It's not Rocket Science

[Kilroywashere]

I get really, really annoyed by this phrase.
Rocket science is the most simple thing, probably simpler than 99% of the things people compare to it.
Take a rocket, push something out the back, the rocket moves forward. That's all there is to it. It was formally described by Isaac Newton in 1687, so it's not exactly cutting edge...

You're obviously way more intelligent than me. I understand rocket science to involve aerospace engineering, orbital mechanics and chemistry. I wouldn't know the first thing about designing a rocket.

@Kilroywashere

Just for shits and giggles

mitchell and webb brain sugery rocket science

Was it a cartoon? It's a daft title but hey ho.

Very annoying phrase--- is there anything actually called rocket science? I mean any real scientific discipline?

I’ve met people who would probably be considered “rocket scientists”, in charge of managing satellites in space.

Their backgrounds seemed to be mainly engineering and computer science.

I prefer the adapted phrase from Lexx, “It's not rocket surgery.”

I assume rocket science involves getting people to space and getting them home alive rather than blasting stuff any old how.

Aerospace engineering, aka, rocket science, involves high level complex mathematics. Most people find this inaccessible as it's miles away from the level of mathematics that most people have. I guess that's why people associate it with complexity.

This. Having watched the film about NASAs race to the moon and all the brightest minds they had working there, I think rocket science is definitely far from simple.

It annoys me too. It’s usually used when someone has failed to get someone else to do something properly. I am no rocket scientist, but I find anything to do with other people’s behaviour far more challenging than laws of force and motion.

I feel like if you don't think 'rocket science' is complicated it's because you don't know quite how much you don't know. It's definitely not a flex, more ignorant and cringe. Like okay yeah - I'm sure you could do better lol.

Yep, thinking Rocket science just means applying Newton’s third law is bit like taking the ( ?) Python approach on playing the flute…”blow in the end and move your fingers up and down”.

Just getting the big stuff to launch without the engines melting requires a significant knowledge of stuff like thermodynamics and materials science.

Getting them then to go in the right direction, survive ascent through the atmosphere and a whatever else is required down the road in the process involves a multiple of scientific disciplines.

But that's engineering, not science, @notimagain . Scientists research the principles of motion, properties of materials, the atmosphere etc. If you want a rocket that'll fly to the moon it's the engineers who put it together and decide what to use for the casing, the fuel etc. I suppose the scientist would step in if something mysterious goes wrong (not just incompetance, like the Challenger o-ring scandal or the Windscale fire of 1957).
A rocket can be the simplest of things. For instance, DH had a small amount of old petrol which he'd been using for cleaning something. He put it in a plastic pop bottle and very stupidly tossed it on to a bonfire in our garden. The petrol heated, vapourised and the pressure (and probably melting by the bonfire) blew a hole in the bottle. It flew across the garden leaving a flaming trail of petrol in its wake. Luckily it hit a wall before it reached the neighbours...

If the phrase were "It's not rocket engineering" I wouldn't get so steamed up about it 😄

But that's engineering, not science, @notimagain

Some of it is engineering, some of it is science. Some of the materials science involved is extremely advanced.

I do agree with that it'd be better if the phrase was 'that's not rocket engineering'. Afaik the rocket engineer I know isn't too bothered though (exceptionally bright, learning written Japanese for light relief). Space research needs both scientists and engineers working together.

It's pretty clear your DH is not a rocket scientist, let alone a rocket engineer though.

I’m not sure you can say “this lot are doing science” whereas this “ lot are doing engineering”, and it’s certainly often not simply a case of the scientists doing the research and then telling the engineers what to bolt together.

For example in the early days of development of systems such as the F1 engine on the Saturn V those engineers involved were probably some of the most clued up scientists in the world when it came to the topic of combustion instability…

Fundamentally I just don’t think you can put a firewall between the science and engineering communities in the way you are trying to do, certainly not for some cutting edge projects.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1

I’m not sure you can say “this lot are doing science” whereas this “ lot are doing engineering”, and it’s certainly often not simply a case of the scientists doing the research and then telling the engineers what to bolt together.

And of course quite a bit of the time they're doing maths.

I suppose we could have a similar discussion about 'it's not quantum physics' but tbh I'm not certain of my position on that.

@ErrolTheDragon

And of course quite a bit of the time they're doing maths.

Indeed they are..

Mind you if we’re going to quibble about “rocket science” maybe we should really quibble about the term “computer science”..😱

😀😀….

Same here.

I'd call development of transistors, magnetic storage etc and now quantum computers the "science" bit. Programming is just logic. Mind you, I never got much good at electronics so I don't think I'll be inventing a new chip any time soon - and I blush to think how many times I have tried to get my head around quantum physics and failed...

Programming is just logic

'Just' is doing a lot of heavy lifting there... and tbh that's a bit like saying writing a novel is 'just' a matter of SPAG.

Fair point, back in the dark ages when I was doing a science degree semiconductors, magnetic materials and all that jazz “belonged” to the Physics Departments..so I guess the grown ups there were scientists…

They did a lot of work with the Electronics Department (?Engineers)….

Aerospace engineering - with some understanding of astrophysics on the side.

Fair point, back in the dark ages when I was doing a science degree semiconductors, magnetic materials and all that jazz “belonged” to the Physics Departments..so I guess the grown ups there were scientists…

They did a lot of work with the Electronics Department (?Engineers)….

My dd is an electronics engineer. When she was investigating degree courses, and looking at the research interests of the academics, quite a lot appeared to us to be doing physics or materials science.

Scientists and engineers are generally more concerned about the reality of what they're doing than arbitrary labels, I reckon.