Rocket engines generally are simpler than jet engines, not more complicated.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Rocket science is tough, and rockets have a way of failing.
Sometimes people wonder why aeroplanes are so cheap and rockets are so expensive. Even the most superficial comparison shows one obvious difference: aeroplane engines use outside air to burn their fuel, while rockets have to carry their own oxidisers along.
Rocket science has been mythologized all out of proportion to its true difficulty.
Trying to build a spaceship by making an aeroplane fly faster and higher is like trying to build an aeroplane by making locomotives faster and lighter - with a lot of effort, perhaps you could get something that more or less works, but it really isn't the right way to proceed.
Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines.
When you launch in a rocket, you're not really flying that rocket. You're just sort of hanging on.
The car is the most regulated thing in the world. It's more complicated to make a car than it is to send a rocket to space.
It is far more difficult to be simple than to be complicated; far more difficult to sacrifice skill and easy execution in the proper place, than to expand both indiscriminately.
It seems that 'rocket scientist' is a job category that's here for the long haul, like 'mortician.' But all this activity masks an important point: rockets are not a terribly efficient way to lift things into space.
All military and most commercial aircraft use our designs that process power from jet engines.