I wonder when the expression “It’s not rocket science” will fade from use. Although the current definition of the term is less than a century old, it is already feeling out-dated, at least when coupled to “science.”
Why? The original technology involved in rocket design and flight is relatively backwards next to . . . oh, say, that of an iPhone.
One day the eternal combustion engine represented the pinnacle of human achievement. A handful of decades later — the invention minus bells-and-whistles — is but a blunt hammer in an age of socket wrenches. Can’t wait ’til we move from that innovation to the next.
But back to rockets and the eyeblink of time that delineates their arch:
Rocket:
“projectile,” 1610s, from It. rocchetto “a rocket,” lit. “a bobbin,” dim. of rocca “a distaff,” so called because of cylindrical shape. The Italian word probably is from a Germanic source (cf. O.H.G. rocko “distaff,” O.N. rokkr), from P.Gmc. *rukka-, from PIE base *rug- “to spin.” Originally “fireworks rocket,” meaning “device propelled by a rocket engine” first recorded 1919; rocket-ship first attested 1927. The verb meaning “to spring like a rocket” is from 1883. Rocket science in the figurative sense of “difficult, complex process or topic” is attested by 1985. Rocket scientist is from 1952. [Online Etymology Dictionary]
—
> Related Posts
Tags: cosmos, language, technology
Leave a Reply