Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Added example(s)
Added DiffLines:
* The significant changes of the EVA suits from their very close-conforming shapes in ''2001'' may be just more than the changing styles of sci-fi set and prop design. After Frank's murder in the first film, aerospace designers all over the world would recognize the folly of having an astronaut's/cosmonaut's sole oxygen supply fed by a single external hose to their helmet without backup, and remind them of the serious risk of micrometeroid collisions (or EVA pod collisions!), which would lead to bulkier suit designs more in-line with IRL designs.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Misplaced, moving to the correct tab
Deleted line(s) 7,16 (click to see context) :
!FridgeLogic
* Wouldn't the existence of two suns mess with various animal/plant life cycles that are dependent on a day/night cycle?
** It would, and it was explicitly mentioned by Arthur C. Clarke in his novel.
** Woopsie.
*** When Earth is between the Sun and Jupiter, it is still about 900-1000 times further from Jupiter than Europa is. Assuming Jupiter looks from Europa like the Sun from Earth, its magnitude from Earth would be -12m. That's about 10000 times brighter than Sirius - and about as bright as a half moon. Meaning that the night sky would look like in a moonlit night, except with a very brilliant dot. Farthest from Earth, Jupiter would still be almost half as bright at -11m, and still a very bright dot on the day sky.
*** So, in other words, the night sky as we know it would still exist, just with at least one light source being equivalent to a half-moon being present at all times? Notwithstanding the effects on sea turtles, migratory animals, etc., that doesn't sound quite drastic enough to warrant lovers' being ticked off as Clarke proposed.
*** Even in that case Lucifer would not be visible all the year and would have the same visibility Jupiter had before (and has in RealLife), one part of the year visible all the night, the opposite moment of the year invisible being too close to the Sun, and between visible as evening star or morning star[[note]]To be more exact during more or less part of the night, same as what happens with the Moon[[/note]]. However, besides messing with plants and animals, it would almost be a ''hell'' for (Earth-based) astronomers too, who would have even less dark nights to observe the sky (as if the Moon when it's past quarter and the bad weather were not enough, just ask an astronomer).
*** Fortunately, most Earthbound telescopes are radio, etc. and the serious optical telescopes are in space.
* The movie is deliberately vague about what "the problem in Central America" actually is. Is the USSR trying to supply nuclear missiles to Honduras, like they tried to do with Cuba, or is it something else? Cuba is an island, so it makes sense that the US can establish a naval blockade around it, but Honduras has land borders, so why couldn't the USSR transport whatever it is over land?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 16 (click to see context) from:
* The movie is deliberately vague about what "the problem in Central America" actually is. Is the USSR trying to supply nuclear missiles to Honduras, like they tried to do with Cuba, or is it something else? Cuba is an island, so it makes sense that the US can establish a naval blockade around it, but Honduras has land borders, so why couldn't the USSR transport whatever it is over land? -- [=SuddenFrost=]
to:
* The movie is deliberately vague about what "the problem in Central America" actually is. Is the USSR trying to supply nuclear missiles to Honduras, like they tried to do with Cuba, or is it something else? Cuba is an island, so it makes sense that the US can establish a naval blockade around it, but Honduras has land borders, so why couldn't the USSR transport whatever it is over land? -- [=SuddenFrost=]land?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 14 (click to see context) from:
*** Even in that case Lucifer would not be visible all the year and would have the same visibility Jupiter had before (and has in RealLife), one part of the year visible all the night, the opposite moment of the year invisible being too close to the Sun, and between visible as evening star or morning star[[note]]To be more exact during more or less part of the night, same as what happens with the Moon[[/note]]. However, besides messing with plants and animals, it would almost be a ''hell'' for (Earth-based) astronomers too, who would have even less dark nights to observe the sky -as if the Moon when it's past quarter and the bad weather were not enough, just ask an astronomer-.
