Rocket science

[Terry]

This is just a silly random thought (like so many of mine)... Why do we say "it's not rocket science" to mean that something isn't complicated? Rocket science seems to be quite straightforward to me. Newton's laws give you the payload equation and orbital dynamics, and that's about all there is to it. I think the real comparison should be to rocket engineering. Now that's an area fraught with difficulty.

--Terry.

 

[xouper]

Terry: This is just a silly random thought (like so many of mine)... Why do we say "it's not rocket science" to mean that something isn't complicated? Rocket science seems to be quite straightforward to me. Newton's laws give you the payload equation and orbital dynamics, and that's about all there is to it.

For most of the people I know (or encounter in my weekly sorties), payload equations and orbital mechanics are indeed complicated. Most of them have never even heard of a Hohmann transfer orbit. If I were to show them the math (at this site, for example), their eyes would simply glaze over. I'm guessing that orbital mechanics is not quite as easy as asking, "do you want fries with that?"

[/anecdotal observations]

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Because people aren't anal enough to discern between calculating orbits and designing a gyroscope that will guide a rocket anywhere other than into the ground. It's the same way they use brain surgery instead of cranial neurosugery when brain surgery could encompass everything from treppaning to a frontal lobotmy, neither of which seem very complex on the surface.

 

[Skeptoid]

They had a Space Shuttle main engine on display one year when I attended the EAA fly-in at Oshkosh, WI. As I was admiring the workmanship, I turned to a guy standing next to me and said, "A guy'd have to be a rocket scientist to figure one of these out." All I got was a blank stare. Some people just don't have a sense of humor.

 

[xouper]

Image courtesy of http://www.pratthobbies.com/phs.html

 

[Prester John]

Rocket science is not Rocket science!

 

[xouper]

From http://www.thespacereview.com/article/17/1

Rutan aims for space: A look at SpaceShipOne
by Jeff Foust
Monday, April 21, 2003

... While Scaled is developing most of the vehicles’ systems in-house, one key exception is the propulsion system for SpaceShipOne. “We’re not rocket scientists here,” Rutan explained. ...

 

[Brown]

Rocket science seems to be quite straightforward to me. Newton's laws give you the payload equation and orbital dynamics, and that's about all there is to it.

It's a little difficult to draw the line between rocket science and rocket engineering. Getting a rocket to go where you want it to go requires a good understanding of feedback theory, which could fall into either category.

I should mention that some of the most "straightforward" rocket science was NOT straightforward to the first astronauts or to the folks who put them in orbit. One of the problems with orbital rendezvous is that, in order for one spacecraft to catch up with another, the spacecraft that is trying to catch up has to be in a lower orbit. A spacecraft moves faster in a lower orbit than in a higher orbit. Firing the spacecraft's engines actually prevents the spacecraft from catching up, because the engines thrust the spacecraft into a higher (slower) orbit.

When this situation was first encountered, it seemed analogous to going slower by activating the accelerator, and going faster by hitting the brake. It was basic rocket science, but it befuddled the astronauts and the flight controllers for a while. (Read more in Gene Kranz's book, "Failure Is Not An Option" and Andrew Chaikin's "A Man On The Moon.")

 

[roger]

My impression is that it refers to the multidisiplinary aspect of it. It's not enough to know orbital mechanics, you also need to understand - control theory, thermodynamics, material science (can't let the thing burn up in the atmosphere on re-entry), structural science (can't let the thing shake itself apart), chemistry (fuel), fluid flow (both for the engine and for launch/reentry), telecommunications, etc. You have to combine all of these fields while designing under very difficult restraints regarding weight, cost, and safety.

There aren't too many successful commercial developers of rockets. My last company (which I decline to name) was pursuing this when I worked there. I wasn't involved, but I did know some of the people working on it. The rocket blew up on launch, destroying a multimillion dollar payload. It _ain't_ easy.

Yes, I am conflating engineering with science, and I don't care about that. It's an expression.