The spring's biggest science fiction hit has sent audiences into space and sparked conversations in physics departments. "Project Hail Mary," adapted from Andy Weir's bestselling novel, aims for the kind of scientific grounding that defined "The Martian" — and according to experts, it largely succeeds.

Hard science fiction, the genre both book and film inhabit, stakes its reputation on getting the science right. It's a contract with audiences who want their space adventures built on real physics, not fantasy. The New York Times consulted astrophysicists and astrobiologists to evaluate how well the blockbuster holds up under scrutiny.

The verdict? Surprisingly well, with caveats.

Where the Film Excels

According to scientists interviewed by the Times, the film's depiction of interstellar travel mechanics, orbital dynamics, and the challenges of long-duration spaceflight demonstrate careful research. The attention to detail in zero-gravity sequences and the physics of the spacecraft's propulsion system earned particular praise.

The biological concepts underpinning the story's central crisis also received approval from experts, who noted that while speculative, the extraterrestrial life forms depicted follow plausible evolutionary logic.

The Creative Liberties

Where "Project Hail Mary" stumbles, experts say, is in several plot-critical moments that bend or break established physics. The Times report indicates that certain energy requirements and time-scale compressions necessary for the narrative simply don't align with what current science suggests is possible.

These aren't necessarily flaws — storytelling often requires compromise — but they represent departures from the hard science fiction ethos that the film otherwise embraces.

For audiences, the question becomes whether these liberties enhance or undermine the experience. The genre's fans tend to be knowledgeable and particular, but they also understand that absolute accuracy can sometimes strangle drama. "Project Hail Mary" walks that line, mostly successfully, even when the science takes a backseat to spectacle.