a breakdown of the ship as a breakdown of the two movies it appears in.
I have to admit I like the look of Discovery One much better in the concepts where it has the massive radiator panels in the rear engine section. They not only make the ship more realistic but really balance out the look of the design.
The background music reminds me when I first started playing Elite Dangerous and didn't have the skills to land and take off from space stations myself, so I just let the docking computer do it's thing.
The whole docking bit in Elite (the original, from 1984, and its sequels) was directly inspired by the docking scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey, soundtrack included.
Blue Danube is the song, and it is indeed a direct reference to 2001 when using the docking computers.
I like to keep a docking computer on hand for my ships that stay mostly in "the bubble" but I keep myself in practice by manually landing about 1 in 4 landings. For exploration ships, I dispense with the landing assist - not going to need it way out in the black away from spaceports of any kind.
Lucky punk I chose to manually dock for all my ships in that game save for the Anaconda because that thing was too huge.
@@Fafnd Same, I only use the docking computer on Super-Heavies like the 'Conda and Cutter
Thank you for remembering this landmark in starship design, from one of the most critically important sci-fi entertainments of all time. The Discovery, and that film it appeared in, heavily influence both the "Star Wars" saga, the Kirk-era "Trek" films (esp. the first one), and the design styles of the ships in both.
Timeless, fantastic SF films. A shame we'll probably never see the finall chapters of the Space Odyssey.
Every time I see the film, or fragments of it, I can't help admiring the effects and how well they still look. Also, the Discovery is still my favourite spaceship design out of all the SF films I've ever seen.
Well done. The Discovery is my favorite realistic scifi spaceship. Thank you for covering her.
It cpuld be built today because the design is very logical.
I always really liked how this ship looked. Also the Eagle Transporters from Space: 1999. They both look like ships we should be flying right now.
“I’’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that.” Me to my 3 year old.
Spoiler Alert. His name is Teddy.
He's very confused.
You guys make my day. Rough day today. But every time I see something from this group it pertains to something I love, and I truly enjoy the detailed perspective you provide into the sci-fi genre.
Great video about a great ship and movie. I am planning to 3d print a model of the Discovery. One thing - I think I recall in 2010 there is mention that Bowman recovered the pod he used when he tried to rescue Poole - hence there is still a pod in the pod bay in 2010.
Space Odyssey had a sequel?
Excuse me, I'll be right back...
came out decades ago. very cool but still leaves us with questions.
The book is 2010: Odyssey Two, and the movies is 2010: The Year We Make Contact. Both quite excellent
I only saw it once. Its like they hide it. If it was on TV as much as the first one..
@@omega311888 Read the sequels to the movies, 2061: Odyssey Three and 3001: Final Odyssey. There are many answers in them.
@@Evil0tto I personally think 2061 and 3001 aren't really all that memorable compared to 2001 or 2010
Shes definitely an iconic ship although I always preferred the chunky aesthetic of the Leonov. Loved that rotating mid-section.
I came here for an explanation on the Discovery, and got a summary for 2001 Space Odyssey. Came looking for copper and found gold.
Oh, nice! Still one of my favorite 'realistic' ship designs. Pity they didn't include the radiators for the drive section but IIRC it was thought they'd look too much like wings/stupid and they were left out. Can still kinda see where they were supposed to be mounted though on the model shots EDIT: I loved 2001 the book and the movie ( though the pacing of the first movie puts a lot of people off, and even as a fan I admit the first segment could have been seriously condensed without harming the story told ) I also love 2010 the book and the movie...though it's more obvious that there's a bit of divergence here. 2001 the book and movie were created at the same time so they're almost identical ( the book has things taking place at Saturn ) 2010 the book and the movie have quite a bit of divergence between them, and there's way more conflict with the Soviets than in the book. The Chinese mission and landing on Europa are completely missing which is a damn shame. Still not sure if that was budget consideration, studio politics or what. Doubt 2061 or 3001 will ever be made into movies ( to be honest I felt 3001 was kinda meh, but 2061 as a movie could be interesting if done right )
Radiators aren’t needed for reactor propulsion, since the propellant can carry off all the heat needed, provided the reactor can be throttled to zero quickly enough. In practice though, fission reactors create short lived isotopes which continue to release heat for days or weeks as they decay, but a future design might solve that problem.
