I would recommend the same approach, i.e., write papers and get them published, but for another reason.

If, after a while, you realise that grad school just isn't you, perhaps because of a stingy professor or something along those lines, then, when you quit, you'll still have your publications even if you didn't get your degree. And, since the papers have been through the peer review process, you'll have the word of your peers that you are a capable researcher.

It is a "solved" problem. But that doesn't make it easy. Far from it.

When controlling an object like this you'd usually use a state-space controller, most likely an optimal controller.

First you need a mathematical model of the system. Since this is almost entirely a kinematic system they've most likely constructed a non-linear model using first order principles and then derived a first order approximation of it. The model won't be completely accurate, so they'll have to test it up against the actual system to see if it is "good enough". (Where the ability to judge if a model is "good enough" comes with practice.)

Then, using the linear model, you can construct an observer so that you'll be able to estimate the states from the actual measurements. In this case I'd probably go for a Kalman filter.

Finally you can synthesize you optimal controller, that generates the control signal from the estimated state.

As far as I can tell, this is the first untethered flight of this system. Therefore they haven't had the chance to test if their mathematical model is correct, since there's a good chance the tether will change the dynamics of the systems, and errors in the model will result in a bad estimator and a bad controller, that, because the estimator is bad, will be fed false information. Getting reality to conform to the used math is no simple feat.

...and that was just the mathematical core of the control system. All the calculations has to run on a RT-OS, and all the electrical components, e.g. computers, sensors and actuators, have to work perfectly. Add to that all the various start up procedures that also have to be controlled, the trajectory calculations, etc. etc.

You've got it backwards. Coloumb is defined as c = a*s, while Ampere is defined as the constant current that will produce an attractive force of 2 × 10^–7 newton per metre of length between two straight, parallel conductors of infinite length and negligible circular cross section placed one metre apart in a vacuum.

Coloumb, as a unit, is derived fra Ampere. Furthermore, Coloumb is a measure of charge, not electrons, in the same way that Ampere is a measure of current, not electrions/s. If you know that your current results from a stream of electrons, instead of say, ions, protons, or positrons, then you can calculate the corresponding electrons/s.

Still, you're right that GP is wrong.

It seems they were, but catching fabricated results like these isn't exactly easy and it won't happen in the review process.

In order to catch fabricated results you'd either have to repeat the experiment, which nobody wanted to do since the research was low impact, or catch discrepancies in the data, which was how he was caught out.

And to add to your list: High speed simulations of dynamical systems, metereology, numerical optimization, ...

Basically, grab any engineering/hard science subject you can think of, and they'll run simulations.

If you mean the "popping noise" the TM65 engine that Copenhagen Suborbitals testet made at startup, then it was a bit of engine oscilations. It's most likely caused by the engine being run at a low fuel pressure. The fuel will ignite in the ignition chamber, causing the pressure to rise, giving a higher exhaust flow, causing the pressure to drop, giving less exhaust flow, resulting in more fuel in the ignition chamber, that ignites, ...

At higher fuel pressures the oscilations are dampened. (But they do sound awsome!)

I don't know if that's the case with SpaceX's Falcon, but I'm pretty sure that if they have engine oscilations it's nothing they can't handle.

Well, sort of, yes.

When I get paid enough to cover my needs I don't really care about money. If I had to choose between two jobs: one with huge pay and dreary work, and another with adequete pay and interesting work, I'd go for the second job.

And, wire wrapping was at that time better at handling vibrations and bumps than solder. Perfect for avionics!

Oh, I miss wire wrapping.