From Fred J. McCall:
Stuf4 wrote:

An engineer makes things. *A scientist learns things.

Wrong.

You are certainly free to continue in your expressed belief in the
lack of distinction between these two fields.

Now if the objection to my statement is that engineers actually design
things, and they learn while designing, I could agree with that. I
would certainly be open to anyone else's best effort toward
encapsulating the essence of science versus engineering. That would
be an invitation for constructive discourse.

That's as basic as it can be stated. *HARDLY a quibble in the
difference. *The term "rocket scientist" is a total misnomer. *The
proper term is -rocket engineer-.

It might be helpful to achieve a common understanding of the most
basic ideas before going into explanations of how easy it would be for
an engineer to design a control system for a spherical-geometry RV.
Heck, even if the center of mass were not off-center, I could STILL
tell you how to control it. *Even a kid who is a pitcher on a high
school baseball team could explain how to control the trajectory of a
sphere moving through the atmosphere. *(Note: no engineering degree
required! *Not even a single day of college.)

You should read up on why the Russians didn't go with a spherical
reentry vehicle for Soyuz, since you think so much of them.

Please show a single ICBM RV that is spherical. *Funny how NOBODY who
actually designs and builds the things thinks that's a good idea,
isn't it?

I myself never suggested it was a good idea.

The idea of the ICBM itself, I question the rationality of. And this
understanding casts a shadow over how 'good an idea' the entire space
race was. It brought humanity to the brink of obliterating
ourselves. Of course, with the lack of civility shown in something as
simple as communication on a message board, there is an argument that
states that humanity is destined for such an end.

I myself much prefer the outlook that a critical mass will awaken from
the consequences of the damage we have caused on each other as well as
our surroundings, and that the future of humanity that we have to look
forward to is a harmonious one.

Now a great portion of my communications here have been toward
exposing fallacies in the 'fairy tale' version of space history that
is ubiquitous. An irony is that this standard version shares, or
perhaps more accurately, is motivated by a similar desire for a
positive future for humanity. Perhaps it matters little whether one
version is founded on myth and the other on fact.

What may be most important is that the vision is shared.

~ CT