Ridley Scott‘s prolific career has in part been defined by his science fiction work. After making his directorial feature debut with the period drama The Duelists in 1977, Scott would go on to helm Alien in 1979. Though he may not have known it at the time, this would be the first in what would become a decades-long franchise that is ongoing to this day. Scott has continued directing and producing the Alien movies, returning for Prometheus in 2012 and Alien: Covenant in 2017.

Though this was his first foray into the sci-fi world, the Alien franchise is not Scott’s only notable sci-fi effort. The director was also behind Blade Runner in 1982, a movie which would go on to be considered a formative piece of work for its cinematic era and within the science fiction world. Similar to Alien, Blade Runner would later come to have a legacy sequel, Blade Runner 2049, which was made by Dune director Denis Villeneuve. Now, an expert breaks down the science of one of Scott’s 21st-century sci-fi films.

An Astrophysicist Loves The Martian

Even Its Portrayal Of Physicists Is Accurate

A real-life astrophysicist breaks down the science behind The Martian. Based on the hit Andy Weir novel of the same name, the film tells the story of Matt Damon’s Mark Watney, an astronaut who becomes stranded on a Mars mission and attempts to survive while signaling to Earth that he is still alive. The Martian received rave reviews, getting a 91% score from both critics and audiences on Rotten Tomatoes. Though it won none of them, the film ended up being nominated for seven Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Actor.

Speaking with Insider, astrophysicist Paul M. Sutter breaks down The Martian, providing an evaluation of its accuracy. Specifically, the expert discusses the accuracy of the movie’s effort to rescue Mark. Sutter finds the depiction of “mannerisms of physicists and engineers explaining stuff to other people” was particularly accurate, grounding the scene. This was coupled with “mathematically sound” ways that the film imagined its rescue happening. Overall, Sutter found The Martian‘s accuracy to be stellar, giving it a perfect 10 out of 10. Check out Sutter’s full quote below:

His mannerisms of physicists and engineers explaining stuff to other people is ᴅᴇᴀᴅ on. We like grab random stuff and say okay, imagine this is the particle, and it is going over here, and it’s like exactly what we do.

The problem here that they were trying to face is that getting Mars takes a really really long time. It’s really far away, and it’s on its own orbit. And the idea here used in the movie, which is all mathematically sound, it’s all solid orbital mechanics, which is that if you are able to slingsH๏τ off the Earth, you get a speed boost and you can return back to Mars faster than you would have initially thought, as if you had launched it from the surface of the Earth.

Yes, when you’re sending an object to another planet, you have a few choices. You can do a close fly by. Or, if you do it just right, it will come in and what we say is fall into orbit where it will end up making a permanent loop around that planet. And so, if you’re coming in too fast, you simply have too much energy. The gravity of the planet isn’t strong enough to hold onto you, you’re just going to be deflected in your path. They just had too much energy, they had too much speed. So there’s a trade-off, they can get to Mars faster, but that means they can’t stay there.

He has to get to as high an alтιтude as possible so that he can intercept the oncoming spacecraft. But in order to do that, he has to get rid of mᴀss. The less stuff he has, then for the same amount of fuel, the same amount of thrust, the higher up he can get.

So that’s true. This is Newton’s third law in action, if I punch a hole and the gas escapes, the gas goes this way, I go this way. But if it’s on the palm of my hand, it’s away from my center, so it won’t just push me, it will twist me. And so if you actually tried that, you would end up tumbling uncontrollably. This is going to sound crude but if had punctured his crotch, that would be on a line to his center of mᴀss, and that would have propelled him straight up.

In space, everything is complicated. You can’t move around as nimbly as you can without a space suit. And you’re trying to operate in three dimensions. So it’s not like a relay race, where you’re guaranteed to have the ground underneath you the whole time. And so you’re trying to match this precise speed in an alien environment, in three dimensions, not something our monkey brains are really capable of handling, and it’s jus all hard, and it makes for a great movie.

I would rate these clips a 10. Full 10. 100%, I love this, but it’s just such a wonderful movie, and it’s all about science and science saving the day.

What This Means For The Martian

The Movie’s Science Was One Of Its Celebrated Aspects

The Martian was not the only film in Sutter’s interview to get a high score. The astrophysicist also took kindly to Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar, praising its visual portrayal of a black hole. Those movies were released in back-to-back years, showing improvements in the science of the modern sci-fi film. Both movies, in their publicity, prided themselves on putting the “science” in science fiction, and by Sutter’s evaluation of The Martian, they were done so effectively.

Source: Insider