This article is part III of an article on the EVA pod vehicles from the film 2001: a Space Odyssey.
You can also jump back to the introductory page for EVA Pod Research.
Yes.
The middle of the three round landing pads inside the pod bay was on a heavy duty pair of steel beams. It was engineered to slide in and out of the pod bay interior, taking the pod in or out through an open door. This was narratively called the egress arm, though the only reference to it is on a series of pushbuttons inside the circular panel mounted on the ceiling of the cockpit. (ie: the audience never saw this terminology) Other buttons on that panel refer to the external connector release, cables and umbilicals, and a bellows extension.
You can briefly see the middle landing pad move forward out of the pod bay in the final film. The middle doors open vertically and the full-sized pad starts to glide forward, with the pod aboard. Note a compositing error as it starts to move - you can see a couple of background stars shining through the solid floor of the pad. The hardworking “blobbers” who had to paint out the stars missed those ones!
Footage was also filmed showing the middle pod arriving back in the pod bay, but it isn't in the film. This features the pod bay pad moving inwards, and you can catch a glimpse of Keir Dullea sitting inside the mocked-up interior. It's likely some of the footage that Kubrick edited out of the film after the May 1968 premiere and before general release.
The pod bay blueprints published by Johnson in 2001: the Lost Science indicate that the middle arm was meant to have “full arm movement” at 12 feet. The port (usually camera right) arm was supposedly able to move 4'6", but is not seen moving in the film. The starboard (usually camera left) arm was marked as “no arm movement.” Conjecture: we don't know how the egress arm was powered, but it seems likely that they simply attached a rope to a forklift truck or something, and slowly pulled the beam in the correct direction. Motorizing the arm, via hydraulics or gears, would have been extremely expensive and frankly unnecessary.
All three landing pads were described as “pract. turn-table” capable of rotating or being rotated. Conjecture: it's not known how they rotated, but it seems reasonable to assume that they were simply turned by stagehands standing underneath the set, which was built up on a rostrum off the stage floor.
When the egress arm is extended, the pod is supposed to be able to land neatly right in the middle, and be drawn back into the pod bay.
How is the pilot supposed to be able to do this, when there are no cameras facing straight down? Magic, maybe. Or perhaps HAL was expected to pilot the pod to a safe landing.
Narratively, not really.
The main door was a rotating curved door that swivelled inwards and to starboard on a pair of tracks. It was larger than the opening in the side of the pod, was on the inside, and therefore was physically incapable of coming out of the pod. Unlike, say, Boeing 737 door plugs.
This door also had a rectangular panel that seems to be meant to serve as the part blown out by the “explosive bolts”. The hatch is visible as a slightly darker panel on the exterior of the door, and its perimeter is marked by red squares containing small turned aluminium cylinder heads that are presumed to be the bolts in question. We know that this panel was actually removable because there are behind the scenes photos in the Kubrick Archives showing actors Dullea and Lockwood hanging around behind one of the pod bay pods – with the door mostly closed but the hatch absent, revealing a black framed recess.
So there are a couple of problems with the whole scene where Bowman enters the Discovery's airlock.
First, if we assume that the explosive bolts propel a secondary hatch outwards from the door, then we never see the hatch in the scene. It would have flown outwards and crashed around the airlock quite dangerously. Instead the entire door, including the hatch, just vanishes.
Second, if we assume instead that the explosive bolts simply release the door, permitting it to open normally (in a rotational fashion) then we'd see the corner of the door in the upper right. This is because the door can't rotate all the way back into the pod - we see this in the parked pods in the pod bay. But we don't see the triangular corner of door in the exploding hatch scene – therefore the whole door is simply gone.
Third, it's true that if Bowman had been forcefully propelled out of the airlock by the air rushing out, then physics would dictate that the pod would be gently pushed away from the Discovery, owing to the sudden expulsion of the EVA pod's internal atmosphere into a vacuum. From what I've read it seems unlikely that there'd be an explosive event from the decompression. Bowman wouldn't fly out like that, and presumably the pod would drift away, albeit more slowly. Alternatively Dave could have put the pod into some sort of autopilot “stationary” mode, and its internal guidance system could have kept it in place by firing its thrusters automatically.
Bowman appears to bow his head and inhale deeply, holding his breath just before the explosive bolts blow the EVA pod door off. That's a bad idea if being you're about to be plunged into a vacuum, since the gas in your lungs would expand and rupture them. From what I've read you're better off hyperventilating for a bit to increase your blood oxygen level, then forcing as much air out of your lungs before entering the vacuum.
