Is the science in science fiction always sound?
Does the action in action films always obey the laws of physics?
Do moviegoers care?
Astrophysicist and movie-science-ruiner supreme Neil DeGrasse Tyson recently came for some of the action in the recent Top Gun: Maverick movie.
He tweeted:
"Late to the party here, but In this year’s [Top Gun: Maverick, [Tom Cruise]’s character Maverick ejects from a hypersonic plane at Mach 10.5, before it crashed."
"He survived with no injuries."
"At that air speed, his body would splatter like a chainmail glove swatting a worm."
"Just sayin’."
\u201cLate to the party here, but In this year\u2019s @TopGunMovie, @TomCruise\u2019s character Maverick ejects from a hypersonic plane at Mach 10.5, before it crashed.\n\nHe survived with no injuries.\n\nAt that air speed, his body would splatter like a chainmail glove swatting a worm. Just sayin\u2019.\u201d— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@Neil deGrasse Tyson) 1665337319
DeGrasse Tyson received a chorus of responses.
One notable commenter was NASA astronaut Scott Kelly.
Kelly is an engineer, retired astronaut and a naval aviator like the pilots in Top Gun. A veteran of four space flights, Kelly commanded the International Space Station (ISS) on Expeditions 26, 45 and 46.
Kelly is sometimes mistaken for Democratic Senator Mark Kelly, who is also a retired astronaut and naval aviator. The men are identical twins.
Scott Kelly tweeted:
"Depends on his altitude."
"I was going Mach 25 when I left the ISS on a spacewalk and that was just fine."
\u201cDepends on his altitude. I was going Mach 25 when I left the ISS on a spacewalk and that was just fine.\u201d— Scott Kelly (@Scott Kelly) 1665414736
Kelly conceded it wouldn't be the speed, but the fall that would kill the character.
\u201cTo be completely clear. At the altitude at which a Mach 10 hypersonic aircraft would be flying, the ejection would be very survivable, the reentry into the atmosphere in just a pressure suit, not so much.\u201d— Scott Kelly (@Scott Kelly) 1665414736
With two giants of space knowledge discussing a sequel of a beloved film on Twitter, the response was quick and fierce.
It sort of fell into two camps.
First, the armchair astronauts/physicists who felt the need to flex their intellectual muscles.
\u201c@StationCDRKelly A Mach number is the ratio of an object\u2019s speed in a given medium to the speed of sound in that medium.\n\nThe ISS travels in a vacuum so there is no medium. A mach number doesn\u2019t exist for a space walk.\u201d— Scott Kelly (@Scott Kelly) 1665414736
\u201c@jag30475 @StationCDRKelly Respectfully, gravity is very real at the ISS. It stops the station from flying off into space. The ISS is in freefall - it's constantly falling towards the earth, but because it's travelling so fast forwards it keeps missing.\n\nThis is a hill I will die on.\u201d— Scott Kelly (@Scott Kelly) 1665414736
\u201c@StationCDRKelly Funny an astronaut would say that. You get to Mach 25 in space cause you don\u2019t have any air and zero atmospheric resistance. The gravity, the engine thrust help you to get to that speed. Try hanging out from an aircraft inside earth\u2019s atmosphere even at commercial airline speeds.\u201d— Scott Kelly (@Scott Kelly) 1665414736
\u201c@StationCDRKelly @neiltyson To be fair, the movie didn't actually show an eject; we saw a master alarm, some distant shots of a structural breakup, then Maverick walking into the bar. Maybe the plane had a hardened cockpit that also served as an escape pod - conceivable for a X plane..\u201d— Scott Kelly (@Scott Kelly) 1665414736
\u201c@StationCDRKelly Yes but the pilots altitude in the movie was nowhere near what the ISS is, if it were, he'd have been out of earth's atmosphere. Gravity in outer space is almost non-existent, this nullifies the power of the MACH 25 you experienced outside of earth's atmosphere.\u201d— Scott Kelly (@Scott Kelly) 1665414736
Many commented this argument is, after all, about a movie.
Those commenters included Kelly himself.
\u201c@Astro_Susan Susan, I thought an interesting plot point would have been his maverick attitude getting him excluded from NASA, but at the end of the movie the admiral tossing him astro wings like when cougar gave his wings up after realizing he flew above the Karmen line.\u201d— Scott Kelly (@Scott Kelly) 1665414736
\u201c@StationCDRKelly To be honest I quite enjoyed the movie as a fictional art with the subtleties that aviators would pick up on. Mostly I enjoyed the rip off from StarWars A New Hope. Still pretty good non the less.\u201d— Scott Kelly (@Scott Kelly) 1665414736
\u201c@StationCDRKelly Well considering it's Top Gun and a fictional MOVIE, they can do whatever they want... I'm assuming 90% of the stunts in the movie are not "real life"\u201d— Scott Kelly (@Scott Kelly) 1665414736
\u201c@StationCDRKelly Have none of y\u2019all heard the theory that he actually DID die and the whole rest of the movie is just a dream-like sequence resolving all of his unresolved flaws? That\u2019s why the \u201cenemy\u201d is so over the top non-descript and why all the subplots are tied up into pretty little bows.\u201d— Scott Kelly (@Scott Kelly) 1665414736
Others just commented on the entire discussion as a whole.
\u201c@StationCDRKelly @PiperDewn Every 5th guy on this thread compulsively chimed in and attempted to mansplain to an actual astronaut how space works. \ud83d\ude33 \ud83e\udd26\u200d\u2640\ufe0f\n\nCongratulations Scott, you are an honorary woman now! Your membership card will arrive in the mail shortly.\u201d— Scott Kelly (@Scott Kelly) 1665414736
\u201c@StationCDRKelly Are people seriously 1) debating science with an Astrophysicist and multiple space mission astronaut, and 2) debating a freaking MACGUFFIN in a Tom Cruise movie?!?! \ud83e\udd2a\u201d— Scott Kelly (@Scott Kelly) 1665414736
\u201c@StationCDRKelly @soledadobrien I achieve 3 MPH going from my couch to the refrigerator. Burning up in the atmosphere not an issue.\u201d— Scott Kelly (@Scott Kelly) 1665414736
\u201c@StationCDRKelly Astronaut: makes joke \n\nHumorless commenters: Welllll actualllllly blah blah blah\u201d— Scott Kelly (@Scott Kelly) 1665414736
What is more predictable than the physics of falling at Mach speeds?
The speed at which people will run to correct experts on Twitter.
@drandrealove/Bluesky
@thebulwark/Bluesky
@monicasanluiss/TikTok
@monicasanluiss/TikTok
@monicasanluiss/TikTok
@monicasanluiss/TikTok
@monicasanluiss/TikTok
@monicasanluiss/TikTok
@monicasanluiss/TikTok
@monicasanluiss/TikTok
@monicasanluiss/TikTok
@monicasanluiss/TikTok
@monicasanluiss/TikTok
@monicasanluiss/TikTok
@monicasanluiss/TikTok
@alexamcnee/TikTok
@alexamcnee/TikTok
@alexamcnee/TikTok
@alexamcnee/TikTok
@alexamcnee/TikTok
@alexamcnee/TikTok
@alexamcnee/TikTok
@alexamcnee/TikTok
@alexamcnee/TikTok
@alexamcnee/TikTok
@alexamcnee/TikTok
@alexamcnee/TikTok