to:
*** Even in that case Lucifer would not be visible all the year and would have the same visibility Jupiter had before (and has in RealLife), one part of the year visible all the night, the opposite moment of the year invisible being too close to the Sun, and between visible as evening star or morning star[[note]]To be more exact during more or less part of the night, same as what happens with the Moon[[/note]]. However, besides messing with plants and animals, it would almost be a ''hell'' for (Earth-based) astronomers too, who would have even less dark nights to observe the sky -as (as if the Moon when it's past quarter and the bad weather were not enough, just ask an astronomer-.astronomer).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 2,3 (click to see context) from:
* The ''Leonov'' crew's triangular mission patches show both the Soviet and U.S. flags, but the U.S. flag is upside-down: the stripes are on top and the stars are on the bottom. Flying a flag upside-down is only supposed to be used to signal a dire emergency... but the reason there are Americans on this mission is precisely because needing to rescue ''Discovery'' before it crashes into Io ''is'' a dire emergency. -- [=SuddenFrost=]
** There's also a bit of a poke at [[CooperationGambit the nature]] of the mission in that patch: Effectively, "This is a ''Soviet'' mission and don't you Yanks forget it." -- [=Donald The Potholer=]
** There's also a bit of a poke at [[CooperationGambit the nature]] of the mission in that patch: Effectively, "This is a ''Soviet'' mission and don't you Yanks forget it." -- [=Donald The Potholer=]
to:
* The ''Leonov'' crew's triangular mission patches show both the Soviet and U.S. flags, but the U.S. flag is upside-down: the stripes are on top and the stars are on the bottom. Flying a flag upside-down is only supposed to be used to signal a dire emergency... but the reason there are Americans on this mission is precisely because needing to rescue ''Discovery'' before it crashes into Io ''is'' a dire emergency. -- [=SuddenFrost=]
emergency.
** There's also a bit of a poke at [[CooperationGambit the nature]] of the mission in that patch: Effectively, "This is a ''Soviet'' mission and don't you Yanks forget it." -- [=Donald The Potholer=]"
** There's also a bit of a poke at [[CooperationGambit the nature]] of the mission in that patch: Effectively, "This is a ''Soviet'' mission and don't you Yanks forget it.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* The movie is deliberately vague about what "the problem in Central America" actually is. Is the USSR trying to supply nuclear missiles to Honduras, like they tried to do with Cuba, or is it something else? Cuba is an island, so it makes sense that the US can establish a naval blockade around it, but Honduras has land borders, so why couldn't the USSR transport whatever it is over land? -- [=SuddenFrost=]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 6 (click to see context) from:
* In 2001, Dr. Heywood Floyd seems to be a "company man" - he even tells the Moonbase staff that "formal security oaths" will be required to keep their mouths shut about the Monolith. The 2010 Floyd is a cowboy. Being blamed for the failure of the ''Discovery'' mission, the loss of the crew and still not knowing what happened burned him out. So he won't take crap from anyone.
to:
* In 2001, Dr. Heywood Floyd seems to be a "company man" - he even tells the Moonbase staff that "formal security oaths" will be required to keep their mouths shut about the Monolith. The 2010 Floyd is a cowboy. Being blamed for the failure of the ''Discovery'' mission, the loss of the crew crew, and still not knowing what happened burned him out. So he won't take crap from anyone. It would explain why he was so eager to defy Milson's order not to work with the Soviet crew.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Fixed minor indenting error.
Changed line(s) 6,7 (click to see context) from:
* In 2001, Dr. Heywood Floyd seems to be a "company man" - he even tells the Moonbase staff that "formal security oaths" will be required to keep their mouths shut about the Monolith. The 2010 Floyd is a cowboy. Being blamed for the failure of the ''Discovery'' mission, the loss of the crew and still not knowing what happened burned him out.
So he won't take crap from anyone.
So he won't take crap from anyone.
to:
* In 2001, Dr. Heywood Floyd seems to be a "company man" - he even tells the Moonbase staff that "formal security oaths" will be required to keep their mouths shut about the Monolith. The 2010 Floyd is a cowboy. Being blamed for the failure of the ''Discovery'' mission, the loss of the crew and still not knowing what happened burned him out. \n So he won't take crap from anyone.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 6 (click to see context) from:
to:
* In 2001, Dr. Heywood Floyd seems to be a "company man" - he even tells the Moonbase staff that "formal security oaths" will be required to keep their mouths shut about the Monolith. The 2010 Floyd is a cowboy. Being blamed for the failure of the ''Discovery'' mission, the loss of the crew and still not knowing what happened burned him out.
