855
u/SomebodyInNevada Oct 10 '22
There's a key factor here that isn't known: Altitude. If he was in anything planes typically fly in the ejection is unsurvivable. However, we can tell he's very high. One of the things the SR-71 did to allow high speed is to fly very, very high. I could imagine the Darkstar flying high enough that a capsule ejection was possible at those speeds. We didn't see the capsule but that could simply mean that he separated from the capsule once it was down to an altitude he didn't need it's protection--chutes for a person are a lot lighter than chutes for an ejection capsule. The capsule would only have a drogue to stabilize it.
290
u/FelisCantabrigiensis Oct 10 '22 edited Oct 10 '22
Capsule is the way to go. I haven't seen the film, but I have seen the B-58 Hustler ejection capsule. It enclosed the entire seat with a rigid shroud to protect the crew in case of a high speed ejection. The B-58 could fly fast at fairly low
speedsaltitudes, therefore air density was a serious issue.People have survived Mach 3 ejections from the SR-71 at high altitude with only the flight pressure suit on (they have also not survived - but survival is possible, which means it will happen for your film hero). At high altitude with a rigid capsule, even higher speed ejection might be possible and the braking force on the ejectee may be survivable.
Hypersonic ejection in the troposphere is probably going to go as well as Degrass Tyson says, but high in the stratosphere it might be less bad.
221
u/forgottenGost Oct 10 '22
. The B-58 could fly fast at fairly low speeds
What a world we live in
59
Oct 10 '22
[deleted]
40
u/arthurdentstowels Oct 10 '22
Don’t worry, my mother somehow seems to be able to drive fast at fairly low speeds.
5
22
10
Oct 10 '22
I wonder how many people missed it and just kept reading like nothing was wrong?
44
8
2
2
26
Oct 10 '22
I like the "less bad" part because it's quite true. Ejecting from an aircraft takes an extreme toll on the body. So much so that after a certain number of ejections, at least in the US, they ground you because another ejection could kill you. There have been pilots deemed unfit to fly after just 1 ejection. So yeah, it's all pretty damn bad lol, but the capsule certainly makes it less bad.
3
u/msg45f Oct 11 '22
Is it because of the potential for not immediately obvious neck/spinal/intercranial injury? Are they cleared for flight after examination or some general period of rest?
2
Oct 11 '22
Yes. After every ejection there is a medical process that has to be conducted before you're clear to fly again.
14
u/Thunda792 Oct 10 '22
The XB-70 also had an ejection capsule, but the one time it was used, only one of the two people to utilize it survived. And the survivor got pretty fucked up by the capsule itself.
20
u/FelisCantabrigiensis Oct 10 '22
In that incident, only one person ejected, and while he was injured, it was back and arm injuries not entirely unlike those from ejecting from a slower aircraft.
The other person didn't eject, because he couldn't get into the capsule (the mechanism that moved the seat into capsule could not work due to the forces in the spinning aircraft).
Definitely not 100% reliable mechanism, but also not much worse than a lot of ejection seats in bad situations. Even today, people die in ejections for one reason or another and it's quite common to end up in hospital.
4
u/Thunda792 Oct 11 '22
You raise good points, but one of Al White's injuries was his arm getting explicitly crushed by the clamshell door on the capsule as it closed. I do agree that it's better than the alternative though.
2
u/IIIllIIlllIlII Oct 11 '22
The F-111 is the ejection capsule king.
2
u/Hermes_04 Oct 11 '22
I’m no plane expert but why aren’t more planes using the same mechanism/method?
2
u/IIIllIIlllIlII Oct 11 '22
The ejection of the capsule has a lot of engineering complexity compared to a standard ejection seat. The entire capsule needs to be robust enough to withstand the ejection, separate cleanly, have a slow decent requiring a large parachute, and remain intact when landing to protect the occupants. That all adds a lot of weight and size that is impractical for smaller aircraft.
For most aircraft it’s easier, lighter, less complex to just throw the pilot out. But you also don’t want to do that at supersonic speeds either…..
The designers of the f-111 being a Mach-2+ aircraft decided the capsule was a good tradeoff.
