What kind of education Rocket scientist should have?

[Pawelk198604]

The KSP slogan is "How hard can rocket science be anyway?"

I just wonder what kind of education rocket scientist must have it's obvious it must be pure science education Nauki Ścisłe as we call in Polish or STEM as is called in English.

But i just wonder what degree is the best for rocket scientist because there are not "rocket science" as separate academic field?

[Nibb31]

Is there really such thing as a "rocket scientist" any more?

If you want to build rockets these days, you would seek a job in aerospace engineering.

[Lord_Zord]

Most people who can call themselves "rocket scientists" and do anything that in any way that resembles what one does in KSP are Aerospace engineers.

At my university there are a master level education in "astronomy and space physics", having one of those could maybe earn you the "title" of Rocket scientist, even though those people use the work engineers do (satellites in orbit) rather then doing it themselves.

[Godot]

Math surely is an important part of the education that a rocket scientist should have

[TythosEternal]

Engineering of any sort, really; even applied physics. When you get down to it, a rocket scientist is just a scientist (or engineer) who works on rockets (or spacecraft).

The specific term for a rocket- or spacecraft-focused educational program actually changes from school to school. The most common title for departments and degrees is "aerospace," which is usually organized under a department/school/college of engineering. Cal Poly and Georgia Tech are two of many examples.

Many institutions still have "aeronautics" departments in which rocket and spacecraft courses are included. (Until recently, this was the case for CalTech, if I remember my grad school applications correctly.) Stanford's and MIT's departments are still called "aeronautics and astronautics".

More traditional specialties remain very relevant to aerospace work. Mechanical engineering in particular is seen as an excellent all-around background for which aerospace is a very appropriate application. You also have other, more-focused specialties that contribute a great deal to critical components like electrical engineering, chemical engineering, etc.

Lastly, there's the integration piece. "Systems engineering" is a type of engineering that focuses on the design, integration, and deployment of large and complex systems, and is a direct consequence of challenges faced and solved during the past decade of defense and aerospace programs. Controls engineering is similarly relevant, if not as involved in the design process.

I guess the takeaway is that studying any one of these fields can help you contribute to rocket science and space programs. As mentioned, physics is also a legitimate choice (in addition to math and computer science). Regardless, it will be less about your education and more about the actual kind of work you manage to land, so develop your professional network, pay attention to where the work is, and do your best to get your foot in the door. Even a position as a technical writer on the right program can lead to great opportunities and a robust on-the-job education.

[No one]

"Rocket" is like "mad" in that most scientists described that way are just engineers.

But it completely depends on which part you want to focus on. Lots and lots of people are involved in building and launching a rocket, and they all have different jobs with different education requirements.

[lajoswinkler]

There is no such thing as rocket science. It's engineering. Aerospace engineering.

[AngusJimiKeith]

There is no such thing as rocket science. It's engineering. Aerospace engineering.

I quite literally have a shirt that says that. In direct response to a shirt put out by my school's Aerospace department which reads "it IS rocket science!"

This has always been the case. Aerospace Engineering = Rocket Science + Airplane Science (for lack of a better term). When space travel became a thing, aeronautical engineering expanded to include space, thus "aerospace engineering."

[Technical Ben]

One with good grounding.

[Nibb31]

One with good grounding.

I thought that was mostly for electrical engineering.

Tada tssss...

[lajoswinkler]

I quite literally have a shirt that says that. In direct response to a shirt put out by my school's Aerospace department which reads "it IS rocket science!"

This has always been the case. Aerospace Engineering = Rocket Science + Airplane Science (for lack of a better term). When space travel became a thing, aeronautical engineering expanded to include space, thus "aerospace engineering."

But it was never science. When modern rockets were developed, every law of motion behind them and the objects of their travel have been already discovered by Newton and Kepler.

Developing machines is not what science does. Engineering does it. Science is a completely different endeavour.

I was actually surprised when I heard the phrase "rocket science" for the first time because we don't have such phrase in my language.

[AngusJimiKeith]

Well, I was speaking about the colloquial terms, not the technical background. And I did say that it was always "aerospace engineering." (That point may not have been clear. The shirt reads "It's not rocket science, it's aerospace engineering!" FWIW)

And, to quote the former head of our department: "An engineer is just a scientist that does things."

