[NikolaeVarius]

Majority of engineers with a degree are useless right after graduation. Its a ton of random math that (most) of which you don't use again since you use modeling software.

Source: Did Aero

Someone doing this as a Amateur can damn well pick up whatever they need to.

[esmi]

> Its a ton of random math that (most) of which you don't use again since you use modeling software.

You absolutely need that math because you need to know when the modeling software is giving the wrong answer. You’re supposed to do quick and dirty calc by hand (ok fine I use mathematica) in a simplified system, then you refine with numerical software and compare the two. It’s shockingly easy to get the wrong answer with numerical CAD.

[kortex]

Not a mech eng but I've taken several eng classes and do a lot of DIY stuff. I've been designing a swing set/exercise rig for myself in Inventor and using FEA to sanity check my beam sizes for the given loads, just cause why not. Since I already had it parameterized, I wanted to see what load it would take with legs made out of 1.25x5.5 boards, just cause. The sim showed it would take several hundred pounds with almost no lateral deflection. Hmmm.

Anyone who's worked with decking boards knows they are pretty wobbly by themselves. I'm staring at the results, intuitively knowing they're dead wrong. So I model a plain column of one of these boards 16' long and 2000lbs, straight down. Zero side deflection.

Ah, I realized, it doesn't model buckling.

Map != territory.

It's always important to have multiple perspective of inference on a problem.

[av_engr]

I agree that a fresh-grad engineer will need some hand-holding in order to get them up to speed, but I disagree they are equivalent to an amateur in the similar field. The mathematical/engineering education obtained through their degree teaches them the thinking and underlying scientific principles that justifies concepts/design, which is knowledge often lacked in amateur community.

Using a modeling software still requires validation from an engineer and the "random math" is useful for that. Often times we have to do redundant calculations to confirm that the computer solution is logical. Beyond that, the "random math" is often key to the development of an innovative method that is superior to existing solutions.

In general, amateur's goal is to make something work. Engineer's goal is to make something work, prove it works, and show why the solution was chosen.

[starpilot]

Might be true, but SpaceX is only hiring mechanical/aerospace engineering degree holders for the relevant positions: https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/4740817002?gh_jid=4...

> BASIC QUALIFICATIONS:

> Bachelor’s degree in mechanical or aerospace engineering

> 1+ years of experience designing and analyzing mechanical systems via professional work experience, project/research-based student experience, or a combination of both

which OP doesn't have. They're not just hiring randos who can do math, they're looking for people with specific backgrounds in this domain.

There are of course other jobs, like PR, graphic designers, accounting, HR, benefits, facilities, that require zero engineering background, that all big companies must have to just keep the lights on.

[C1sc0cat]

Dam I was 20ish and doing now what I did back then I might well stay in mech eng.

I did the specialised mech eng A1 BTEC in the UK that had been set up to service speclised industries - all but of my class worked in bleeding edge RnD.

I did identify in one class that a lump of wreckage was an A4 fuel pump (that is the Agerat 4 aka the V2)

[bsaul]

Even at space X level of innovation ?

I was under that impression that maths could still be useful when working at the very bleeding edge of an engineering field.

[joshvm]

Bear in mind that companies at the scale of Space X doing safety critical work tend to parcel up tasks fairly minutely. Everything is compartmentalised, tested separately and there are whole teams devoted to the large scale architecture and integration. There's a joke that back in the space race days, an engineer might be responsible for a single screw on the Saturn V (and you'd be damn sure if the thing blew up, it wasn't your screw that did it). Same thing happens with ESA and NASA contractors.

There are lots of engineers who are basically building things to a spec and aren't what you might call innovating.

I think someone who builds rockets to this level would be absolutely fine in an entry position. They just might need to get some of the theory first. Saying that, he clearly understands mechanical design and control theory.

Didn't one of the chief engineers at SpaceX start out with model rockets?

[mr_toad]

This doesn’t seem to be SpaceX philosophy. See from about 3:25 where Elon discusses the problems caused by departmental structure, not questioning constraints, and ‘optimising something that shouldn’t exist’.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDUOaqyup5s