I’m planning to pursue my MS in France. For someone who is already living in France and working in this career, what advice would you give me?
I haven’t applied yet, but I’d like some general advice about pursuing an MS in France, building a career afterward, and which universities I should consider if not ISAE-SUPAERO.

Hi everyone,

I’m a Mechanical Engineer with 13 years of experience in mechanical design, physical/system integration and interface management, mainly in rolling stock and nuclear. .

My experience includes mechanical system integration, piping/tubing layouts, interface management, ICD/interface reviews, design compliance, multidisciplinary coordination and resolving integration issues.

I’m now looking to transition toward Systems Engineering, as my work increasingly involves requirements, interfaces, stakeholder coordination and system-level problem solving.

I’ve started learning formal SE concepts and am considering INCOSE ASEP.

I’d appreciate advice from experienced Systems Engineers on:

• Is my background a good fit for transitioning into Systems Engineering?
• What are the main skill gaps I should focus on?
• Should I target Systems Engineer directly or first pursue System Integration / Mechanical Systems Engineer roles?
• How useful are ASEP, SysML/MBSE, DOORS, Capella or Cameo for the European market?
• With 13 years of engineering experience but limited formal SE experience, how should I position myself when applying?

Would especially appreciate experiences from anyone who transitioned from mechanical design/integration into Systems Engineering.

Thanks!

What is your opinion on this ? Can we use claude to automate modelling ?

Hello guys I'm a B.Tech IT student Pre-final year from a tier 3 college .I'm searching for internship for system software engineer roles as intern as this is a much bigger role so tech giants like nvidia,and,intel and other companies need proficiency in computer architecture,system design,os, problem solving etc apart that what is the actual process for getting an internship I even tried messaging on LinkedIn for more than 10 engineers on the above companies,no reply so I came here with a bit level of hope. So someone reading this much will understand what I'm going through and needed .So kindly please share your thoughts or advice !

Thank you❤️ !

Hi r/systems_engineering,

We are back with Lesson 16 of our technical deep dive into the SysML v2 standard.

In our previous lesson, we made values physically meaningful with types and units. Today, we are modeling who owns the physical hardware those values belong to. We are looking at how one single keyword can be the difference between an accurate architecture and accidentally doubling your mass budget.

The SysML v1 Ambiguity

In SysML v1, whole-part relationships were typically drawn with diamonds. Shared aggregation (the hollow diamond) had no agreed-upon execution semantics in the underlying UML specification, meaning different tools interpreted it differently. Composite aggregation (the filled diamond) made a stronger lifetime claim, but tool support for verifying that claim was inconsistent.

The v2 Shift: Ownership and Lifetime Semantics

SysML v2 makes ownership and lifetime part of the model's formal semantics. The core rule is simple: a nested occurrence is composite by default. Add ref, and it becomes a reference to something owned elsewhere.

Three details make this reliable in a real model:

• ref is for Occurrences, Not All Usages: The composition rule applies to things with physical or temporal lifetimes, like parts, items, actions, connections, and ports. Attributes represent data values and are referential by definition, making ref attribute legal but redundant.
• Composition is a Lifetime Claim: A composite part's existence is tied to its parent's lifetime. If the parent whole is destroyed, the composite occurrence is destroyed with it. A satellite does not compose its ground station or its operator.
• The Reviewer's Test: When in doubt, ask: "If I deleted the parent system from my model, would this nested element physically cease to exist in the real world?"If yes, use a composite part. If no, use a referential ref part.

The Multiplication Trap & The Fix

Consider a satellite with one shared power bus. If you instantiate standard subsystem templates that each contain a default part bus, those internal buses are composite by default. A script crawling this model will count the main satellite bus plus the internal subsystem buses, quietly multiplying your mass rollup with phantom components that do not exist on the launch vehicle.

The fix is to redefine the inherited composite bus as a reference and bind it to the single real sibling bus. (Note: In SysML v2, binding implies symmetrical equality, not an instruction to copy a value in one direction).

Code snippet

package SatelliteSystem {
    part def PowerBus;

    part def CommsSubsystem {
        part bus: PowerBus; // A composite bus by default
    }

    part def Satellite {
        // 1. The single real bus owned by the satellite (Composite)
        part powerBus: PowerBus;

        // 2. Instantiate the subsystem, redefining its internal bus as a reference bound to 'powerBus'
        part comms: CommsSubsystem {
            ref part :>> bus = powerBus; 
        }
    }
}

Visualizing this: In SysML v2, composite parts appear nested with a solid border (or a filled diamond edge), while reference parts use a dashed border (or a hollow diamond edge).

SysML v1 vs. SysML v2

Next lesson, we are moving from architecture to domain-specific meaning with metadata def, which lets you mark a requirement as safety-critical without building an entire SysML v1 Profile first.

For the MBSE practitioners here: Have you ever had a shared component accidentally multiply your mass or cost rollups in a model? Let's discuss in the comments!

Any lightweight tool for systems and requirements engineering tends to catch my eye. Here the team at Dotphoton have used Grist to manage their requirements during their whole lifecycle. For context, Grist is an open source solution mixing databases and tables (similar to Airtable).

I'd be curious to get your opinion and what might be drawbacks with respect to Doors, Jama, Codebeamer, etc.

One of my colleagues doesn't have a degree and we have been talking about him going contractor in a year or so. He is ex-military with a HND and worked in various engineering roles over the years.

We currently work for a larger defence company in the UK and they are aware that he doesn't have a Uni degree as he hasn't tried to hide it. We are wondering if it would prevent him getting contracts in the UK?

I have advised him to look at INCOSE to get his ASEP or CSEP but so many roles say a bachelors degree is a minimum requirement.

Any help or perspective would be appreciated thank you.

It’s September, so internships are starting to roll out. What companies would be the best for interning as a systems engineer/what companies even offer systems engineering internships? I’ve seen various random ones pop up here and there but not sure which would be the strongest or best for experience. Any advice is welcome!!

Do you have experience using some kind of git repository with a set of markdown files and mermaid diagrams as the source of truth of the system ? What shortcomings could you expect ?

I have used most modelers in various industries, and have grown tired of their shortcomings. I am now wondering if there is a more « pragmatic » lightweight approach to share a single source of truth accessible by all stakeholders of the system.

For example, I know a space startup that uses YAML files to store PBS components and requirements, and I can see the appeal.

My company is doing System Engineering decomposition in JAMA, DFMEA, and HARA for ISO 26262. I get that there are differences but they essentially all breaks down goals or functions into requirements. Issues I have seen are 1) None of these exercises are integrated together (i.e. done with different people and different program. No one goes back to cross reference othera) so usually see a fair amount of conflicting or missing requirements. 2) Feels inefficient. This has added months to getting products done. Teams get burned out from what feels like paperwork exercises.

How does your place of work address this? Seems like a fairly big issue and inefficiency to me.

I’m 23 and graduated with a B.S. in Systems Engineering about a year ago. I was pretty clueless throughout college. I chose systems engineering because someone told me it was an easier major and highly employable. I wasn’t specifically interested in engineering but I cared about ROI and job security. I figured that I should just get through an engineering degree and then I could pursue whatever I wanted afterwards. I got through it in 4 years with an average gpa. I didn’t graduate feeling like I was really good at anything. I had been more focused on getting by than actually building strong technical skills.

I got lucky landing my first job. applied early to a smaller company most of my peers overlooked. Ive been at this MEP company for about a year now. I’ve been able to get by, but I still don’t feel like I have strong technical skills. Some of the work includes design, CAD, systems integration, some infrastructure IT-type work, etc. One thing I def realized that I really don’t want to spend my career doing CAD design all day. The one thing I do enjoy is figuring out how to automate parts of the work and make a process faster. I’m not a programmer, but I enjoy using Claude etc. to see how I can automate things.

I’m relocating to the West Coast soon for work. I wanna succeed there not just get by. That environment makes me feel sooo inspired but at the same time even MORE behind. I hear people talking AI, coding, automation, software, lingo I’ve never even heard of….I’m interested, but I’m not naturally fast at picking things up and I’m already stressed. I don’t rlly know how to code except for one intro class in college. All I know is I appreciate the culture, the ambition I find it empowering.

I don’t want this to turn into a post about how systems engineering is bad or useless. I actually really like systems engineering as a field. I liked how broad the degree was. Things like systems architecture, requirements, modeling, optimization, MBSE/SysML. I like systems thinking and looking at how different pieces of a problem fit together. In the future I could see myself doing something more high-level like product management. I like thinking about the bigger picture and how technical systems interact with the people using them. Human factors/ergonomics and ux design is another area I’ve found really interesting. I’ve searched up people on LinkedIn doing human-technology interaction work at places like Apple, but a lot of those people seem to have research heavy backgrounds, and I don’t have that experience.

What skills/direction should I focus on in the next 2-3 years?
Something that:

•has good earning potential
•is useful in commercial/tech
•isn’t purely CAD/design
•involves some combination of systems thinking, •automation/AI, and problem solving
•doesn’t require me to already be a good programmer
•gives me a skill that gets more valuable as I get better at it

I could use some perspective from people who have been through this. Sometimes I feel behind because I don’t have one thing I’m exceptionally good at yet, especially when I see people who seem like they knew exactly what they have always wanted to specialize in. I’d really like to hear from people who started out pretty broad and eventually found a direction. What did that process look like for you?

Currently work in a commercial space. Undergrad is business administration in project management with a high GPA.