So he won't take crap from anyone.
So he won't take crap from anyone.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** There's also a bit of a poke at [[CooperationGambit the nature]] of the mission in that patch: Effectively, "This is a ''Soviet'' mission and don't you Yanks forget it." -- [=Donald The Potholer=]
---> '''Moiseivich''': A Russian craft, flown by Russians, carrying a few poor Americans, who need our help. That also would look good on the front page of ''[[UsefulNotes/RussianReading Pravda]]''.
---> '''Moiseivich''': A Russian craft, flown by Russians, carrying a few poor Americans, who need our help. That also would look good on the front page of ''[[UsefulNotes/RussianReading Pravda]]''.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 12 (click to see context) from:
*** Fortunately, most Earthbound telescopes are radio, etc. and the serious optical telescopes are in spaces.
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
**** Fortunately, most Earthbound telescopes are radio, etc. and the serious optical telescopes are in spaces.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 3 (click to see context) from:
to:
* When David says "something wonderful" is going to happen - he means it literally: something full of ''wonder''.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added line(s) 2 (click to see context) :
!FridgeBrilliance
Changed line(s) 2 (click to see context) from:
----
to:
!FridgeLogic
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 8 (click to see context) from:
**** Even in that case Lucifer would not be visible all the year and would have the same visibility Jupiter had before (and has in RealLife), one part of the year visible all the night, the opposite moment of the year invisible being too close to the Sun, and between visible as evening star or morning star[[note]]To be more exact during more or less part of the night, same as what happens with the Moon[[/note]]. However, besides messing with plants and animals, it would almost be a ''hell'' for (Earth-based) astronomers too, who would have even less dark nights to observe the sky -as if the Moon when it's past quarter was not enough, just ask an astronomer-.
to:
**** Even in that case Lucifer would not be visible all the year and would have the same visibility Jupiter had before (and has in RealLife), one part of the year visible all the night, the opposite moment of the year invisible being too close to the Sun, and between visible as evening star or morning star[[note]]To be more exact during more or less part of the night, same as what happens with the Moon[[/note]]. However, besides messing with plants and animals, it would almost be a ''hell'' for (Earth-based) astronomers too, who would have even less dark nights to observe the sky -as if the Moon when it's past quarter was and the bad weather were not enough, just ask an astronomer-.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 8 (click to see context) from:
**** Even in that case Lucifer would not be visible all the year and would have the same visibility Jupiter had before (and has in RealLife), one part of the year visible all the night, the opposite moment of the year invisible being too close to the Sun, and between visible as evening star or morning star. However, besides messing with plants and animals, it would almost be a ''hell'' for (Earth-based) astronomers too, who would have even less dark nights to observe the sky -as if the Moon when it's past quarter was not enough, just ask an astronomer-.
to:
**** Even in that case Lucifer would not be visible all the year and would have the same visibility Jupiter had before (and has in RealLife), one part of the year visible all the night, the opposite moment of the year invisible being too close to the Sun, and between visible as evening star or morning star.star[[note]]To be more exact during more or less part of the night, same as what happens with the Moon[[/note]]. However, besides messing with plants and animals, it would almost be a ''hell'' for (Earth-based) astronomers too, who would have even less dark nights to observe the sky -as if the Moon when it's past quarter was not enough, just ask an astronomer-.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 8 (click to see context) from:
**** Even in that case Lucifer would not be visible all the year and would have the same visibility Jupiter had before (and has in RealLife), one part of the year visible all the night, the opposite moment invisible being too close to the Sun, and between visible as evening star or morning star. However, besides messing with plants and animals, it would almost be a hell for (Earth-based) astronomers too, who would have even less dark nights to observ the sky -as if the Moon when it's past quarter was not enough, just ask an astronomer amateur or professional-.
to:
**** Even in that case Lucifer would not be visible all the year and would have the same visibility Jupiter had before (and has in RealLife), one part of the year visible all the night, the opposite moment of the year invisible being too close to the Sun, and between visible as evening star or morning star. However, besides messing with plants and animals, it would almost be a hell ''hell'' for (Earth-based) astronomers too, who would have even less dark nights to observ observe the sky -as if the Moon when it's past quarter was not enough, just ask an astronomer amateur or professional-.astronomer-.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
**** Even in that case Lucifer would not be visible all the year and would have the same visibility Jupiter had before (and has in RealLife), one part of the year visible all the night, the opposite moment invisible being too close to the Sun, and between visible as evening star or morning star. However, besides messing with plants and animals, it would almost be a hell for (Earth-based) astronomers too, who would have even less dark nights to observ the sky -as if the Moon when it's past quarter was not enough, just ask an astronomer amateur or professional-.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
NVM. they climb down and enter the command module. I misremembered.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
NVM. they climb down and enter the command module. I misremembered.