There's some heavy duty retconning of 2001 film vs 2010 in that Haywood Floyd denies knowing about the secret order to keep the Discovery crew in the dark about their real mission until they reach Jupiter. 2001 film shows Haywood clearly explaining that the true nature of the mission was to be kept secret until everyone arrived at Jupiter. Not sure why they did this.....
The book versions of 2001 and 2010 maintain continuity and one of the main reasons Floyd agrees to go on the mission is out of guilt for knowing that keeping the mission objective secret had more or less doomed the Discovery crew.
Outstanding breakdown of 2001 and 2010. Thanks for posting this.
There is a creepy sequence in the film. While Dave Bowman is off the ship, there are shots of HAL'S camera interspersed with shots of the hibernation pods. HAL shuts down the life support systems. The reason why HAL malfunctioned was he was given conflicting orders. A shot from 2010 showing Jupiter being consumed is also seen. Great video. The actor who played Frank Poole also appeared in the Star Trek episode Where No Man Has Gone Before. HAL could lip read.
I've always been of the mind that that particular scene when HAL shuts off the life support for the hibernating scientists is the most creepy and chilling murder scene in all movie history.
One of the great things about 2001 space odyssey is the soundtrack is mostly classical music instead of the bombastic and intense music in most sci-fi films and so I like it that you put classical music in the background like in the movie.
Thanks for reminding me about these classic sci-fi movies.
Watched both of them years ago. Well worth it.
Loved it, glad to see it covered. Hopefully we get more classic sci fi ship coverage in the future. ❤
Its hard to believe this film was made in the 60s it still holds up today and I don't think half was destroyed .
One design flaw I see in Discovery 1 is the 3 pod bay doors. Any opening in a ship could present a potential weak spot in the structure of the ship. It seems to me that a better design would be one central pod bay door and have the pots on some sort of rail system. If one pod is deployed and a second one needs to be deployed, it is moved into position.
The Discovery has always been my favorite fictional ship, ever since I first saw "2001" back in 1968 (I was 12). Unlike other ships and craft in various sci-fi movies and TV shows, the Discovery is logically laid out. There are no unnecessary parts or protrusions. Every feature, whether internal or external, serves a practical purpose. Function dictating form. Yet the overall design is elegant, even beautiful.
Best of all, the Discovery has no weaponry, no phasers or photon torpedoes, etc. I don't say that as a peacenik (even though I am), but the idea of a weaponized spaceship seems absurd, almost corny. Phasers would be useless against aliens with a 4-million year head start on us. Intellects able to manufacture an artifact like the Monolith, which seems to transcend space and time (it was even present at the evolutionary birth of our species). As far as space travel goes, the real "enemies" are not Klingons or Romulans or Sith Lords, but rather, the vast cosmic sprawl of SPACE and TIME, itself.
Anyway, thank you so much for this excellent presentation!!!
Obsidian club driven by Aztec warrior would have no problem taking your 21st century head off.
@@just_one_opinion But there isn't a million-year technology gap between us and the Aztecs.
It should also have large cooling fins -- the nuclear propulsion system won’t operate without them. But they were left out to avoid having the audience wonder why a spaceship needed wings in space.
If only they could have known what was to come in _Star Wars_ ...
Pleasepleaseplease... USS Cygnus from The Black Hole.
Yes!
Absolutely! Super underrated movie!
Very nice. This is my very favorite spacecraft.
Kubrick had all the costumes and models destroyed after filming because he didn't want them showing up all the time in subsequent cheesy sci-fi movies.
For the sequel "2010" they only had the footage from the movie "2001" to use as a reference for building their model of Discovery.
At that time (late '60s) the Discovery was the largest model ever made for a movie. It was 55 feet long.