Cinematically, no. In the script and finished movie the pods are never named. The script refers to “pod number 2”. The film has Bowman command HAL to rotate pod B (the middle pod) in one scene, but mysteriously “pod G” in another scene. Which doesn't make much sense - surely it should be pod C? But he definitely doesn't say C. He sort of mumbles so perhaps it was “Prep pod three”.
There are no apparent markings on the three pods in the pod bay which allow us to distinguish them in any way.
In Arthur C. Clarke’s 2001 novel, which was written in conjunction with the screenplay, the pods are named Annie, Betty, and Clara.
Some of the space scenes were filmed by shooting a full-sized pod inside a studio, with black duvetyne (velvet-like) curtains hung around the walls. These shots permitted full motion of the pods – turning around in space, and the like.
However, in a couple scenes where the pod is shown travelling at greater distances directly towards the camera, the overall perceived travel distance was too great to be filmed easily inside a studio. Instead a flat image was taken on an 8x10 large format camera, cut out, and animated on an animation stand. This gave a moderately convincing sense of motion, but because a flat image was used there was no change in pod perspective. We should have been able to see less of the sides of the pod as it moved forward.
The Orion spaceplane and the orbital bombs were also often filmed using flat animations as well.
This is something that comes up a lot and makes the clickbait rounds online. Yes, an object closely resembling a crashed 2001 EVA pod is indeed visible during the Watto’s junkyard scene in 1999’s Star Wars Episode I: the Phantom Menace. No, it’s not an original one made for 2001.
The pod appears to have been a little Easter egg on the part of Lucas and his Leavesden production team. The Ep I pod is visibly very different from the actual 2001 pods. Plus you can see it in the background under construction during one of the film’s promotional webisodes.
There was also a spherical “speeder” vehicle parked outside the Mos Eisley cantina in the original Star Wars film, and that was believed to be an approximate homage to the 2001 pod design. Indeed, it’s described as an “Ubrickkian Landspeeder 9000 Z001" vehicle in the Ballantine Books blueprint set of 1977, presumably as a reference to “Kubrick 2001”. It’s a very loose homage, though – it’s kind of a mashup of the EVA pod and the Aries 1B lander, with additional windows added.
No.
Back in the late 1990s, when the “Tripod.com” free website service was hip and popular, a 2001 enthusiast created a web page on the topic of the EVA pod. He made up some fanfic technical specs, and combined it with some material that 2001 science consultant Frederick Ordway had written years earlier for the March 1970 issue of Spaceflight magazine. (Much of Ordway’s Spaceflight text was republished years later by Adam Johnson in his book 2001: the Lost Science) The fan material includes the claim that the pod was a “Grumman DC-5”.
The sole connection to production reality is that now-defunct US aerospace manufacturer Grumman, famous for being the primary contractor on the Apollo lunar modules, was indeed one of a number of companies that Kubrick's scientific advisors consulted with during film production. (Ordway visited the Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation in Bethpage, New York State prior to 2001 production moving to Britain) However there is no evidence of any kind - that I’ve seen - showing that the production team saw the EVA pod as being a Grumman vehicle. Let alone a “DC-5”, which was of course a Douglas Aircraft passenger plane from the 1940s.
The whole “Grumman” reference has thus been repeated on other websites, presumably by people finding that name in search results. Please kill it now.
Interestingly the cockpit interior was, yes. In real life, that is.
As noted, many firms advised Kubrick and company during the making of 2001. One of them was British aerospace firm Hawker Siddeley Dynamics, a division of the company that famously built the Harrier jump jet.
In fact, HSD’s Stevenage division (a mere half hour drive from MGM-British Studios Borehamwood) was contracted to build the actual screen-seen interior set for the EVA pods, and Frederick Ordway was responsible for coordinating this work. A number of photos exist showing Hawker-Siddeley staff being taken around the 2001 sets by Ordway.
However none of this information is conveyed to the audience, and the pod is never really identified as a Hawker Siddeley vehicle. A tiny HSD logo can be seen on the port side of the pilot’s dashboard, but unlike the Bell Systems and IBM logos seen elsewhere in the movie, it's barely visible in the final film.
It's not known if the earmuffs and pod exterior parts were made at the studios or elsewhere, though it seems likely that the bulk of the work was done by on-site crew. However, it is interesting to note that HSD’s plastics division, which made things like large radar domes, was also based in Stevenage. Conjecture: perhaps this group cast the fibreglass space pod spheres and earmuffs for the 2001 production team to build the full-sized pods.
Another interesting point is that there's noticeable wear to the faux-leather anti-slip surfaces applied to the hand-shaped controllers on the EVA pod and Orion shuttle sets. Conjecture: Perhaps these were actual prototypes for user input devices constructed by Hawker Siddeley Dynamics, and loaned to 2001 for use in the film. It would seem surprising to see pale lines embedded in the leather-like texture of the grips for something freshly built for the movie sets. For more information on the hand controllers, check out my page on the subject.
It's hard to make out all the text, but the full-sized pod blueprints have some very interesting things labelled as “construction notes.”
1 model pod req’d - (sphere?) 1 11/16" (?) FS
3 full size pods req’d for pod bay.
1 model pod req’d at 1/6 full size (15 3/16 for 80' Discovery model)
Construction to be of wood, fibre glass or (?) only - no plaster to be used on exterior.
1 door on full size pod to be practical - no practical doors on model pod.
Interior (shedding?) details to follow - no (extens?) int. bracing to be used on int. of ext pod.
Details of mechanical arms & shoulders to follow later (req’d? by animation for model only)
Probe locker practical for model only.
Solid fuel container practical for one full pod only.
Practical tools for model pod only - details to follow.
Light over tool panel to be practical full size and model pod.
Special effect for retro jets required for model and one full size pod.
Text with question marks I can’t make out. The pods in these drawings do not entirely match the finished pods, so clearly various changes occurred subsequently. The sizes of the models also changed – the sizes here do not appear to be the final ones.
I don't know why it describes two different sizes for the “model pod”.
Only one full-sized pod is described as having a practical, opening, door. This matches what we see in the film, but Douglas Trumbull said two pods had mocked-up interiors.
Other features may or may not have been built, but we don’t see them in the final film or in behind the scenes photos. There’s no probe locker scene (maybe that was for when Dave explores the monolith in space?), no solid fuel container (though there is the aforementioned red fuel cell box on the back of the pods), there are no tools or tool lockers shown, and there’s no exterior light for a panel in the film.
It's not known if the model arms were ever built to be animated. We do know that the arm movements in the final film all appear to be a full-sized pod containing complex mechanisms to move the arms and claws.
There are no jet effects visible in the film, supporting the theory that they intended to show the rockets operating but didn't come up with a convincing effect that satisfied Kubrick.
A couple of articles by Frederick Ordway, published in roughly contemporary industry publications, describe the design intent behind the pods in more detail. (ie: he talks mostly about how they imagined the vehicles would have operated, not how they were built as movie props and models)
There's a bit of overlap between the two, but some differences as well – so I reproduce pod-related excerpts from both of them here verbatim. The first magazine was an American one, and the second one British, which explains the differences in spelling.
Here are two transcripts, courtesy of Anna's Archive, of the two articles. Links in the titles below.
Frederick I. Ordway, III, Scientific Consultant to the film “2001: A Space Odyssey.”
The final space vehicle aboard which electronics play a decisive role is the one-man space pod, housed in Discovery’s pod bay. Development took place with the support of Hawker-Siddeley Dynamics, Ltd., England, who assigned both structural-design and electronics specialists to the task. Some of the systems incorporated in to the space pod include:
■ Television: Eight fixed cameras ensure all-round TV coverage. For such precise maneuvers as docking or selecting a landing site on a small world, the field of view can be narrowed and oriented.
■ Mechanical hand controls: Each pod has two such controls, or manipulators, with appropriate tool selection.
■ “Flying” controls: Manual controls are necessary both as stand-by and for local, intricate maneuvers. Two hand control sticks, each with two degrees of freedom and fitted with twist grips, provide the necessary control about six axes. Analog information is presented for attitude, heating rate and distance. These can be referred to local ground (for landing, take-off, etc.), course (which enables the pilot to face forward, head up, on any preselected course), or parent ship (for docking, local maneuvers, etc.). A variation in full-scale rate can be applied by the control sticks, allowing the full stick movement to result in any proportion of full vernier motor thrust, so giving a “fine” control for local maneuvers. The parent ship Discovery can override all local pod controls and take over in an emergency.
■ Main propulsion controls: These are rather conventional. The “fire” control is normally computer-controlled. Most buttons serve as warning lights, glowing red when a given parameter exceeds preset limits.
■ Proximity detector: A directional safety system is incorporated, working from the main communication antennas, which gives an audible warning when the pod approaches a solid object. It also detects the approach of a solid object, the speed of which is too high to be counteracted by the vernier thrust settings on the control system. In this event, full reverse thrust is applied, over-riding the manual control setting. The system depends on frequency-modulated transmission, and under safe conditions results in a low, soft background signal considered necessary in order to provide a continuous check on this important safety system. If the speed of approach to an object becomes dangerous compared with the distance from it, the tone would become louder and higher pitched and, if unchecked, would end in a shrill noise accompanied by automatic reverse thrust.
