But it’s more than that. To name a few: * How does one raise the thrust temperature as high as possible without melting the engine to maximise thrust? (The burning temperature IS already higher than the engine material melting point) * how does one reduce the redundancy (both system wise and material wise) to minimise weight while ensuring the rocket won’t fail?
I studied physics in undergrad and in classical dynamics we covered “rocket science” in these terms. The term is more or less a misnomer as science implies trying to understand how the universe works. Building rockets is engineering but studying their motion does rely on both the equation I gave above and also on fluid dynamics. From the point of view of “science” it is pretty simple. From the point of view I’d actually building a rocket the engineering is very hard. Since that time I’ve always had a bit of a chip on my shoulder about the “it’s not rocket science”. It also doesn’t help that both my parents studied aerospace engineering in undergrad and grad school and tried to impart a decent chunk of it on my as a kid (which I resisted very hard).
I worked on a ballistic missile tracking software that would calculate areas of uncertainty given coverage of various defense mechanisms.
It very much involved rocket scientists from JPL.
You are wrong in every measurable sense of the word.
1. If HN had a friend system/social graph, you'd have a pending request from me based on this comment alone.
2. Fantastic domain name in your profile.
Sounds like I lost the asshole measuring contest :)