A lesser channel would have stopped at the Discovery's role in the first movie. Kudos to Spacedock for including 2010 so that viewers can know its full (cinematic) history. (Considering how underappreciated Hyams' sequel was by moviegoers. I actually liked it far more than Kubrick's original.)
I feel like Discovery would be good example for real world spacecraft to travel outside of earth gravity.
You mean - for travel outside of the Earth-Moon sphere of influence? Such as trips to Mars etc?
@@logandarklighter yes in middle of journey it can extend using cables to get engine and living space further from center.
@@death13a it was originally designed to be a nuclear pulse propulsion (Orion) ship
- "These worlds are yours"
- "Nah, thank you dawg but we build orbital habitats, gravity wells are for suckers"
'im sasa ke welwolla!
seig zion
Spoken like a true Belta-Lowda!
But you'll barely be able to move planetside!
@@DonaldWWitt Lol wut? There is such thing as spin gravity, you can set it up as high or as low as your construction materials allow.
Thanks for the primary school explanation of the film and no extended ship breakdown.
That brought back so much I saw from the 2 Films! Thank you for that!
Nice. Been waiting for this one.
Do an episode about the Doomsday Machine from Star Trek TOS
Doomsday Machine vs Borg Cube.
@@Marinealver read the book Vendetta (by Peter David) if you havent already
You mean the oversized construction vehicle?
Honestly I always felt the Doomsday Machine was actually a ship used in large planetoid or dead world destruction for resources It blast a world which then its users could extract resources from, then they refuel it and have it go to the next location.
Some point someone either forgot to switch the off switch and or the civilization that spawned it died out and it was damaged and went toward our galaxy. Its original look and design worn and beaten down from centuries of planet and rock destruction and gods know what else. Thus turning into what we see today.
@@Quetzalcoatl_Feathered_Serpent Vendetta reveals it to be an anti-Borg weapon created by the Preservers. The one in the original episode was the prototype. The final version was gigantic and terrifying
Norman Spinrad, who wrote the Doomsday episode, upon watching the finished episode, complained to Gene Roddenberry that the planet-killer looked like a windsock dipped in cement. "It WAS a windsock dipped in cement," Gene confessed. "That's all we had money for."
This is one of my favorite movies. Thank you for such a great video.
Thanks. An entire generation wondered what this film was about
These films make me sad. So many visionaries thought we'd be at this stage in space age travel. So much drama holding us hostage on shitty Earth. Anyways, WONDERFUL VIDEO! Thank you so much. 😊
I wonder how many people here knew why HAL sung Daisy Bell. It was because it was homage to the first time a computer sang a song. Clark saw a demonstration of this computer singing the song and decided to put it in his novel 2001.
I find that hard to believe. We didn't have digital voice on computers until the 1980's, 1970's at least.
When this film was made, memory was magnetic core. Not only was it slow, it was EXPENSIVE. I don't see how a voice synthesizer could have existed in 1968 or before.
I think this story is incorrect and you are in error.
@@fuzzywzhe dude its well documented that a supercomputer was programmed to sing. from the library of congress website.
"One of “Daisy Bell’s” most radical and
interesting uses of course arrived in 1961 via IBM and a team of visionary computer
programmers.
That year, in Bell Labs in Murray Hill, New Jersey, computer programmers John Kelly and
Carol Lochbaum (who together programmed the machine’s “vocal”), and an innovative techiecum-music composer named Max Mathews, made, for the first time, an artificial device “sing.”
And the song it sang was the turn of the century ditty “Daisy Bell.”
"Along with its long-reaching technological influence, “Daisy Bell,” as delivered by computer,
was also just amusing and interesting. For years the demonstration was part of the formal tour of
Bell Labs. In the early 1960s, when science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke visited his friend
John Pierce at the Labs, he took special note of this singing and talking computer"
It was on an IBM 704 which came out in 1954. MUSIC, the first computer music program, was developed on the IBM 704 by Max Matthews. So you don't know jack. Learn what the vocoder was and what the Voder which came out in 1939 is
The 2001 series was my favorite growing up. Even today I'll sometimes go back and read 2001 and 2010. I will hardly ever drop everything to watch something, but this time? I made an exception.
it's about time
This was more of a movie synopsis than an extended ship breakdown of Discovery 1.