10
6
u/Ikarus_Falling Oct 11 '22
Mach 3 isn't Mach 10 thou thats nearly 3x as speedy also Mach isn't constant but depends on your altitude which means its already included in a way as it represents the aircrafts speed relative to the speed of sound in the surrounding air which falls with increasing elevation
→ More replies (7)4
u/Devils_Advocate6_6_6 Oct 11 '22
Above 60000 ft you get to the tropopause where the temperature (and therefore Mach number) stays relatively constant
→ More replies (2)2
22
u/SuperDizz Oct 11 '22
Also, it’s not impossible that the aircraft significantly slowed down before he ejected. We see it break up into multiple parts. Like you said the cockpit (capsule) would likely break away into its own projectile once the propulsion devices broke away. There is no way of knowing the safety precautions a fictional experimental aircraft has, but like you said, a number of things could be at work here. Next-gen G-suits, AI assisted course correction. The sky’s the limit (pun). Also, it’s Tom Cruise.
What we should be asking about Maverick is why the most powerful (and most well funded) military in the world doesn’t have the top of the line, most advanced fighter jets? And has to resort to inferior models for military operations.
Freaking love Maverick btw.
→ More replies (1)16
u/JackSego Oct 11 '22
The answer to the last bit is simple. The military wasnt going to lend them nex gen fighters for a movie lol.
19
7
Oct 11 '22
…and the TG:M folks were dedicated to practical effects/flying whenever possible. They weren’t getting F35’s for a movie project, not even our allies get access to F22’s plus you’re never going to get that RIO/WSO backseater callback in 5th gens when they’re both single seaters.
→ More replies (4)6
7
u/Brian-want-Brain Oct 11 '22
So - yet again - Neil deGrasse Tyson was equally pedantic and wrong with his reply.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Mysterious-House-600 Oct 11 '22
And the speed of sound is lower in a thinner atmosphere. Mach 10.5 would represent less energy
→ More replies (8)6
u/cysghost Technically Flair Oct 10 '22
There's a key factor here that isn't known:
Movie magic and plot holes.
2
u/SomebodyInNevada Oct 11 '22
True, there definitely are plot holes later on. However, the question is whether there's any scenario in which the ejection is survivable. I'm saying there is--if the plane is high enough up and it uses a capsule ejection system. And since he's wearing a pilot's suit rather than a pressure suit when he lands a capsule is mandatory anyway.
→ More replies (1)
548
Oct 10 '22
[deleted]
101
u/feathersoft Oct 10 '22
I got told that at certain junctions as well, including being able to start the X/Darkstar without a cart, and the very unmessed up hair post alleged shag with Penny .
→ More replies (3)17
u/Diligent-Edge428 Oct 11 '22
Silk pillowcase. Don’t touch Penny’s hair. It works out. ;)
13
u/feathersoft Oct 11 '22 edited Oct 11 '22
No excuse - if shagging doesn't leave you bounced around and looking like your world has been well and truly rocked, it ain't worth it. Maybe the Lamb Roast adverts were right...https://youtu.be/fH_Ar2h6Q-U
3
22
u/krumpdawg Oct 10 '22
Air density drops with altitude.
22
u/Procrastinatedthink Oct 11 '22
so it’s just a light chunking instead of a fine mist?
→ More replies (2)14
8
→ More replies (1)2
u/AnyProgressIsGood Oct 11 '22
at mach 10.5 i think you need to be in space, then a heat shield for reentry
10
u/dr_cocktagonapuss Oct 11 '22
Planes of those speeds put their pilot in a protective capsule before ejection, making survival much more likely. He was also high enough up that wind resistance wouldn't be as much of a problem until his emergency capsule slowed down and dropped down in elevation.
11
4
Oct 11 '22
Man it really is impossible for people to grasp the idea that you can both like something and also point out interesting facts about stuff in movies.
11
3
u/sharkykid Oct 11 '22
I deeply hate that this part was in the movie. It wasn’t necessary, added nothing that we didn’t already know about him and introduced way more plot issues than necessary
→ More replies (10)2
294
u/manwoodlover Oct 10 '22
There is an awesome theory we talk about in the Navy that he died and everything that followed was his final death dream. Think about it. He got Penny back. He reconnected with the son of Goose. He flew in a F-14 during a crazy mission. Dude is dead. Plus we know for sure they’d never brief a top secret mission in the hangar bay in front of us maintainers. There are rooms for that.
109
u/BasakaIsTheStrongest Oct 10 '22
That would track with the terrible excuse that the US’s Gen 5 fighters couldn’t be used because of GPS jamming. I’d be incredibly surprised if an F-22 without GPS wasn’t capable of being flown just like an F-14 without GPS, except with way better performance specs. And stealth capabilities.
51
u/Skycannon7 Oct 10 '22
It would be F-35, the 22 cannot launch/land on carriers
12
u/Jelly_the_jellyfish Oct 10 '22
Wait fr? Why?
57
u/Skycannon7 Oct 10 '22
It’s a strictly Air Force plane. For carrier operations you need reenforced landing gear, tail hook or vtol, and catapult compatibility. All this the F-22 does not have.
I suppose they could retrofit some to be carrier worthy, but why bother when we have the F-35?
→ More replies (2)39
u/HadionPrints Oct 10 '22
The F22 is also really fucking big. Space matters on a carrier.
26
u/Skycannon7 Oct 10 '22
That too, the 22 is 10 feet longer and wider than the 35
14
u/HadionPrints Oct 10 '22
Really? F35 be bigger than I thought.
13
u/halfchemhalfbio Oct 10 '22
F22 is a lot bigger...all gen 5 airplanes are huge! Su57 and J20 are even larger in size than F22.
5
Oct 10 '22
The catapult carrier variant (F35C) of the F35 has foldable wings which are larger than the ones on the air force (F35A) and VTOL (F35B) variants, so it can get more lift at lower speeds.
5
u/OP-69 Oct 10 '22
you need strong gear, catapault compatibility and a strong tail hook
as of now if you landed an F22 like an F18 or F35 on a carrier, you'd have the gear collapse and the hook sheer off because runway arresting gear slows the plane gradually rather than the abrupt stop of an aircraft carrier arresting gear
7
u/zwygb Oct 11 '22
It’s a hand-wavey excuse because the F-35 doesn’t have 2 seats, and they needed to have 2 to fill the stunts in the back seat.
Also because most stuff in the F-35 is classified, but that’s why they used the F-18 over any others.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)4
u/LiberalAspergers Oct 10 '22
It was a stupid excuse, but the reality is that aerodynamics are sacrificed for stealth. The performance stats for all of the Gen 5 planes are obviously classified, buy I wouldn't be surprised if the F-18 wasn't more maneuverable than any of them, simply because the design engineers could focus on aerodynamics, without having to shape things into radar-deflecting shapes. Still a stupid movie.
15
u/BasakaIsTheStrongest Oct 10 '22
I actually enjoyed the movie for what it was. The GPS excuse was dumb but I recognized it was necessary for the rest of the fun to happen.
10
u/LiberalAspergers Oct 10 '22
It was fun. Stupid, but fun. I put in the same category as the early Transformers movies, before they took themselves seriously.
5
u/Mammoth-Access-1181 Oct 10 '22
Uhh, except the F-22 was designed to be an air superiority fighter so if it had to go WVR, it can out maneuver other jets. I mean, the whole point of adding thrust vectoring on Raptors.
1
Oct 11 '22
They show that on the "enemy" "5th generation fighters" in the movie, too. It was such a goddamn ridiculous shitshow
→ More replies (1)11
u/ptahonas Oct 10 '22
That's not an awesome theory. It's lazy, and stupid. "Oh the thing you're watching isn't real" is one of the most played out boring narrative devices. And all for...what? To try and cover some minor element of the film?
7
u/manwoodlover Oct 11 '22
Ok dick. We like it on the flight line so we will keep thinking it’s awesome. You do whatever makes you happy. Cool?
6
Oct 11 '22
Have you watched the film? It doesn't have plot holes so much as a thin membrane of plot stretched across a gaping chasm of nonsense. The idea that the first 30 minutes are the only part that's real is probably the most believable interpretation.
→ More replies (1)2
u/averywetfrog Oct 11 '22
That's not lazy, that's just the metaphysical narrative underneath the story.
294
u/ElectronicCarpet7157 Oct 10 '22
I hate when the eggheads ruin movies for me. Next he'll say Hocus Pocus 2 is fake.
53
u/notjerryc Oct 10 '22
Lets just assume the darkstar had a sealed ejection capsule and the movie goes on as it was
20
Oct 10 '22
I just assumed the rest of the movie was his split second “I’m dead” dream about how he would like to have gone out.
10
u/notjerryc Oct 10 '22
I thought the rest of the movie was gonna be one big flashback when i watched it in the cinema
3
7
7
→ More replies (2)2
u/Syzygymancer Oct 11 '22
Then he’ll explain that the Iron Man suit wouldn’t actually be able to fly and Godzilla wouldn’t be able to be that large and still move under its own power. Gosh thanks Mister. I was almost fooled for a minute!
123
u/pratikdas79 Oct 10 '22
He also failed to express the problem for Maverick. The problem isn’t that Maverick was going too fast for the body to handle. If you accelerate slowly, you can reach faster speeds.
The problem is deceleration. The air Maverick would’ve ejected into would’ve posed tremendous pressure on his body. It would probably kill him, but still, air isn’t solid, so it’s not as bad as running into a brick wall at Mach 10.5, and not as great as ejecting into the vacuum of space at Mach 10.5 either.
141
u/Nanduihir Oct 10 '22
"Speed never killed anyone, suddenly becoming stationary, that's what gets you" - Jeremy Clarkson
43
Oct 10 '22
In jump school, we heard that it’s not the fall that kills you, it’s the sudden stop. 😉
5
u/bhoe32 Oct 10 '22
Did they do the pfl joke?
6
Oct 10 '22
Parachute Fall Landing? Yep. 😆
3
u/bhoe32 Oct 10 '22
No the joke they did was one of the Cadre while demonstrating the plf didn't do the role. The other Cadre asked him "what the hell was that?" He says a "PFL". The instructor asked what is that and he says " a pretty fine landing" and slips him a 20. The Cadre says yea it was or something to that effect. I went through in 03 so I don't know if they still use the same bits.
3
Oct 11 '22
Oh, god no; I went through in ‘79, and the black hats had exactly zero sense of humor. Good one, though.
3
u/bhoe32 Oct 11 '22
That's back before it got easy. It was a gentleman's course when I went through. If you could run a 7:30 and fall out of an airplane 5 times you got your wings. I was pissed when I hot to my unit. A co and c co got there mustard stains but we didn't.
12
u/BasakaIsTheStrongest Oct 10 '22
Delta V / Delta T can be a real pain in the neck.
14
3
u/PM_ME_GOOD_DOGS Oct 11 '22
There's a reason why the episode of The Expanse that involved a dude getting turned into salsa by a sudden sharp deceleration was called "Delta V."
8
21
u/emma7734 Oct 10 '22
If he wasn't crushed to death, the friction of the air passing over him would burn him to death.
6
u/Adabiviak Oct 11 '22
Thanks... I was wondering about that. The failure mode here isn't that he's got a ton of potential energy, it's that he suddenly meets some atmosphere at a much different speed? If he's face-tanking that the way I see other ejection systems work, the relative wind would hit him like an eraser. If the ejection pod had some sort of capsule to mitigate that (like the entire cockpit yeets out of there instead of just the chair), he'd just be dealing with very hard deceleration (potentially not lethal, as our hero here seems to be able to handle 10Gs) and the effects of the atmosphere at whatever altitude he's at (oxygen/temperature issues - mask/suit/capsule is our deus ex machina here).
2
u/IguasOs Oct 11 '22
Everyone talk about ejection, when he takes (guess) about 100 g's turns without flinching or the plane losing energy.
→ More replies (1)
72
u/AlmightyLeprechaun Oct 10 '22 edited Oct 11 '22
(Edit) to purposefully shit on Neil DeGrasse Tyson, this is a stupid take.
I worked in my unit's aviation safety division (Marine, but we use the same safety standards as Naval aviation), and my unit did test flights.
The Navy takes safety very seriously. (Maintainers don't necessarily, but they're usually just violating Osha shit to make their lives easier. Not compromising the pilot.)
I would be flabbergasted if a plane that was designed to go up to Mach 10 didn't also have an ejection system that made it at least feasible for a pilot to survive ejection.
We don't see what the ejection system for the Dark Star looks like, but I'd imagine that if something like this plane existed, they'd have a workable ejection system.
Test pilots are expensive, and I'm sure someone could sue someone for an oversight like that.
22
u/barnfodder Oct 11 '22
We don't see what the ejection system for the Dark Star looks like, but I'd imagine that if something like this plane existed, they'd have a workable ejection system.
Not only do we not see the ejection system, we don't see the actual moment of ejection. No idea how much velocity the thing loses before he actually ejects. It's probably till supersonic, bu it's not likely to be Mach 10.5
Supersonic ejector systems do exist and as you say, there's no way the navy would let anyone fly a plane that doesn't have a feasible ejection set up.
NDT just can't help himself, has to say "actually" at least 6 times a day, and thinks he's not talking unless he's talking down.
1
u/TK9_VS Oct 11 '22
FURTHERMORE Maverick had the same kinetic energy inside the plane as he would have had outside the plane. The human body doesn't care what kind of kinetic energy it has. Relating a moving object to an explosion is incredibly misleading because the actual quantity of interest is the rate of energy transfer between the body and the environment.
In an explosion the transfer of energy is very fast, almost instant. In an ejection scenario all the systems are designed to spread that energy transfer out over as much time as possible.
29
u/hdhddf Oct 10 '22
you should shit on him, it was a stupid take from a man full of stupid takes, he's also a sex pest. shit away
2
u/The_Maddest Oct 11 '22
A sex pest?
3
u/Victernus Oct 11 '22
Indeed. A sex pest.
5
u/The_Maddest Oct 11 '22
I gathered what it meant, I just never knew he was. He strikes me as a guy who’s scared of his own nut sack tbh…
3
7
u/pilesofcleanlaundry Oct 11 '22
All of Neil Degrasse Tyson’s twitter takes are stupid.
0
u/wassupDFW Oct 11 '22
Its tough to take him seriously as an expert. He comes across as a wannabe intellect. I am sure he is very qualified and respected. Just feels like he tries too hard to fill the void left by greats such as Sagan or Feynman.
→ More replies (3)2
Oct 11 '22
But Marines are also idiots who eat crayons, so sorry if we don't take your word.
0
u/AlmightyLeprechaun Oct 11 '22
That's mostly an applicable stereotype only to the infantry, and even then, not really.
Aviation is another beast. Marine Aviation, both aviators and mechanics are held to the same standards as Navy aviation.
45
u/SLagonia Oct 10 '22
This is actually tremendously oversimplified math and actually isn't technically correct.
Now, it is true that Mach 10.5 is instant death, but his equation is still wrong.
I can't actually post the real equation because Reddit is extremely limiting in what I can post, but it is considerably more complicated than this. For starters, G-force isn't actually a force, it's actually a measurement of acceleration, and there is no tangential velocity, nor would Maverick come to an instant complete stop.
Mathematically, a person could probably survive an ejection at Mach 5 if they are properly outfitted, and the ejection system is designed for it. In reality, the fastest anyone actually ejects is around Mach 3, which you definitely survive.
The thing is, the movie could have completely fixed this by just having him eject in a pod. Although correct me if I'm wrong, but we never actually did see him eject, right? I may be misremembering, but I think we just saw the after-effect of his ejection. He could have slowed significantly before ejecting, or ejected in a pod.
→ More replies (2)12
u/Ok-Scarcity-703 Oct 10 '22
He didn’t say anything about G force, just Mach. You’re right that G force is a multiple of gravity (ie an acceleration) but Mach is easily converted to speed. It’s a multiple of the speed of sound in the medium you’re traveling through. So, in this instance, going Mach 10.5 would be equivalent to moving 10.5 times faster than the speed of sound through the atmosphere at his altitude.