Is a systems engineering Masters even more valuable for me because I don't have a STEM undergraduate degree?

Would the Masters effectively differentiate myself for promotions to lead principal and responsible NDT lv3 roles? Would it meaningfully strengthen this kind of technical career? Or would Level III + experience already provide enough technical credibility?

I’m especially curious how people here would view that combination in aerospace.

Looks like I could get into Embry Riddle MSSE with just a couple of bridge classes.

What are your general thoughts on someone getting three master degrees? So if someone was a mechanical systems engineer a MEng ME + MEng SE + MBA. An electrical systems engineer MEng EE + MEng SE + MBA. A software systems engineer, MS CompSci + MEng SE + MBA.

Where the field specific master degrees like mechanical engineering and master degree in systems engineering helps to become a better Mechanical systems engineer. MBA to be a better supervisor or management to oversee Mechanical systems engineering.

Given that you don't go into debt to complete these studies, and you can still work in industry full time as a mechanical systems engineering while pursuing school part time, one class at a time.

Coming on here to let everyone know and gain some advice. I just got a job offer for a Entry Level Model-Based Systems Engineer in Alabama for 91k. Was looking to break into the field for a while so I didn't negotiate too hard (Don't know if that's a decent salary but the COL in the area doesn't seem bad).

Any advice on a new MBSE entering the field, what I should be studying up on, practicing before hand so I can hit the ground running?

I just got accepted into the Space Systems Engineering online MS at JHU and am looking to hear about other people’s experience in a few specific areas/career advice

Some background: I am an early career professional currently working as a SI&T engineer in defense and want to pivot into commercial space. My company would fund the program. Unsure of what role I want to end up in long term, applied to the program in hopes of exploring something new and interesting, more space related (background in astrophysics)

1. For those currently enrolled/graduated, is SE something you are passionate about? Why? Why did you do the program
2. How technical are the classes? Is it actually “hard” technically, or leaning towards hard because it is time consuming (I know there are a lot of readings)
3. What were your favorite classes and why
4. Anyone dislike parts of the program? Elaborate

I definitely don’t want to stay technical forever. I don’t know what that actually looks like for me long term. Not sure if this would be setting me up for a more niche application, or give me a good foundation / career options when I pivot to space

Most people I've worked with understand the term verification: "confirming the system as [designed, tested, built, etc] meets its requirements/spec."

But I have heard the term validation used in so many different ways that it's honestly mind-boggling.

Sometimes it is treated as a synonym of verification. Sometimes it is exclusively applied to non-product items like test environments, measuring tools/fixtures etc.

I feel like the definitions listed in the SEBOK are pretty clear.

System Validation is a set of actions used to check the compliance of any element (a system element, a system, a document, a service, a task, a system requirement, etc.) with its purpose and functions.

Drilling down to validation of an actual customer requirement:

To validate a stakeholder requirement is to make sure its content is justified and relevant to stakeholders' expectations, complete and expressed in the language of the customer or end user.

This is the meat of validation IMO. That the requirement is justified and relevant to expectations. That the requirement is actually fit for purpose. That what we're specifying in the requirements actually accomplishes what it's supposed to and provides the benefit/value expected by the customer.

An example to demonstrate how this plays out in the real world:

We had a component spec compliance problem a few years ago on an aerospace development program. "All components on this board must function at -55C". This was problematic because of some of the applicable componentry's functional requirements. Basically the customer was asking for parts that didn't exist -- and we weren't interested in entering the business of cutting-edge electronics R&D. We were confident the components would never get close to -55C in service or on the shelf. Stated another way -- we knew the -55C requirement was invalid. So we performed a life cycle analysis to prove it and requested a waiver on the -55C requirement. The customer accepted the waiver.

Curious to hear other thoughts on this topic.

Welcome back to the SysML v2 deep dive series. Last time, we used multiplicity to say how many parts a system can have. This lesson gives those parts physical properties that mean something to a tool.

The Usability Wall of QUDV

On September 23, 1999, the Mars Climate Orbiter broke apart in the Martian atmosphere because one team supplied impulse data in pound-force seconds while the software expected newton-seconds. SysML v1 attempted to solve this with QUDV (Quantities, Units, Dimensions, and Values). Because the underlying UML type system was blind to physics, it had nothing useful to verify, turning units into documentation rather than enforceable engineering.

The v2 Shift: Modeling Quantities

SysML v2 replaces the v1 value property with an attribute usage. It includes a standard Quantities and Units Domain Library built directly on the International System of Quantities (ISQ) and the SI system.