>all these worlds are yours, except Europa
>Attempt no landing there
Sounds like it's time for a good ol orbital bombardment
Only if you're a Centauri.
Or want the Monoliths to destroy Earth, which they almost do in one of the later books in the quadlogy.
You could _try_
Hmm, yeah, piss off the gods, who just demonstrated the power to turn Jupiter into a baby star over the course of a few months. That sounds like a plan...
This was a great breakdown. This guy is the best Daniel replacement they've had.
The second movie is super underrated and I always recommend it
Now do the Leonov!
Heck, do one for the Monoliths, since they're kind of spacecraft too...
The Monoliths are a lot of things and vary in size. The 4 books are kind of vague about them, as are the 2 movies, deliberately so. Clarke was one of those hard scifi authors that decided that significantly advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
@@jlokison Hell, he INVENTED that phrase
My fav bit of 2010 is when earth is about to have a nuclear war and the various astronauts are told to return to their ships and within like 10 minutes their all just like nah fuck it we like each other to much to go to war up here
space is hostile enough without trying to bring war there too.
Bowman appeared to Floyd and cycled in ages right in front of him. That would freak me out enough to ignore any orders. Then the 2-kilometer-long big monolith suddenly vanishes without the slightest trace practically before the eyes of Floyd and the Russian commander. That freaked out the rest of them.
2001 will always be my gold standard for hard scifi.
A testament to how much thought Kubric's FX people put into making this movie is in a story I heard about the Jupiter/Saturn thing. In the novel, the mission is to Saturn, in the final version of the movie, it's to Jupiter. Well, if the story I heard was accurate, the reason for the change was FX. At one stage, if the story is right, the movie was going to send Bowman and Poole to Saturn, too. They made a visual set and mockup of their best guess as to what Saturn and its ring system would look like up close (remember this is long before the _Voyager_ probes, all they had to go on was telescopic images from telescopes far weaker than today's). Well, the story goes that when they finished their set/backdrop they concluded it looked _fake_ , unbelievable, somebody compared it to a phonograph record. So they changed the storyline and sent _Discovery_ to Jupiter, but the novel kept the original plan.
OK, as the story goes, the Voyager probes send back their images...and Kubric's people had gotten it pretty close after all. Their informed guesswork as to what it would look like was actually not that far off, it was just that reality turned out to look unrealistic by the standards of 1968.
Clearly, you have to follow this up with Rama.
It’s probably a good thing they didn’t run into V’Ger… that would have caused HAL to blow some fuses!
I appreciate how they tried to ground these ships in as much reality as possible and something that could be built
Yeah, looking at that ship... most of that could be built. Hell, all of that, if your fusion engines are for thrust and is otherwise powered by a fission reactor. (Discounting hal of course)
I think because they worried that the moon landing in the following years (1969) would make the movie look outdated so they did a lot of research/homework to make sure everything is right.
Well, this video just inspired me to re-watch 2001. Thanks Spacedock!
And you say 1:4:9... assuming it doesn't continue that ratio into other dimensions...
The 1:4:9 dimensions of the monolith are from Arthur C. Clarke's novel. No such thing is mentioned in the movie.
@@scotpens And 1:4:9 with that ratio continuing further into other dimensions is from A.C.Clarke's follow up book 2010 Odyssey 2.
HAL must run on or is the only perfect, flawless OS ever made.
Not HAL specifically, the other 9000 series computers on Earth used the same OS, SAL for instance was identical to HAL, except it was never told to keep a mission secret from its crew or that the mission was more important than its crew.
Very good summing up of 2001 and 2010 great video.
loved both movies, and I have the novel on audio book with the forward by Arther C. Clark, and I have listened to it many times, and it only gets better, love how it is split between the dawn on time and the future
My complaint about 2010 was the spacesuits design. They should have been based on 9 years later from the suits in 2001 not modern spacesuits .