Changed line(s) 8,9 (click to see context) from:
----
* The existence of a midpoint airlock on Discovery (Which the astronauts from the Leonov use to gain access to the rotating Discovery), does beg the question of why did Frank Poole take the pod to fix the main antenna in ''Film/TwoThousandOneASpaceOdyssey'', instead of just going out the airlock nearest the problem himself.
* The existence of a midpoint airlock on Discovery (Which the astronauts from the Leonov use to gain access to the rotating Discovery), does beg the question of why did Frank Poole take the pod to fix the main antenna in ''Film/TwoThousandOneASpaceOdyssey'', instead of just going out the airlock nearest the problem himself.
to:
* The existence of a midpoint airlock on Discovery (Which the astronauts from the Leonov use to gain access to the rotating Discovery), does beg the question of why did Frank Poole take the pod to fix the main antenna in ''Film/TwoThousandOneASpaceOdyssey'', instead of just going out the airlock nearest the problem himself.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 9 (click to see context) from:
* The existence of a midpoint airlock on Discovery (Which the astronauts from the Leonov use to gain access to the rotating Discovery), does beg the question of why did Frank Poole take the pod to fix the main antenna in ''Film/TwoThousandOneASpaceOdyssey'', instead of just going out the nearby airlock.
to:
* The existence of a midpoint airlock on Discovery (Which the astronauts from the Leonov use to gain access to the rotating Discovery), does beg the question of why did Frank Poole take the pod to fix the main antenna in ''Film/TwoThousandOneASpaceOdyssey'', instead of just going out the nearby airlock.airlock nearest the problem himself.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 7 (click to see context) from:
**** So, in other words, the night sky as we know it would still exist, just with at least one light source being equivalent to a half-moon being present at all times? Notwithstanding the effects on sea turtles, migratory animals, etc., that doesn't sound quite drastic enough to warrant lovers' being ticked off as Clarke proposed.
to:
**** So, in other words, the night sky as we know it would still exist, just with at least one light source being equivalent to a half-moon being present at all times? Notwithstanding the effects on sea turtles, migratory animals, etc., that doesn't sound quite drastic enough to warrant lovers' being ticked off as Clarke proposed.proposed.
----
*The existence of a midpoint airlock on Discovery (Which the astronauts from the Leonov use to gain access to the rotating Discovery), does beg the question of why did Frank Poole take the pod to fix the main antenna in ''Film/TwoThousandOneASpaceOdyssey'', instead of just going out the nearby airlock.
----
*The existence of a midpoint airlock on Discovery (Which the astronauts from the Leonov use to gain access to the rotating Discovery), does beg the question of why did Frank Poole take the pod to fix the main antenna in ''Film/TwoThousandOneASpaceOdyssey'', instead of just going out the nearby airlock.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 6 (click to see context) from:
*** When Earth is between the Sun and Jupiter, it is still about 900-1000 times further from Jupiter than Europa is. Assuming Jupiter looks from Europa like the Sun from Earth, its magnitude from Earth would be -12m. That's about 10000 times brighter than Sirius - and about as bright as a half moon. Meaning that the night sky would look like in a moonlit night, except with a very brilliant dot. Farthest from Earth, Jupiter would still be almost half as bright at -11m, and still a very bright dot on the day sky.
to:
*** When Earth is between the Sun and Jupiter, it is still about 900-1000 times further from Jupiter than Europa is. Assuming Jupiter looks from Europa like the Sun from Earth, its magnitude from Earth would be -12m. That's about 10000 times brighter than Sirius - and about as bright as a half moon. Meaning that the night sky would look like in a moonlit night, except with a very brilliant dot. Farthest from Earth, Jupiter would still be almost half as bright at -11m, and still a very bright dot on the day sky.sky.