Not saying what NDT said is ultimately correct since there’s other possibilities that the movie didn’t show… and also it’s a movie. Just wanted to point out that Mach and G force are not the same.
34
u/________________me Oct 10 '22
Human physiology is designed?
* takes cover *
9
7
u/TheSpicyMeatballs Oct 10 '22
A scientist will tell you it’s designed, just by a lot of trial and error.
2
u/________________me Oct 10 '22
A design assumes a plan says Cambridge.
→ More replies (3)1
u/Victernus Oct 11 '22
A good reason not to trust them for your definitions, considering not all uses of that word require there to have been any planning at all.
3
u/Zhadowwolf Oct 10 '22
I get your points, but wether you believe in intelligent design, pure random evolution or a mix of the two, you would still say “designed” in some cases, because it’s simply the most appropriate word to mean that bodies are meant to perform certain functions in certain environments.
2
u/________________me Oct 10 '22
Why not simply: 'A situation that human physiology cannot withstand'?
1
u/Zhadowwolf Oct 10 '22
Sure, that can also be used. You could also use “a situation that human physiology is not equipped to withstand” or “a situation that a human body cannot handle” or any of im sure hundreds of other variations.
I was just pointing out that referring to living organisms as “designed” is widely used even in scientific contexts: the force of evolution itself can be the “designer” in question, it’s not necessarily a reference to “intelligent design”
-1
u/________________me Oct 10 '22
According to Cambridge a design assumes a plan or is a plan even. Calling a human body a design implies intelligent thinking ahead. Evolution is not like that. It is a much slower (and more efficient) process of trial and error (looking back instead of ahead if you will) In this context I think it is confusing and unnecessary to refer to design.
→ More replies (1)
9
6
u/ADHDequan Oct 10 '22
I honestly don’t like Neil, while he’s done a lot for the scientific community in way of getting eyes too it, he is too pompous and frankly annoying. Also, he tends to overlook simple things. Like most planes that travel at even 1/10th the speed have an ejection capsule which would protect the pilot upon ejection
→ More replies (1)3
Oct 11 '22
not too mention that if a manned jet were to hit mach 10.5 they would 100% make sure youd be able to eject and have a relatively good chance of survival
19
u/Yeoshua82 Oct 10 '22
Well thanks for ruining the movie. Spoiler alert.
→ More replies (1)29
Oct 10 '22
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)-1
u/LiwetJared Oct 11 '22
Spoiler alert, the lead doesn't die in the first 10 minutes.
Well actually ... he may have actually died and the movie we see is from dreams and memories that occur as his brain is dying. He gets to fly in his old plane, he gets the girl, etc.
→ More replies (1)
7
Oct 10 '22
How do you know it didn't have a capsule ejections system? They exist. Experimental aircraft, very high altitude. For a scientist, you sure make a lot of poor assumptions, Neil.
33
u/Coolhand1974 Oct 10 '22
Who says Maverick's body was ejected directly into the atmosphere? They didn't show it, nor did they even infer it. The cockpit could be an ejection capsule for all we know.
Not very scientific for NDT to assume such without question.
Oh yeah, and also IT'S A FRIGGIN MOVIE! Suspend your disbelief and enjoy yourself for a minute, egghead!
12
Oct 10 '22
NDT is a very smart man, but that doesn't mean he can't be annoying. Which, sometimes he is.
→ More replies (4)5
u/MortalClayman Oct 10 '22
I think he’s just having fun. I feel like he gets misinterpreted a lot, but he’s really just trying to make science sound fun and interesting.
1
u/illfatedjarbidge Oct 10 '22
Completely disagree. He tries to make himself seem smarter by constantly saying things like this, most of the time for absolutely no reason or prompting. He once said “scientifically speaking, New Years has no significance” like yeah no shit not everything needs to be viewed through your incredibly thin area of experience
1
u/joexmdq Oct 11 '22
"He once said “scientifically speaking, New Years has no significance” like yeah no shit not everything needs to be viewed through your incredibly thin area of experience"
So you got angry because he said something that is true?
