Talk:Aerospace engineering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Engineering This article is part of WikiProject Engineering, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, join the project, visit the project portal, and contribute to the project discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of the Technology WikiProject, a group related to the the study of Technology. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Aerospace engineering was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: March 8, 2008

Hi, I was wondering if was possible to be a aerospace engineer and both a pilot. Someone want to tell me how someone becomes a aeronautical designer eg wing design ...

i disagree with the above. 141.211.120.173 00:34, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
i'm okay with it... Jeus 05:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Aerospace Engineering Degrees

The article presently lists 11 schools in this section, and two in the "Renown degree granting Universites" (sic.) section. In the interest of WP:NPOV, I propose either erasing this section altogether, or replacing it with a comprehensive list, starting with this list of ABET-accredited aerospace programs. And how about leaving the "renowning" to someone else?

—Fleminra 01:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

am okay with all these listed schools —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.94.49.253 (talk • contribs) 12:10, May 15, 2006.

--personally I think it is ridiculous having a list of places to study aeronautical engineering, they don't do that in articles for other subjects, so why waste so much space here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.68.65 (talk • contribs) 11:30, May 19, 2006.

Well, as far as I know, "space" is not exactly a commodity in short supply at Wikipedia, but anyway I would not oppose moving this section to List of aerospace schools or similar. —Fleminra 20:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that seems like a good idea because wikipedia is supposed to be like an encyclopedia and when you look for an article on something you don't want the majority of the information to be a list of universities. Unfortunately I don't know how to do what you suggested so it would have to be left up to someone else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.68.65 (talk • contribs) 16:05, May 19, 2006.

"when you look for an article on something you don't want the majority of the information to be a list of universities."
Have you guys ever had a reason to look for schools granting Aerospace Engineering degrees? Trust me, I have, there arnt many lists out there which leaves a college student such as my self no choice but to search each college website looking to see if they offer aerospace programs. Thats the whole reason I came to this page in the first place. I keep coming back to it because I know it has that list. Who are the people most likley to come to this page? I believe they are people who want to know more about the aerospace sector, many of whom want to become Aerospace engineers. The list was at the bottom of the page, not in the middle, it wasn't in the way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.153.142.149 (talk • contribs) August 20, 2006.
See my commment in the Rose-Hulman section (below) of this Talk page. —Fleminra 18:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology is ABET?

According to abet.org, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology is accredited in Chemical, Civil, Computer, Electrical, and Mechanical Engineering, but not Aerospace. —Fleminra 02:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, why are all the schools listed American schools? I am an american looking for schools out side the US that offer Aerospace engineering. Seems a little odd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.153.142.149 (talk • contribs) 20:55, August 20, 2006.
In this Talk page, the list has only American schools because that was as much work as I was willing to do at the time to get a comprehensive list started. This revision of the article was the last to have a good international list, and I've created list of aerospace engineering schools from it, as I suggested earlier, to placate those who are concerned about the "list" vs. "non-list" content ratio in this article. FWIW, I disagree with the rationale for it being removed. The hopeless argument that the list could never be complete could just as well be applied to every article in Wikipedia; indeed, I agree with you that wiki method probably has the best chance of achieving a complete international list. —Fleminra 18:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overview section has copyright problem

I happened to come across a site containing some text which is almost a verbatim duplicate of the "Overview" section. The anonymous editor (206.219.94.10 Talk) who added this content on 17:56, May 5, 2006 (UTC) must have copy-and-pasted the sentences from Sloan Career Cornerstone Center. I've gotta wipe out the whole section. I would appreciate it if someone could help and write something of similar content. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 14:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  • i might be able to sometime soon, maybe on friday if im not to busy.205.188.116.200 02:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I've went ahead and wrote some stuff, and I believe I was able to make it into something better than it was before I deleted the previous Overview. At the same time, I've changed the meaning of the term to make it "aeronautical engineering = aerospace engineering", since Britannica and Encyclopedia Americana both agreed on that. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 12:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Aeronautical Engineering and Aerospace Engineering

They are two different branches of engineering. Aerospace deals nearly excluisivley with space craft and objects that go into space while Aeronautical Engineering is just about aircraft. Sometimes they mix but not often.

This is an incorrect assumption, my degree is in Aerospace Engineering and the majority of my classes dealt almost exclusively with aircraft, not spacecraft. It varies from program to program. Stardust8212 17:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Stardust: What University did you go to?
University of Kansas Stardust8212 17:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought that aeronautical engineering deals with terrestrial aircraft whilst astronautical engineering deals with extra-terrestrial aircraft; and both are generally referred to as aerospace engineering. Maybe we could use this terminology for delineation? Just a thought. JimScott 05:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be historical reasons for the aero and astro getting mixed, as is explained in the lead of the article. I do not deny that aero = aviation and astro = outer space is a simpler terminology, but I'm not entirely sure if this is "official". Do you know of any resources to back this up? --朝彦 (Asahiko) 17:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The top three programs in the United States (as ranked by U.S. News and World Report) for advanced degrees in this field have them labeled as Aeronautical/Astronautical Engineering, suggesting both differences and similarities between the two. --Pierce 13:06, 20 March 2007 (EST). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.159.144.3 (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC).


