<p>
[quote]
Who on the Caltech faculty (from any of those departments you just mentioned) specializes on jet/rocket propulsion
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Dimotakos and Shepherd</p>
<p><a href="http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/people/faculty/dimotakis.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/people/faculty/dimotakis.html</a>
<a href="http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/people/faculty/shepherd.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/people/faculty/shepherd.html</a>
[quote]
spacecraft design
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ortiz, among others.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/people/faculty/ortiz.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/people/faculty/ortiz.html</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
high-speed aerodynamics? aeroelasticity?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Pullin</p>
<p><a href="http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/people/faculty/pullin.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/people/faculty/pullin.html</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
n-body orbital mechanics?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is basically astrodynamics, in which case you are talking about Marsden.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.cds.caltech.edu/%7Emarsden/%5B/url%5D">http://www.cds.caltech.edu/~marsden/</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
I specifically asked for INDUSTRY stats (most engineers go to work in industry, after all, not research) show me where in INDUSTRY Caltech AEs have left an overall larger impact than GT AE grads overall?</p>
<p>Count the number of Caltech AEs in industry and then compare them to the number of GT AEs in industry. Get back to me when you are done.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've seen you use this argument several times, and you always conveniently ignore the fact that Caltech simply has far far fewer people than GT does. Obviously GT is going to have more people in the aerospace industry just because it graduates more people in general. That's like saying that most Nobel Prize winners come from non-Ivy League schools. This is true, but a meaningless statement because most people in general graduate from non-Ivy schools. </p>
<p>What you need to show is the PROPORTIONS of GT vs. Caltech people, relative to the number of graduates produced. Hence, I think the burden of proof is on you. You constantly ask for people to show their data, but where is yours? Have you shown that the PROPORTIONS of GT grads are higher than the proportions of Caltech grads? I believe you have not. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And again where are the Caltech AE faculty? </p>
<p>Don't make the mistake in thinking that Caltech has a good AE program (what program?) just because it is Caltech. You need professors and faculty (more than one) to have a department.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nobody is saying that a school is good just for the name. But you constantly harp on the fact that Caltech supposedly doesn't have a dedicated AA department. By that argument, MIT doesn't have a CS department (because it is encapsulated within the unified EECS division). I fail to see what having a dedicated department really has to do with anything. </p>
<p>Take the argument to its logical conclusion. Harvey Mudd is arguably the best purely undergrad engineering school in the world. But it doesn't have dedicated "departments". Yet anybody who knows engineering schools cannot deny the notable success of Mudd engineering graduates, especially compared to the small number of graduates it produces.</p>
<p>Look, the point is, there is no need to go around attacking other schools. If you want to promote GT, then that is your prerogative, but there is no need to go around trashing other fine schools.</p>