<p>Hello, this may sound like a weird question but it is one that has been bugging me.</p>
<p>I am really interested in aerospace engineering.</p>
<p>But I don't want to work in a job that is engineering something that cold be used to kill people(ie in war....bombers, missles, engines on those planes....etc).</p>
<p>Are there some aero jobs out there that wouldn't require working on something that could be used for the destrution of life?</p>
<hr>
<p>Disclaimer: This post was not meant to offend anyone. Please dont take it that way. I am just trying to get feedback.</p>
<p>Sure there are, you could work designing passenger jets, or commercial sattelites. There are also other applications of aerospace engineering, namely fluid mechanics in a variety of applications.</p>
<p>I, too, am majoring in aerospace engineering. However, we have different goals. I would love to work at Lockheed Martin designing fighter aircrafts for the US Air Force. Just manufacturing them would be a dream come true.</p>
<p>What about the space in aerospace? You could become an astronautical engineer rather than an aeronautical engineer. Spacecraft aren't used to kill people, at least not yet.</p>
<p>morals/ethics is something you'll learn about in your freshman year engineering class...theres ways to avoid it, as job descriptions will often tell you what you're working on, and commericial/exploration-type aerospace jobs (airliners, satellites, space vechicles, weather balloons, ect) are plentiful...theres no way to tell what job you can get until you graduate though</p>
<p>All ABET accredited engineering program has an Ethics course that will probably give you a better idea of things. You can always try to work in the commercial aeronautics industry.</p>
<p>"I am really interested in aerospace engineering.</p>
<p>But I don't want to work in a job that is engineering something that cold be used to kill people(ie in war....bombers, missles, engines on those planes....etc).</p>
<p>Are there some aero jobs out there that wouldn't require working on something that could be used for the destrution of life?"</p>
<p>This has been a HUGE problem with me. I want to work on cool stuff but not if it is used to kill people. However, the line gets pretty fuzzy when you start thinking about killing people verses military research. For instance, last year I was offered a job with SRI, in a group working for the DOD doing stuff that sounded like war-games in Ohio or Indiana. Although the technology could not be used to directly kill people, it would develop warfare to the next level (digital 3D imaging and real-artificial play-outs). I thought long and hard regarding this offer. I ultimately had to turn it down because I personally felt that although it would make the US more effective in tactical operations, the US could become haunty of this new technology and use it as an excuse to become more militaristic.</p>
<p>Anyways, there are many jobs out there that are not defense related. I wouldn't be surprised if NASA, for instance, has 85% of its missions approved by COPOUS (UN Committee On Peaceful Uses of Outer Space). Albeit the initial space-race was really an extension of the Cold War, by 2024, we'll be going back to the Moon, and eventually to Mars... fueled exclusively by curiosity. </p>
<p>Pursue your passion in Aerospace... just don't let people buy away your morals. There will always be options.</p>
<p>and to shackleford..... Im most definately not a liberal though I wouldn't necessarily call myself a conservative either.... besides the point though... :)</p>
<p>I had a similar concern when considering nuclear engineering for graduate school. One of my professors pointed out to me that because of the on going development of military weapons, particularly nuclear weapons, the fear of war and mutually assured annihilation actually prevent their use saving millions if not billions of lives.</p>
<p>Haha, one of the first responses made me laugh:</p>
<p>
[quote]
I, too, am majoring in aerospace engineering. However, we have different goals. I would love to work at Lockheed Martin designing fighter aircrafts for the US Air Force. Just manufacturing them would be a dream come true.
<p>Aero is really a tough area for distinguishing between military and not, because most commercial airlines have less incentive to pursue the really revolutionary tech than does the Air Force or DARPA. Space is probably the one exception. If space tourism takes off, I'm sure there will be plenty of progressive jobs there, and I think there is little chance that it won't what with all the funding it's getting these days.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you don't believe in the essential importance of a strong military you are NOT a conservative.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Curious, I was under the impression that all major wars the US got into in the 20th century were fought under Democratic presidents (some of them very liberal). Too much for liberals being "appeasers" then ! </p>
<p>[ol]
[<em>]World War I: Woodrow Wilson.
[</em>]World War II: FDR/Truman.
[<em>]Korean War: Truman.
[</em>]Vietnam War: Lyndon Johnson (continued in the Nixon administration though).
[/ol]</p>
<p>BTW, I'm a liberal myself. Nevertheless, my PhD thesis had direct military application (it was even funded by the US Navy).</p>