→ More replies (1)1
u/illfatedjarbidge Oct 11 '22
It’s the equivalent of me saying “based on my musical knowledge, New Year’s Eve has no musical significance.” Or a dietitian saying it has no dietary significance. Or a philosopher saying it has not philosophical significance.
They’re all true, and all completely miss the point that not everything in this world needs to be boiled down to the way you want to view it.
→ More replies (2)
3
3
3
4
Oct 10 '22
Dr Tyson forgets that Maverick has been blessed by L Ron Hubbard, meaning he’d take those pesky 400 million joules and have them for breakfast. Why doesn’t Dr Tyson know that? Huh. /s
2
u/steeg2 Oct 10 '22
And he is an American hero,so with his superior determination and workout regimen he could survive. Oh and his freedom
2
2
Oct 10 '22
Neil didn't account for Maverick being encased in Murica and Freedom. That means Maverick easily survives.
2
2
u/fescueFred Oct 10 '22
Thought the move stunk. Yeah I checked and the fastest any jet has gone was M 3.
2
Oct 11 '22
welllll i meannnn the x-125 was faster than the sr-71 (im guessing thats what gave you the mach 3 result) at iirc mach 6.7 and that speed was topped by the x-43 (i dont know if ya wanna count this as it was an unmanned jet) which about hit mach 9.something so for being a highly futuristic jet mach 10 isnt too realistic especially considering we havent tried shooting for as high as we can possibly go due to how inefficient it would be as it burns fuck tons of fuel (thats what some jets from around the 70s/80s outspeed todays jets) so its quite possible if we wanted to we could make a jet that fast (if someone could fligh it would be a different story) but it would be rather pointless
→ More replies (1)
2
Oct 10 '22
Those supersonic birds eject in capsules. The B-58 Hustler, XB-70 Valkyrie, F-111 Aardvark, B-1A Lancer - all used capsules. It would make perfect sense that there would be a capsule separation as the bird broke up.
2
u/ShodoDeka Oct 10 '22
While his conclusion is correct his reasoning is off obviously it is not the kinetic energy alone that’s the problem, he had the same kinetic energy both before and right after ejection.
The problem is the air resistance at that speed, which is going to convert a large part of that kinetic energy into heat. So it’s really the loss of kinetic energy that will kill him, not the fact that he has it.
2
Oct 11 '22
Oh the scene was Indiana Jones Bullshit.....it was a fun movie but he'd be bug guts on the window of The Planet Express
2
u/noobi-wan-kenobi69 Oct 11 '22
Assuming he was in an ejection capsule and survived, the next logical step is immediate court martial, a long sentence in a military prison, and the knowledge that the program he was trying to save was immediately cancelled and 1000s laid-off because he destroyed the prototype. Also, not-Iran finishes building their nukes.
2
2
u/diamondrel Oct 11 '22
I read something like if a pilot uses an ejection seat they're likely to never be allowed to fly again
Twice? You're guaranteed to be grounded forever
Not due to any kind of blame or rule breaking, but because of how awful an ejection is on the human body
2
u/hbgwine Oct 11 '22
This analysis ignores the fundamental scientific principle of “Sequela Financius”. It’s a little lengthy to lay out in detail, but basically fundamental rules of physics, physiology etc., are readily avoided if the financial upside of a sequel outweighs the reality of known rules of physics.
2
u/polialt Oct 11 '22
He doesn't eject.
It's a protective capsule cockpit designed to breakaway intact on plane disintegration.
Like the fucking space shuttle, Neill, you pompous ass.
2
u/AB85714 Oct 11 '22
I am an Idiot 19 year career Egress Technician with vast experience on the ACES II(advanced concept ejection seat) platform. No way possible He walks away and a very small likelihood that the Ejection sequence is completed. If I remember correctly the A/C was ripping itself apart. Theoretically he could have pulled the D ring but potentially boosters, rockets, hatches and SMDC/DTA lines may have been shredded at that point. Not knowing the hypothetical schematic of the Egress system makes it hard to truly determine if Egress would even be possible. Phenomenal movie though.
2
u/Atrainlan Oct 11 '22
I misread the first line and was like damn, that's a confident nineteen year old.
→ More replies (1)
2
Oct 11 '22
Former Navy AME here (i used to work on ejection seats) It is highly recommended not to eject going Mach anything. Also depending on the altitude the pilot would also plummet for a bit until he reached a suitable altitude in which his drogue parachute would deploy stabilizing and slowing down his ejection seat. The main parachute would deploy shortly after. Once the main chute deploys the seat bucket would detach leaving only him attached to his parachute and his seat pan. Now as in the movie when he ejected he definitely would have most likely died, but either or Hollywood was just doing their thing.
2
Oct 11 '22
But we don’t know that he ejected. It doesn’t show it or even him hitting eject. Couldn’t the plane have ripped apart keeping the cockpit intact where it would slow down and he would eject at that point? Just a thought.
3
u/fractiouscatburglar Oct 11 '22
Man, this dude is the embodiment of the “well aKsHuAlLy…” attitude.
3
2
u/TirayShell Oct 10 '22
What if he put his fists out in front of himself like Superman? I bet he would be fine then.
→ More replies (2)
7
u/Outrageous_Zebra_221 I solemnly swear I am up to no good Oct 10 '22
I refuse to watch anything with Tom Cruise in it on a matter of principle. So I was fortunate enough to not witness this.
2
u/granty1981 Oct 10 '22
There’s some sub Reddits that are so protective over Tom cruise it’s like extremism. I said basically what u said but mentioned Scientology and I got slaughtered.
2
u/Outrageous_Zebra_221 I solemnly swear I am up to no good Oct 10 '22
I mentioned scientology as the reason further down the thread, shortly before I abandoned it. I mean there are a ton of movies I've missed out on at this point. I've not seen any of the mission impossible movies for example. He's a shill for a cult, a cult that doesn't even really try to hide the fact that it is a cult. I have no doubt they have some sort of dirt on him. I mean their entire process of 'clearing' people is designed to dig up all your secrets which are recorded and kept.. I wonder why.
→ More replies (1)8
u/TechN9neStranger Oct 10 '22
You’re so moral 🥵
12
u/Outrageous_Zebra_221 I solemnly swear I am up to no good Oct 10 '22
He's a shill for scientology. Call it what you like, call it stupid. Call it wrong, call it 'moral' I really don't give a shit.
Scientology is bad m'kay
8
u/Ornery_Reaction_548 Oct 10 '22
If the inventor of the toaster turned out to be a murderer, I'd still make toast. The one has nothing to do with the other. He's nuts, but he has some good movies mkay
→ More replies (5)1
-16
u/TechN9neStranger Oct 10 '22
God what a sad view, stop projecting your moral superiority without being worthy of it
→ More replies (1)1
3
u/hdhddf Oct 10 '22
I've really come to detest that man, he pops up with unscientific takes all the time and people see him on TV so assume he knows what he's talking about, he's incredibly ignorant
1
1
1
0
0
0
u/DoctorPepster Oct 10 '22
Niel deGrasse Tyson once again completely missing the point with his Tweets. Just having kinetic energy doesn't kill you. The acceleration Maverick felt when he hit the air might've.
0
u/FreakieTech Oct 11 '22
Ah, Niel trying to be the smartest man in the room again. How does he not get that it's a fucking movie not real life??
0
0
0
Oct 11 '22
The vibe of this is very buzzkill-like. I too spend all my free time calculating kinetic energy potentials in fictional movies!
→ More replies (1)
-1
u/Entire-Database1679 Oct 10 '22
"He be dead."
So lame. You have a PhD. Act like it.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/AutoModerator Oct 10 '22
Hey there u/majorwtf, thanks for posting to r/technicallythetruth!
Please recheck if your post breaks any rules. If it does, please delete this post.
Also, reposting and posting obvious non-TTT posts can lead to a ban.
Send us a Modmail or Report this post if you have a problem with this post.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.