**** So, in other words, the night sky as we know it would still exist, just with at least one light source being equivalent to a half-moon being present at all times? Notwithstanding the effects on sea turtles, migratory animals, etc., that doesn't sound quite drastic enough to warrant lovers' being ticked off as Clarke proposed.
**** So, in other words, the night sky as we know it would still exist, just with at least one light source being equivalent to a half-moon being present at all times? Notwithstanding the effects on sea turtles, migratory animals, etc., that doesn't sound quite drastic enough to warrant lovers' being ticked off as Clarke proposed.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Removing wick to Did Not Do The Research per rename at TRS.
Changed line(s) 5 (click to see context) from:
** Woopsie. Looks like I [[DidNotDoTheResearch Did Not Do The Research]].
to:
** Woopsie. Looks like I [[DidNotDoTheResearch Did Not Do The Research]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 6 (click to see context) from:
*** When Earth is between the Sun and Jupiter, it is still about 900-1000 times further from Jupiter than Europa is. Assuming Jupiter looks from Europa like the Sun from Earth, its magnitude from Earth would be -12m. That's about 10000 times brighter than Sirius, but a million times less bright than the Sun - and about as bright as a half moon. Except it's not a grey disk, but a very brilliant dot. Farthest from Earth, Jupiter would still be almost half as bright at -11m, and still a very bright dot on the day sky.
to:
*** When Earth is between the Sun and Jupiter, it is still about 900-1000 times further from Jupiter than Europa is. Assuming Jupiter looks from Europa like the Sun from Earth, its magnitude from Earth would be -12m. That's about 10000 times brighter than Sirius, but a million times less bright than the Sun Sirius - and about as bright as a half moon. Except it's not Meaning that the night sky would look like in a grey disk, but moonlit night, except with a very brilliant dot. Farthest from Earth, Jupiter would still be almost half as bright at -11m, and still a very bright dot on the day sky.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 5 (click to see context) from:
** Woopsie. Looks like I [[DidNotDoTheResearch Did Not Do The Research]].
to:
** Woopsie. Looks like I [[DidNotDoTheResearch Did Not Do The Research]].Research]].
*** When Earth is between the Sun and Jupiter, it is still about 900-1000 times further from Jupiter than Europa is. Assuming Jupiter looks from Europa like the Sun from Earth, its magnitude from Earth would be -12m. That's about 10000 times brighter than Sirius, but a million times less bright than the Sun - and about as bright as a half moon. Except it's not a grey disk, but a very brilliant dot. Farthest from Earth, Jupiter would still be almost half as bright at -11m, and still a very bright dot on the day sky.
*** When Earth is between the Sun and Jupiter, it is still about 900-1000 times further from Jupiter than Europa is. Assuming Jupiter looks from Europa like the Sun from Earth, its magnitude from Earth would be -12m. That's about 10000 times brighter than Sirius, but a million times less bright than the Sun - and about as bright as a half moon. Except it's not a grey disk, but a very brilliant dot. Farthest from Earth, Jupiter would still be almost half as bright at -11m, and still a very bright dot on the day sky.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 4 (click to see context) from:
** It would, and it was explicitly mentioned by Arthur C. Clarke in his novel.
to:
** It would, and it was explicitly mentioned by Arthur C. Clarke in his novel.novel.
** Woopsie. Looks like I [[DidNotDoTheResearch Did Not Do The Research]].
** Woopsie. Looks like I [[DidNotDoTheResearch Did Not Do The Research]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 3 (click to see context) from:
* Wouldn't the existence of two suns mess with various animal/plant life cycles that are dependent on a day/night cycle?
to:
* Wouldn't the existence of two suns mess with various animal/plant life cycles that are dependent on a day/night cycle?cycle?
** It would, and it was explicitly mentioned by Arthur C. Clarke in his novel.
** It would, and it was explicitly mentioned by Arthur C. Clarke in his novel.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
I noticed it.
Changed line(s) 2 (click to see context) from:
----
to:
* Wouldn't the existence of two suns mess with various animal/plant life cycles that are dependent on a day/night cycle?