Why rockets won’t be named after women
My thoughts on the absence of change in Aerospace since the Sixties
A big headline in aerospace news right now is the first orbital launch of Blue Origin’s rocket ‘New Glenn’. And while I am extremely happy there is an up-in-coming competitor to Space X’s Falcon Heavy, every time I hear about New Glenn I get a bit twitchy, but let’s go back in time a bit.
In 2015 Blue Origin launched their first rocket which was designed to take people just to the edge of space and back. They named this rocket New Shepard after Alan Shepard, the first American to reach space. Neat, right? So then when they moved on to orbital rockets they named it New Glenn after John Glenn, the first American to orbit the Earth. And while this is just speculation, in the press release of New Glenn back in 2016, Jeff Bezos alluded to Blue Origin’s next project to be named New Armstrong after Neil Armstrong, the first American on the moon. And if I’m being honest, this is no longer neat to me. In fact, it’s a bit frustrating. If we continue naming things after the first person to achieve something, we risk perpetuating a system that excludes women from recognition. Historically, women weren’t just unable to be the first—they were often barred from even being present. Because women weren’t allowed to go to space until the 1980s, it feels like they’re now being excluded from having rockets named after them—and herein lies the deeper issue I’m grappling with.
The percentage of women working as aerospace engineers in the United States has risen from 12.3% in 2014 to 13.6% in 2022. Can we even call 1.3% over 8 years growth?
Source: https://datausa.io/profile/soc/aerospace-engineers?ethnicity-gender=genderFemaleE
Running the math, at a growth rate of 0.1625% per year it will take 224 years to reach gender parity in Aerospace. If you think gender parity is too unrealistic, it will still take 101 years to reach even 30% of aerospace engineering being women, longer than most people live.
Additionally, when we look at the age demographic of aerospace engineers, there are far fewer women as they progress in their careers.
Source: https://datausa.io/profile/soc/aerospace-engineers?ethnicity-gender=genderFemaleE
Why do we see a clear trend in women leaving but not men? And don’t tell me it’s solely because women are so excited to leave work and raise kids. It is a factor, but can we stop pretending the only reason women are leaving is to have kids? Studies from both Harvard and University of Wisconsin give credit to the continued existence of gender-based biases and their impact on women long term.
Maybe we can go back to the root cause, surely there are only 13.6% of women obtaining aerospace engineering degrees and that’s why there are so few women working as aerospace engineers. Nope, 17.8% of aerospace engineering degrees were awarded to women in 2022. In fact, every degree type awarded more than 13.6% of their degrees to women.
Source: https://swe.org/research/2024/degree-attainment/
I’m not happy with those numbers. It’s also not that institutions can’t do better; MIT boasts near gender parity. In the fall of 2023, 48.8% students in their AeroAstro department identify as women and the school maintained its status as the top aerospace engineering institution in the world.
Now I can hear some people’s thoughts, “Maybe girls just don’t like engineering and don’t have an interest in aerospace or astronomy?”, or “We can’t force girls to want to be engineers”. But those people would be mistaken. In 2002 NASA JPL ran an event to help bridge the gap in women applying to be engineers because studies show that the interest girls have in math and science equals that of boys in elementary school but declines sharply by the time girls leave middle school. UK studies show that at ages 11-14, 46.4% of girls in the UK would consider a career in engineering versus 70.3% of boys. By the time girls reach ages 16-18, only 25% remain interested versus 52% of boys. And girls love space too. In fact, 93% of American kids are interested in outer space, so why can’t we continue to foster that interest in young girls and women?
With numbers like these, I feel as though there is a lack of support for women. I have been very fortunate to find mentors that are advocates for women in STEM and I am grateful for that. But sometimes I feel like women are left out of the important conversations because people assume she is not in aerospace or not an engineer. Not every woman has someone in their corner while society continues to fail them.
We are all quick to celebrate the changes in the aerospace industry from the 60s and cite the mere presence of women in the industry as being a huge breakthrough. I’ve had people say that women don’t face issues entering the workforce anymore and that if we look at change since the 60s, we are clearly improving. But the statistics show that progress is far too slow. If things are improving, then why hasn’t the percentage of women in aerospace increased meaningfully in over a decade? If we are making strides, why do we see such a significant drop-off as women advance in their careers? And if progress is truly happening, then why do a smaller percentage of women hold positions as aerospace engineers than the number of women pursuing aerospace degrees?
The world might have made some room for women but it feels like we’re still carrying forward the same outdated narratives. Today, the image of an engineer is often still a man, and the names of pioneering missions often still look backwards, not forward. Even as we embrace themes like “New pioneers,” the way we name and frame these ventures suggests that the pioneers of the future look just like those of the past. We need to support progress and encourage women to join the industry. We need to mentor them throughout their careers so that they stay. Right now the world is saying to women, “You can get a job in aerospace now, is that not enough?” And to that, I say no.
Share this post:
