Top Gun: Maverick
- Thread starter Mr Webber
- Start date
Neil deGrasse Tyson can bite me. Most of what he says is wrong and he is an enormous ass more interested in being on TV than actual science.
Maverick would have been kicked out of the Navy after the very first seen in the original Top Gun for disobeying an order to land his plane. Shortly after he would have likely been discharged for going into a Ladies room while in uniform for Conduct Unbecoming. This is per a military lawyer.
Who cares!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Both Top guns rock!!!!!
Maverick rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tom Cruise, while maybe not the best husband, father, or religious adviser, has rarely made a bad movie,...so,...he rocks.
If you don't agree, I am sorry, your life will never work out.
I have spoken.
Maverick would have been kicked out of the Navy after the very first seen in the original Top Gun for disobeying an order to land his plane. Shortly after he would have likely been discharged for going into a Ladies room while in uniform for Conduct Unbecoming. This is per a military lawyer.
Who cares!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Both Top guns rock!!!!!
Maverick rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tom Cruise, while maybe not the best husband, father, or religious adviser, has rarely made a bad movie,...so,...he rocks.
If you don't agree, I am sorry, your life will never work out.
I have spoken.
Last edited:
Axlotl
Master Member
Okay, random guy on the internet who knows more than a Harvard, Columbia, and Princeton educated astrophysicist.
TazMan2000
Master Member
Ignorance is bliss.
Before I joined the air force, I knew nothing about explosives. After learning about them and actually blowing stuff up, I found that I always had to question what wasn't quite right about explosions in action movies, which, unfortunately, took away from my enjoyment of them. You can't help it. Your brain always questions stuff you know isn't possible.
TazMan2000
Before I joined the air force, I knew nothing about explosives. After learning about them and actually blowing stuff up, I found that I always had to question what wasn't quite right about explosions in action movies, which, unfortunately, took away from my enjoyment of them. You can't help it. Your brain always questions stuff you know isn't possible.
TazMan2000
jts1031
Sr Member
A NASA astronaut has already stepped in to correct Tyson. And Tyson got Pluto kicked out, so no love for him.
Axlotl
Master Member
Wrong about one thing does not equal wrong about most things.
joberg
Legendary Member
Riceball
Master Member
A former Tomcat RIO (Ward Carroll) did a video talking about what Neil said and 2 things were brought up by him and people in the comments that would explain how Maverick survived his ejection.
One was that the plane would have been decelerating by the time Maverick ejected, so it was no longer flying Mach 10. So by the time Maverick ejected the plane could have been down to a more survival speed. An SF-71 pilot is said to have ejected and survived at Mach 3+. And there's the thinner air at the altitude he was flying to consider as well as the fact that he was probably wearing a full pressure suit designed to stay pressurized in the case of an ejection.
The other point brought was that it was possible for the SR-72 to have an ejection module like the F-111 and B-1, instead of just an ejection seat. This would have made his survival very possible and quite survivable.
One was that the plane would have been decelerating by the time Maverick ejected, so it was no longer flying Mach 10. So by the time Maverick ejected the plane could have been down to a more survival speed. An SF-71 pilot is said to have ejected and survived at Mach 3+. And there's the thinner air at the altitude he was flying to consider as well as the fact that he was probably wearing a full pressure suit designed to stay pressurized in the case of an ejection.
The other point brought was that it was possible for the SR-72 to have an ejection module like the F-111 and B-1, instead of just an ejection seat. This would have made his survival very possible and quite survivable.
TazMan2000
Master Member
Entertainment aside, every ejection seat and aircraft that one is in, has a set of "recommendations/rules" for ejection called (from what I remember) an "in envelope ejection", where airspeed, aircraft attitude and altitude play a huge part. The survivability in a "in envelope" ejection is, of course, much higher than in an "out of envelope" ejection.
It has been many, many years since I've flown in a fighter (as a JAFO) but from my training I do recall that the instructors did say, to let the seat do all the work and to stay in the seat, since it will get you to the ground without any rider input. Almost all functions are automatic. If you eject at a high altitude, the occupant will free fall still strapped into the ejection seat (there is a small drogue chute that stabilizes the seat so it doesn't tumble) until it reaches a breathable atmosphere. Until then a small emergency oxygen bottle "should" be able to sustain you until then.
You can override the seat controls and kick yourself out, but chances are you would suffocate or freeze to death, before landing. Temperature drops 2 degrees Celsius or 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit every 1000 feet of altitude, so you can imagine when it's -40, what the temperature at 40,000 feet will be.
If an aircraft is breaking up around you, those shards of metal and plastic are going the same speed as you are. If your body hits the air, smaller chunks of metal probably won't slow down at the same rate that your body would, so more than likely will continue on through you, turning you into a piece of swiss cheese.
On any ejection, no pilot has ever failed to return to earth.
TazMan2000
It has been many, many years since I've flown in a fighter (as a JAFO) but from my training I do recall that the instructors did say, to let the seat do all the work and to stay in the seat, since it will get you to the ground without any rider input. Almost all functions are automatic. If you eject at a high altitude, the occupant will free fall still strapped into the ejection seat (there is a small drogue chute that stabilizes the seat so it doesn't tumble) until it reaches a breathable atmosphere. Until then a small emergency oxygen bottle "should" be able to sustain you until then.
You can override the seat controls and kick yourself out, but chances are you would suffocate or freeze to death, before landing. Temperature drops 2 degrees Celsius or 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit every 1000 feet of altitude, so you can imagine when it's -40, what the temperature at 40,000 feet will be.
If an aircraft is breaking up around you, those shards of metal and plastic are going the same speed as you are. If your body hits the air, smaller chunks of metal probably won't slow down at the same rate that your body would, so more than likely will continue on through you, turning you into a piece of swiss cheese.
On any ejection, no pilot has ever failed to return to earth.
TazMan2000
bwayne64
Master Member
I'm thinking there's a logical fallacy in this statement, possibly a non sequitur, ; ) For all we know, " Random Guy " could have a genius IQ, and be a graduate of one of those college's. Don't know either of you, but you never know. For an example of a smart guy, saying something really frackin' dumb, see below.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing ".
Steven Hawking, Cambridge University’s Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics. The seat once held by Issac Newton.
In reference to this statement, John Lennox said,
" What this all goes to show is that nonsense remains nonsense, even when said by world-famous scientists. What serves to obscure the illogicality of such statements is the fact that they are made by scientists; and the general public, not surprisingly, assumes that they are statements of science and takes them on authority. That is why it is important to point out that they are not statements of science, and any statement, whether made by a scientist or not, should be open to logical analysis. Immense prestige and authority does not compensate for faulty logic ".
John Lennox, Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford and an Emeritus Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at Green Templeton College, Oxford University. He is also an Associate Fellow of the Saïd Business School and a Senior Fellow at the Trinity Forum.
Last edited:
Plus you can be really dumb and still be correct about something a really smart person is wrong about. Some of the best people I know are not that academically smart and know far more about how things work than a lot of PhDs
Having said that I really did not mean to start a thing. I just really don't like Tyson and I love this movie.
Tom
Having said that I really did not mean to start a thing. I just really don't like Tyson and I love this movie.
Tom
Axlotl
Master Member
Did you even read the post I was replying to?
"Neil DeGrasse Tyson is wrong about most things".
But my reply is the logical fallacy?
What the hell is going on here?
Seriously guys. It was a dumb comment by me. Nothing worth arguing about.
I should have said, he is wrong about some things.
Let's get back to loving Top Gun Maverick.
Life is too short.
Similar threads
