HAL 9000 from 2001: a space odyssey
- Thread starter simon_lewis
- Start date
Prop Runner
Sr Member
It didn't die, David - I offered to do the CAD model and lay out blueprints for parts so I could get them prototyped and quoted for production, but I just got busy with my ongoing projects and life in general. It's still high on my To Do list, but I don't have to be the only one trying to build this - it can and should be a team effort, unless people want to wait and let me do the entire product design and interest list (I really don't mind - it's a rather easy replica to design, it'll just take me a little more time...). 
- Gabe
- Gabe
Prop Runner
Sr Member
To me it looks scratch-built, but using professionally-milled and drill-tapped frame pieces. Definitely the result of blueprinting.Originally posted by synasp@Feb 5 2006, 10:59 PM
Wonderful. Well, I'm eager to see where this goes.
Are there definitive measurments?
edit: just an idea... but why are there so many screws? Do you guys think this was scratch built, or a found item?
[snapback]1177146[/snapback]
The way I'd design it, there would be no visible screws, but rather extruded aluminum with threaded holes in the rear. The face and grill would be one stamped aluminum plate, the lens ring and upper grill border would be machined aluminum, and the lens would be injection molded polycarbonate (Lexan). The battery case, LED, sound board, speaker, sensors, and switches would all be be off-the-shelf components held in place by a secondary stamped aluminum or Phenolic plate with screws, PEM nuts, and spacers. The front cosmetic plate would be stenciled and both it and the rear plate would fit into slots and recesses built into the extruded sides:
The result will be a frame-like assembly with 45-degree seam hairlines in the corners or vertical seam hairlines colinear with the inside edge of the frame.
I'll better illustrate the differences in the 3D CAD model - this is just a quick schematic.
It would of course be more aesthetic to machine the frame out of a single blank of aluminum to avoid any seams at all, however you'd be looking at major milling and cutting = $$$. :unsure
- Gabe
Those might be an "hommage"... what cabinets were they using in the 1964-68 time frame?
- k
- k
CanadianKnight
New Member
Gotta say these replicas look amazing. I'd certainly be interested in one when this project gets goin'.
The Curtis-Fairchild Cinerama lens is NOT the lens used in the prop panel on the set. It's the wide-angle lens used by Kubrick for photography of the film itself.
The Kenko was identified by Dennis Gilliam, who analyzed the appearance of the HAL prop in stills. He also had access to an actual panel (minus the lens) that was used in the film. So he has accurate dimensions.
Presumably a wide-angle camera lens of identical specifications but made by a different manufacturer would work as well. The overall diameter and curvature of the lens surface are what's important.
- k
The Kenko was identified by Dennis Gilliam, who analyzed the appearance of the HAL prop in stills. He also had access to an actual panel (minus the lens) that was used in the film. So he has accurate dimensions.
Presumably a wide-angle camera lens of identical specifications but made by a different manufacturer would work as well. The overall diameter and curvature of the lens surface are what's important.
- k
Good question. Gilliam doesn't say.
http://www.2001spacesuit.com/HAL.html
It's probably identifiable from the diameter of the hole in the HAL panel.
- k
http://www.2001spacesuit.com/HAL.html
It's probably identifiable from the diameter of the hole in the HAL panel.
- k
Prop Runner
Sr Member
Karl, something doesn't look right about the overlay above - the grill section looks too squashed vertically - compare to the B&W photo of HAL in the previous post - there's no way they're the same.
Here's a blueprint I found:
Do we know if this is truly off the real HAL?
- Gabe
Here's a blueprint I found:
Do we know if this is truly off the real HAL?
- Gabe
I agree Gabe. Gilliam mentions this in his page: some have noted that his replica (and the "screenused prop" it's based off of) have different proportions than some panels seen in the show.
He notes that there were many panels used in the production, and some were not seen closeup on camera.
But I tend to like the "longer" proportion HAL panel anyway... so sure, take the widths off of that diagram I did, and make the speaker section longer, to match what we see in screen grabs.
BTW note the variation in these grabs... the "bridge" panel is a bit shorter in the speaker part.
Dunno. Probably a fan drawing like all the rest. I'd been ignoring previous HAL blueprints since I didn't think anybody had gotten it quite right yet.
But his dimensions are all wrong.. he's got the panel at nearly SEVEN INCHES wide. His figure for the lens diameter is 5.2 inches. Way huge.
It might be based off of a "2010" panel tho.
Additionally the presence of "Shane Johnson" on the drawing doesn't fill me with confidence as to its accuracy.
- k
BTW the HAL panel that was built for the sequel "2010" is pretty flippin' enormous, and has the "short" speaker area as well. Adding to the confusion.
- k
- k
Prop Runner
Sr Member
Keep in mind that the computer in 2010 was called SAL 9000, which may account for the size difference, although in reality they probably didn't have any of the originals to recreate for the sequel.
- Gabe
- Gabe