No, it's not "science" in the "discovering new things" field, but we apply those scientific principles to do our work. Applied science, if you will. It isn't "completely different" in any sense. I need Newton's 2nd Law just as often as the physicist next door.

Edited September 16, 2014 by AngusJimiKeith

[peadar1987]

"Scientists come up with ideas to describe the world. Engineers change the world to match our ideas".

Mechanical engineer and proud!

[Neil1993]

If I might stick my nose into this discussion, I think that anyone doing research/design work relating to rockets or rocket propulsion might consider themselves a rocket scientist.

I am working on a project involving rockets right now and I think it would be unfair to not include the software and electrical engineering students working with us, as well as those in physics and math. They are all contributing to the final product and they have at least a rudimentary understanding of the physics involved in rocket flight.

[StrandedonEarth]

Science researches the principles that engineers put into practice. The early rocket scientists (Goddard, von Braun, etc) figured out how to build rockets and the equations that describe how they work. In fact, I don't know that there ever were any pure "rocket scientists," just engineers figuring out the science of rockets. You hear a lot more about "brain surgeons" or "rocket science" than actual rocket scientists

Main thing for pretty much anything aerospace: Math, heavy on the calculus, along with computer wizardry skills. Beyond that depends on if and what you want to specialize in: Structural and/or materials, electronics, chemistry, physics, aerodynamics, and generally some combination of those.

But hey, even rocket companies need managers, accountants, HR staff, and even janitors and cafeteria workers

[OrbitusII]

As has been said before, Aerospace Engineering is the education you'd want. Other fields of engineering or even physics use a lot of the same principles, but Aerospace is specialized for work on rockets (i.e. launch systems), spacecraft (i.e. the payloads), and aircraft (which are self-explanatory). Engineering in general requires a lot of math, especially calculus, a decent knowledge of programming for use in simulations and whatnot, and skills with CAD software. There may be variations depending on which discipline you're going into, of course.

I don't know a lot more than that since I've only just started working towards my BS in Aerospace (plus a BA in Natural Sciences) but that's my understanding of it. On a side note, I find it funny that I'm going into engineering considering my already-present skills with computers. I could be a computer science major but that's no fun compared to the 5+ years I'm looking at for my dual degrees.

On the subject of engineering as "science," I see it as a "practical science" while quantum mechanics is more of a "theoretical science." Practical sciences have direct applications to our everyday lives and lots of helpful things come out of research into the practical fields (things like Medicine, Engineering, Computer Science). Theoretical sciences involve things that are not directly applied to improving life but improve our understanding of how the universe works (like quantum mechanics, string theory, theory of evolution). I put more stock into practical sciences personally because they're fairly static and utilize principles that we are confident in, while theoretical sciences are dynamic until we can definitively prove that a theory is the truth.

Edited September 17, 2014 by OrbitusII

[Godot]

...

I was actually surprised when I heard the phrase "rocket science" for the first time because we don't have such phrase in my language.

YOu should just have read Gary Larson

[StrandedonEarth]

On the subject of engineering as "science," I see it as a "practical science" while quantum mechanics is more of a "theoretical science.

Oh, right, suddenly the term "Applied Science" comes to mind. That's the term I was looking for. Back in high school there was an "Applied Science" course that included scratch-built model rockets, including carving your own nose cone out of a block of balsa

[OrbitusII]

Oh, right, suddenly the term "Applied Science" comes to mind. That's the term I was looking for. Back in high school there was an "Applied Science" course that included scratch-built model rockets, including carving your own nose cone out of a block of balsa

I would have loved to do some of that in high school. Unfortunately my high school was focused on a more "Classical" education (making it more of a liberal arts high school). I took my only engineering course in my junior year because we couldn't retain an engineering teacher for some reason...

[Aningaaq]

Another option is studying other things like say Geophysics. You could be one in charge of designing or proposing an instrument that could be on-board a probe or rover. Look at that fella from UCLA who specializes in Geophysics... He will have a lot to do with the GPR on the Mars 2020 Rover and the data that comes back.

Just an idea. I know I'm not cut out for aerospace engineering but have a keen interest in space exploration. The rockets are so important but so are the instruments being used in outer space as well!

[Seret]

The term "rocket scientist" is pretty vague. Are you talking about a manufacturer building vehicles, or an organisation (public or private) operating them? Even in the latter are you talking about flight or science? There will be people from all sorts of backgrounds.