I thought this would just be a short amusing article about uses of the term 'rocket science'. However, Howard's added some interesting material. I'm all for it, but are we sure this is to be maintained as distinct from astronautical engineering/astornautics? If yes, go for it! Aleta Curry 23:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps a definition: anyone who believes there is such a thing as a rocket scientist clearly is not one. There is, after all, a bit of a difference between science and engineering. That being said, even dealing with propulsion systems alone, not all rocket system engineering involves astronautics. While rocket engine is rather a stub used to clarify that certain things were not firearms, there could be a wide range of topics, such as the fluid dynamics of combustion chambers and exhaust, liquid versus solid propellant tradeoffs (a key one being that for one's basic solid propellant, there is either zero or one "offs'), thrust variability (even in solids, with, for example, regressive versus progressive propellant grains), hot versus cold launch, and so forth.
- Related Articles, I believe, is the real value, although many of the subtopics are merely starting points for large articles with many sub-articles. I've been spending more of my effort on applications and systems, digging into some new developments in air defense (C-RAM as well as techniques to counter various missile types and operational environments. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Sitting near me, when I watched Tom Hanks in Apollo 13, I heard a boy stage-whisper to his father, "I can see they are going to have trouble. Forrest Gump as a rocket scientist?" Howard C. Berkowitz 01:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)