Other pod elements include a computer connected to the main HAL 9000 computer aboard Discovery; magnetic “locator” devices to affix the pod to the hull of the parent ship during maintenance; searchlights; power systems; environmental controls, and communications. Maneuvering propulsion is ensured by a solid propellant which sublimes at a constant pressure; such a system appears reliable, has no mechanical valves, and lasts for long periods of time. Main propulsion employs storable liquids, used only on landing and taking off from an asteroid or small moon, or for emergencies when full thrust is needed quickly.
By Frederick I. Ordway, Research Institute, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Alabama, USA. Scientific consultant and technical advisor to M-G-M’s ‘2001: A Space Odyssey.’
The Pod Bay was the ‘garage’ for three one-man space pods (small, rocket-powered craft used for extravehicular sequences involving inspection, maintenance and repair of Discovery), and for equipment testing and storage of spare components. Three large doors provide, when opened, a simple means for the pods to ingress or egress. Prior to leaving the spaceship, the astronauts must don their spacesuits, depressurize the entire Pod Bay area and activate the pod’s controls.
Space Pods
Three 7 ft diameter one-man space ‘pods’ were carried no board the Discovery. Although normally used to move around in space outside the spaceship for inspection, maintenance, and repair purposes, they had the propulsion capability to land on a small moon or asteroid and to shuttle back and forth from one space vehicle to another – say, in orbit around the Earth.
Some special points on the layout were as follows:
(a) Propulsion
A subliming solid system provides vernier propulsion, wherein the solid propellent sublimes at a constant pressure and is emitted from a nozzle. Such reaction jets will last for long periods of time, should have great reliability and use no mechanical valves. The main propulsion system is powered by storable liquids. This system, however, would only be employed in situations involving soft landing on a small moon or travelling at considerable distances from the Discovery.
(b) Mechanical Hand Controls
Selection controls were placed on each side so that the appropriate hand must be removed from the manipulator to select a tool or to park. Selection of a tool returns the arm to the ‘park’ position, where it leaves the ‘hand’, then the arm goes to the appropriate tool and plugs in. In doing so, it inhibits the ‘finger’ controls on the manipulator so that when the operator returns his hand into the glove he can only move a solid object, not individual fingers.
(c) Television
It was found possible to produce all-round TV coverage with eight fixed cameras. This, however, did not give a sufficiently accurate picture for docking or selecting a landing space. For this purpose, it is assumed that the field of view can be narrowed and orientated; controls were included for this purpose.
Normally, the TV link would be occupied by the internal camera, so that the parent craft can monitor the pod interior. The pod pilot can switch in any other camera for specific purposes (survey, etc.) reverting to interior camera for normal work.
(d) Proximity Detector
This is the safety system with omni-directional coverage working from the main communication aerials. It gives audible warning when the pod approaches a solid object. This is necessary as a safety measure as the pilot cannot monitor seven or eight TV displays continuously. The system also detects an approach to an object, the speed of which is too high to be counteracted by the vernier thrust settings on the control system. In this even, full reverse thrust is applied, over-riding the manual control setting. The system depends upon a frequency modulated transmission and under safe conditions was assumed to result in a low, soft audible background-signal. This continuous signal was considered necessary in order to provide a continuous check on a vital safety system. If the speed of approach to an object became dangerous compared with the distance from it, the tone would become louder and higher pitched and, if unchecked, end in a shrill note accompanied by reverse thrust. The system could also work in conjunction with a transponder (to give the necessary increased range) to measure distance from the Discovery.
(e) Flying controls
Manual controls were considered necessary both as a stand-by and for local manoeuvres. Two hand control sticks, each with two degrees of freedom and fitted with twist grips, provide the necessary control about six axes.
Analogue information is presented for attitude, heading rate and distance; these can be referred to local ground (for landing, take-off, etc), course (which enables the pilot to face forward, head up, on any pre-selected course), or parent ship (for docking, local manoeuvres, etc). These days had to be presented, as the pilot had to act immediately on them. This is the most easily assimilated display. A variation in full scale rate, which can be applied by the control sticks, is included: this allows the full stick movement to result in any proportion of full vernier motor thrust, thus giving a ‘fine’ control for local manoeuvres.
This text is copyright © 2024 and was written entirely by and for 3Dsf.info, with the exception of the two articles by Frederick Ordway. Feel free to make copies for your own use, but I ask that you not repost it for download elsewhere. I'm updating these pages all the time for accuracy and development purposes. So the most up to date page should always be available at 3Dsf.info, though they’re temporarily at the Age of Plastic site.
If you have any corrections or comments, feel free to drop a line:
contact@3dsf.info