Does "aerospace" = "military" these days?

[tsurikov]

Hello everyone,

First, I just have to say... this is a great forum *thumbs up*. I've been on Eng-Tips (and Tek-Tips) for a while, but only now discovered this one - and it's been very useful in helping me plan some important future life/career steps. Hopefully the question I have now is appropriate for it..!

My question is... well, basically, the title of my post. I got a B.S. in aerospace, then proceeded to a Ph.D. in aerospace, and discovered along the way that research is absolutely NOT what I thought it was or what I want to do. I'd like to do engineering, not academic research. However, for personal (ethical) reasons, I don't want to work on military projects. These days, these two factors seem like an oxymoron - virtually all the job postings I see in AE nowadays are for military stuff. But I can't be sure... and this is why I'm hoping for some insight from the experts here.

Thanks for any insight!
--Michael

 

[monkeydog]

Hmmm,
What is your definition of "Aerospace"?

 

[BJC]

It allways did. Technology had always been spurred on by the desire of man to kill or subjugate them to their will.
Aerospace engineering exist to find better cheaper ways to kill others.
If we were truly peacful creatures we be living like hobits or something living living in caves using flint knives.

 

[tsurikov]

monkeydog: Aerospace engineering is a defined major at many universities and the term "aerospace industry" is well-known. In my opinion, that defines the field fairly well. Is there any other definition?

BJC: Well, I had the feeling that civilian aerospace - commercial fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, space exploration - used to be very strong, and still was when I was choosing my career path. As for technology being spurred on by the desire to kill others... is that really the first driving force that comes to mind? I've always felt technology was created mainly to improve the quality of life, to do something good. I don't remember anything in the engineering code of ethics that talks about better killing of people...

Thanks for the input,
--Michael

 

[tpvuhs]

I'm not in the job market, and I do know that a great deal of aerospace engineering talent is being poured into military ends. But Airbus is just now coming out with the A380, which is a very new thing, and Boeing is developing the 787, also new technology. Another growth area is the UAV field, and there does seem to be some promise that that technology will move from an almost total military use to civilian uses (crop inspection, aerial photography, border surveillance, etc.). Of course money is also being spent for space exploration still, and the promise of that effort being extended and expanded is there. And let's also add in the current civilian effort at manned space flight. So primarily from reading AW&ST, it seems to me that aerospace and aeronautical engineering are currently making significant, non-military contributions to human knowledge.

Frank

 

[BillPSU]

tsurikov
Aerospace doesn't necessarily mean military but it has a large impact. Companies such as Cessna, Lear, Bombardier and Raytheon all build smaller non-military targeted aircraft. Does the military own some of these companies' aircraft? Most definitely. You are working in an area where after commercial aircraft, corporate aircraft, and personal aircraft the remainder is public sector aircraft which takes up a large portion of the business.

Military uses has driven aircraft research and development ever since WW-1. Much of this research, works with today's commercial aircraft.

If you have a moral dilemma go to work with a company which targets their aircraft for non-military uses knowing full well some of the aircraft will be used by the military for these same non-military purposes.

 

[PSE]

It took governments to push the aerospace field to where it is today as only they could rationalize and "afford" it. The civilian sector has benefitted but the primary interest was military advantage. It would likely be difficult but you may be able to find a strictly civilian aerospace firm to work with/for. You could also go to work for a firm and let them know that based upon your personal beliefs, you would prefer not to work on military projects. How it would affect your career, who knows? It would depend on the firm itself.

Regards,

 

[TheTick]

...plenty of money to be made
supplyin' the army with the tools of the trade.

 

[monkeydog]

tsurikov,
Based on your response to my question "define aerospace", you seem to have taken offense. I am simply asking because off the top of my head I was able to think of several non-military “aerospace” projects. Since you are a PhD in Aerospace, you of all people would be able to define “aerospace”; perhaps I have mistakenly been in the non-aerospace field for over 20 years.

To answer your question, no. “Aerospace” does not equal “military”. If your concern is using your talents for military application, there are always the civilian ends of the big aerospace corporations; there is NASA/JPL, ESA etc.

 

[PSE]

Ah, an old time? favorite song. Thanks to The Tick.

 

[Slugger926]

Wow, you guys have such a narrow view of Aerospace. Have you forgotten about other areas such as seperating trash from crops?? I have worked on projects where we had to seperate trash from ripe chilli peppers using a fan. This is also done with cleaning different grains. Another application is cyclonic dust collection from around grain hoppers or railroad scales with grain hoppers for ADM or Cargill.

There are many aplications to Aerospace engineering that do not include military applications. Just use your imagination. There is probably some sort of need out there.

 

[arunmrao]

"F16 's sale to Pakistan saves 5000 US jobs."

http://sify.com/news/international/fullstory.php?id=13702598

Please refer to this news item . Aeronautics= Military sales= US jobs

 

[DrillerNic]

Gosh!!..... so you can sell nuclear weapons secrets to all sorts of nasty people around the world, but if you're onside in "The War Against Turrur" the US will happily turn a blind eye and sell you hi-tech military aircraft!

 

[arunmrao]

Think of the positive side 5000 US jobs!!! This is Bushism

 

[CajunCenturion]

And if the government didn't allow the sale, then I have no doubt the opposition party would all over the President for putting 5,000 people out of work. It is either a win-win situation or a lose-lose situation depending on whether you like the President or your don't. That's politics.

Back to the original question ...

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein