# Question about book: "2010 Space Odyssey 2"... **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [April 12, 2016, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-book-2010-space-odyssey-2/752031 "2016-04-12T18:50:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![mbh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@mbh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mbh)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2016, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-book-2010-space-odyssey-2/752031/21 "2016-04-15T18:06:14Z")
Mea culpa. I was juggling three different wiki pages. I was very proud of myself for correcting the grammar and punctuation, and forgot to proofread the text. :o ---
**Author:** ![ruh-roh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ruh-roh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruh-roh)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-book-2010-space-odyssey-2/752031/22 "2016-04-16T13:13:26Z")
If you go back to Clark’s The Sentinel short story the changes are even more drastic, although Clark himself said that the movie had no basis from The Sentinel other than the spark of idea of finding something that is definitely not “us” on the moon. I understand the generalization for brevity, but a minor nitpick (and going a bit Sheldon Cooper)… > [@Trinopus](#): > > The original mission probably envisioned using only half the fuel, so the ship could come back to earth-orbit again later. Assuming chemical reaction based fuel and similar flight profiles (time, gravity assist, etc.) and leaving out safety margins, you don’t need as much fuel to get home as you do to get there in the first place. Having burned much of your fuel you have much less mass to accelerate/decelerate for the trip home. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-book-2010-space-odyssey-2/752031/23 "2016-04-16T16:23:52Z")
The propulsion system of \*Discovery One \* was magnetoplasmadynamic using hydrogen for propellant mass and a nuclear fission reactor for power, hence why the habitat section was so far away from the propulsion and power module. The point still remains that it would have less propellant mass, and we can only guess at the vehicle specific impulse of the spaceship, but it doesn’t appear to comprise the bulk of thr mass, e.g we don’t see any bulging propellant tankage. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2016, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-book-2010-space-odyssey-2/752031/24 "2016-04-16T21:13:06Z")
> [@ruh-roh](#): > > . . . Assuming chemical reaction based fuel and similar flight profiles (time, gravity assist, etc.) and leaving out safety margins, you don’t need as much fuel to get home as you do to get there in the first place. Having burned much of your fuel you have much less mass to accelerate/decelerate for the trip home. True. I didn’t want to do the calculations (it gets all the way down into hyperbolic functions.) “Half” is good enough for a thread of this kind. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2016, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-book-2010-space-odyssey-2/752031/25 "2016-04-28T15:55:21Z")
_2010: Odyssey Two_ is one of the few books I’ve ever stayed up all night reading. A great sf page-turner, and it built on the story of _2001_ very well, I thought. The movie was OK but nearly as good as Kubrick’s _2001_. I was much less impressed by Clarke’s books _2061_ and _3001_. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2016, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-book-2010-space-odyssey-2/752031/26 "2016-05-02T09:03:04Z")
The sequels to Who Censored Roger Rabbit all followed the movie, but they did so by turning the first book into a dream. Something similar happened when The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy got to its third radio series, which was basically a radio play of the book. So they had to fix the end of the second series. Supposedly they got more leeway in the fourth and fifth series, but I’ve not listened to them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/question-about-book-2010-space-odyssey-2/752031.md?page=1)