Good point! Never really noticed before, now I won’t be able to not notice😁
To me, it never looked like the command section was big enough to house the flight deck, pod bay and centrifuge.
New Spacedock is the highlight of my day :)
I was one of the crew that was on board D1 when we did our first hyperspace jump. The results were nominal
Unhappily, Kubrick dropped the ball in some of the Micro-Gravity scenes...
Weightlessness was well shown with Bowman "floating" in HAL's Logic Center, the emergency airlock entry, and the dead astronaut tumbling thru space.
The stunt guys had already designed the necessary harnesses and cables for these scenes, and could have used them in other "weightless" shots.
After the emergency entry into the ship- Bowman _climbs a ladder_ to get from the Pod Garage to the Logic center.
Should have shown him easily pulling himself thru the connecting passage to the next level.
The Pod Garage was clearly a 2-dimensional room with normal gravity.
It should have been 3-dimensional weightless layout - like the compartments in the ISS.
Can't imagine A.E.Clark not pointing this stuff out in the pre-production designs.
Don't mean to be a bitch- Loved 2001.
This inconsistency was a little disappointing after seeing all the other wonderful realistic special effects.
As I start this, I am somewhat disappointed that the standard error in timing is made. The events of uncovering the monolith are those that are happening in 2001 (there are datestamps on the survey imagery Dr. Floyd reviews in the shuttle), and the main events aboard the Discovery happen later in 2002 and 2003.
You're right!
good catch
Well, the years 1999 and 2001 are given in the prologue of the Peter Hyams movie. Neither the books nor the Kubrick movie were that specific. The book The Odyssey Files chronicled the electronic communication between Clarke and Hyams about the movie, and Hyams specifically asked about years. Clarke answered that he imagined that it was the discovery of the Monolith that was in 2001, but that he'd been deliberately vague about it, so Hyams could do as he liked.
One of the major improvements the alien monolith made, was that humans no longer throw poop like their ape ancestors.
Saw 2001 and 2010 back to back on rented VHS movies (a very long time ago indeed)! Very cool...
And a decade after the release of 2001, the work pods would inspire the most comically outmatched military unit in sci-fi history...the RB 79 Ball, a.k.a. the Mobile Coffin :P.
You can't be GM without Balls.
Epicly cool ship and computer, but it boggles the mind why this movie is a classic. I want my two and a half hours back.
I realize that I'm going to get flack for that opinion, but it's what I think.
It's a classic because of how it laid the groundwork and inspired so many others for future science fiction, the same goes for Dune. Also the book is better than the movie, you can get the audio book on audible. It does a better job of explaining things and makes for a really good classic sci-fi horror read
should have just read the book. i agree that the movie takes forever to get to its points.
It was the first movie to depict humans realistically living and working in space. It was stunningly beautiful AND believable. Of course later movie built on this foundation but none of your favourite space movies would exist without 2001.
I think it's just because everyone remembers the movie. Or at least being wierded out by it. I didn't really get that. It didn't explain much to be sure, but nothing seemed particularly complicated.
This feels more like summery of 2001 and 2010 than a ship breakdown.
I like anyway.
Nice touch playing the Blue Danube Waltz in the background.
I think the need to depressurize the whole hangar is a serious design flaw.
I imagine that it would have taken a lot of extra space, where space was precious. Heck, the Apollo Lunar Module also opened straight out to the lunar surface.
In the book, Bowman never left the ship. HAL attempted to kill him by opening both the outer and inner doors at the same time, thereby evacuating all air from the ship. That's also what killed the hibernated crew, but Bowman managed to get into a pressurised compartment in time.
@@Yngvarfo There was not much space, true, but they put three freaking doors there! Open one and the whole compartment is inoperable unless the crew is already there and suited up. I think they should've tried to put an airlock instead of a three separate pod lauch platforms.
OTOH, with a pressurizable bay they can access the pods in shirt sleeves, for maintenance, for any modification that might be needed, and it leaves them a large open area for other work in shirt-sleeves as well. So it's not necessarily a flaw.
Hal also funded the mission by mining Bitcoin with his spare capacity.
FANTASTIC analysis