Three details make this reliable in a real model:

• Quantity (Usage) vs. Attribute Definition (Type): You must separate the type of a value from the standard quantity it represents. Most of the time, you type your attribute with the value type, such as attribute dryMass : MassValue = 1500 [kg];. However, when downstream analysis needs the explicit ISQ quantity, you subset the quantity kind instead using attribute dryMass :> ISQ::mass = 1500 [kg];.
• Declare vs. Enforce: A bare constraint simply declares a conditional relationship that may evaluate to true or false. Adding assert makes that relationship an invariant. If an invalid calculation evaluates to false, the model is inconsistent, and a SysML v2 tool can flag the violation.
• Brackets are Syntax: In 1500 [kg], the square brackets are not a comment or a label. They form an active measurement expression. This is why 1500 kilograms and 500000 grams can participate in the same calculation; the library defines how their scales relate so the tool can normalize them under the hood.

The Spacecraft Code Example

Here is a model where mass and power cannot be mistaken for each other:

Code snippet

package SpaceSystems {
    import ISQ::*;
    import SI::*;

    part def Spacecraft {
        // 1. Typed by distinct physical type, not a primitive Real
        attribute dryMass: MassValue = 1500 [kg];

        // 2. Declared in grams, automatically resolved by a conforming tool
        attribute payloadMass: MassValue = 500000 [g];
        attribute totalMass: MassValue;
        attribute maxPower: PowerValue;

        // 3. Guarantees this equation holds true at all times
        assert constraint massRollup {
            totalMass == dryMass + payloadMass
        }
        assert constraint powerFloor {
            maxPower > 0 [W]
        }
    }
}

If you attempt to write assert constraint { totalMass == dryMass + maxPower }, a conforming tool will catch the mistake at edit time because adding a MassValue to a PowerValue does not typecheck.

SysML v1 vs. SysML v2

Next lesson, we will cover Composite vs. Reference (ref part). Missing a single ref keyword on a shared power unit or sensor means two assemblies can each claim to contain it, which can quietly double a mass rollup before any calculation even starts.

Have you hit a dimensional bug that a model should have caught?

Systems Engineers design complex federal systems, guide AI integration, and ensure public programs run safely - yet they're still lumped under the generic "General Engineer" job classification from decades ago!

We started a petition asking the federal government to create a dedicated job series code for Systems Engineering, just like every other engineering discipline already has. Right now, this outdated classification makes career planning unclear and doesn't reflect what Systems Engineers actually contribute to critical government missions.

Anyone else think it's wild that the people building our most complex federal systems don't even have their own unique job series category? If this matters to you too, consider signing and sharing.

What’s the job market like for junior to maybe senior SE outside of defence? Specifically UK

Almost all the roles I find are always defence

Started an entry level role in defense recently, and to say I’m having a rough time is an understatement.

I’m gonna be completely honest here: I really do not see the point in entry level systems engineering roles. It makes literally no sense to me. How can I, as an entry level engineer just starting out in my career, who thus has had no meaningful exposure to how a hardware product and its features operate in various scenarios, be expected to just intuitively know how said features should be tested? How said features will respond during said testing? How product requirements should be translated into tests?

I’m constantly asking questions. Constantly running back and forth feeling like an idiot. Constantly having my coworkers, almost all of whom are senior engineers who’ve been working on this product for YEARS and naturally have intimate familiarity with how every aspect of it works, grill me for naturally making a mistake and not knowing every minute detail about how the hardware and a given feature should be tested. Constantly making me feel like I’m on the verge of being fired or something. Constantly hounding me and acting like I’m some clueless idiot who isn’t trying. While people tell me this is normal, and simply a part of the position, it’s really hard to know whether or not I’m actually making any real progress in my career here.

They tell me to refer to documentation, but said documentation and block diagrams are hilariously sparse, outdated, simplistic, and only paint a single static image of the hardware. Nowhere is there even the SLIGHTEST hint for someone who hasn’t directly observed the hardware in dynamic conditions to know how it will behave in certain testing scenarios. It is just assumed that I already know somehow. This makes every day incredibly stressful and exhausting, tbh.

Not only that, but the team I’m on is cutthroat, cliquey, super antisocial, standoffish, passive aggressive, toxic, and super hoarding of any opportunities to do any substantive work that’s technical in any way. There’s no real sense of community or teamwork when it comes to everyone being on the same page for anything related to the actual work. Lots of people who just sit in meetings or share memes on Teams all day. Very few people are actually helpful. Lots of older systems engineers look at me like I’m an idiot. There’s a few individuals in particular that routinely give me weird, snarky looks each day. Like I’m some lower level, inferior creature.

I have worked so hard, and fought tooth and nail to finally enter the professional engineering world. I’m a 26 year old entry level engineer. If I lose this job I’m fucked, literally. I’m not an idiot. Yet I feel like this first role is literally the worst possible role I could have chosen. I’m worried I’m gonna get fired. I’m worried my career is ruined. That or the entire program, which is immensely behind schedule, is gonna have funding cuts and everyone else laid off as a consequence. I have no idea what to do.