--- not only this, but this article is linked to from astronautical engineering, which is NOT aerospace engineering... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.94.102 (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ADD THIS COMPANY OR COMPANIES

Opinion(s): adding Sikorsky_Aircraft and/or Schweizer_Aircraft to the list of Aerospace companies. JimScott 08:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess it depends on the definition of "Major", I just noticed Cessna isn't listed either. The list should be kept short but where do we draw the line? Stardust8212 12:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
IMHO the best option is to delete the list altogether. Calling some companies major and the others minor might not be NPOV. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 17:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a valid point and the other solution (adding every company ever) definitely doesn't make sense. Stardust8212 17:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copied from the OOH?

at least one entire section was copied from the OOC. I am not familiar with wikipedia's policys, but shouldn't it be at least be reworded? 71.232.85.127 23:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Without permission, that is not correct. btw, what is OOC/OOH? Can you please identify that passage, or, reword it (after citing the source)? gnusbiz 17:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Occupational Outlook Handbook [1] from the Department of Labor? --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Copy and Paste from the OOH article on Aerospace Engineers [2]:
Aerospace engineers design, develop, and test aircraft, spacecraft, and missiles and supervise the manufacture of these products. Those who work with aircraft are called aeronautical engineers, and those working specifically with spacecraft are astronautical engineers. Aerospace engineers develop new technologies for use in aviation, defense systems, and space exploration, often specializing in areas such as structural design, guidance, navigation and control, instrumentation and communication, or production methods. They also may specialize in a particular type of aerospace product, such as commercial aircraft, military fighter jets, helicopters, spacecraft, or missiles and rockets, and may become experts in aerodynamics, thermodynamics, celestial mechanics, propulsion, acoustics, or guidance and control systems.
Aerospace engineers design, develop, and test aircraft, spacecraft, and missiles, and supervise the production of these products. Those who work with aircraft are called aeronautical engineers, and those working specifically with spacecraft are astronautical engineers. Aerospace engineers develop new technologies for use in aviation, defense systems, and space exploration, often specializing in areas such as structural design, guidance, navigation and control, instrumentation and communication, or production methods. They also may specialize in a particular type of aerospace product, such as commercial aircraft, military fighter jets, helicopters, spacecraft, or missiles and rockets, and may become experts in aerodynamics, thermodynamics, celestial mechanics, propulsion, acoustics, or guidance and control systems.
Oh-Oh. Busted. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 18:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
OK. That is US Federal Govt. work, which, I believe is in public domain. See [3] for this one. I've cited the source. gnusbiz 19:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. I see no problem at all, as the works by United States federal government is in public domain and has no copyright to it. See Work of the United States Government. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 19:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My apologies

Remember the vandalism that was reverted, caused by this IP address? I'm gonna have to take full responsibility for that. See, this address is from a shared computer at the Young Adult Program (thank god it isn't in Wikipedia), and the students, who are all mentally-retarded, all keep abusing the Wiki. If any of it happens again, just know that I'm not behind it. Yes, I'm a student here, but I'm way smarter and well-mannered than them. 69.58.32.250 16:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article review

Hi,

Unfortunately, after reviewing this article for good article status, I am unconvinced that it meets "well written" and "broad coverage" requirements. I am especially concerned about the coverage of the history section. Some notes I made during my review on how the article might be improved include:

  • The opening line could be stronger I am particularly concerned about the "and related topics" part.--ExplorerCY 21:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The lead seems to contradict itself, "Aerospace engineering deals with craft that leave Earth's atmosphere and aeronautical engineering deals with craft that stay within Earth's atmosphere" followed by "the broader term aerospace engineering has superseded the former [aeronautical engineering] in most usage". So does aerospace engineering encompass the study and design of craft that stay within the Earth's atmosphere or not?--ExplorerCY 21:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The overview is good though is there another way of writing "keeps a single aerospace engineer from involving in the entire task".--ExplorerCY 21:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Famous" in "was the famous Alberto Santos Dumont" is a peacock term.--ExplorerCY 21:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "who came up with the first machines that were able to fly". Came up? Did he build them? Did he design them? Did he make a breakthrough in understanding flight and use this understanding in his design? The article's description tells me nothing about Dumont's achievements.
  • "did come up with many sketches" - try to avoid using the phrase "come up". Often it is possible to write more concise and descriptive prose without it.ExplorerCY 19:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "although the work of Sir George Cayley has recently been dated as being from the last decade of the 18th century" - this presupposes I know what Cayley's work was.
  • Instead of "fluid dynamics, a key branch of science related to aviation, was present from the century before" try something like "the basic principles of fluid dynamics were understood in the 18th century."--ExplorerCY 22:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Only a decade after the successful flights by the Wright brothers" - it may be worthwhile to provide some more information on the Wright brothers achievements.

Though I read the whole article, I did not have the time to make notes on all of it. For more details on how to improve the article please consider listing the article for peer review or, alternatively, contact me through my talk page. Please feel free to renominate the article here when you feel it has significantly improved. You can also request the article be reassessed if you disagree with my assessment.

Cedars (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GaTech Stuff in Pop Culture

I got rid of it because i do not think that it is relevant content. ExplorerCY 20:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)