Announcements

International Women in Engineering Day (INWED), brought to the global engineering community by the Women's Engineering Society (WES), will be celebrated on 23 June 2026. This year, under the theme #EngineeringIntelligence, we are sincerely honored to interview the Editorial Board Member of Aerospace (ISSN: 2226-4310), Prof. Dr. Yang Gao.

1. Could you share the story of your journey into engineering?

My journey began not with a single spark but with a persistent curiosity about how machines could perceive and act in environments too dangerous for humans. I earned my B.Eng. (First Class Honors) and PhD from Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, where I discovered my passion for intelligent robotic systems. After receiving the Singapore Millennium Fellowship on intelligent and autonomous vehicles, I moved to the UK in 2004. That began an over 20-year chapter as a space roboticist during which I founded and led the Space Technology for Autonomous & Robotic systems Laboratory (STAR‑LAB) first at the University of Surrey, and later became Professor of Robotics, heading the Centre for Robotics Research at King’s College London. In mid-2025, I joined HKUST and started to lead the first Hong Kong lunar surface rover project and industry-funded orbital robotic arm project. What drove me through was the desire to solve real, extreme-environment problems, from formation flying satellites to planetary rovers, using engineering intelligence. I never saw robotics as just hardware and code; I saw it as enabling humans to reach beyond our physical limits.

2. Who or what has been the most important source of support, mentorship, or inspiration in your engineering journey?

My family has been a constant pillar of support, especially by never suggesting that engineering was not for me. Professionally, I was fortunate to work alongside dedicated colleagues and students who shared a passion for space robotics. Over the years, I have also drawn inspiration from the resilience of the teams I led on major missions like ESA ExoMars, Proba3, and CNSA Chang’E‑3 and ‑8. Beyond individuals, I am inspired by the purpose of our work—knowing that a perception algorithm we develop might help a spacecraft safely navigate on the lunar south pole. That sense of responsibility, shared across my research groups in Surrey, London, and now Hong Kong, has been my most consistent motivation.

3. The INWED 2026 theme is #EngineeringIntelligence. What does “Engineering Intelligence” mean to you in the context of your own work?

To me, #EngineeringIntelligence is not just about AI or optimization—it is the synergy between robust sensing, reconfigurable autonomy, and bio-inspired design. In my own work on visual GNC (guidance, navigation and control) for space missions, intelligence means a system that can create accurate 3D maps in real time with low computational power, reason about its own hardware and software state, and make safe decisions, such as guiding a spacecraft to fly in formation or a rover to navigate challenging extra-terrestrial terrains, without waiting for Earth commands. It also means learning from nature, as with our “wasp drill” (Dual Reciprocating Drilling technology) for low‑gravity environments. Engineering intelligence is resilience embedded in hardware and algorithms, designed for extreme environments where few second chances exist.

4. As AI, data-driven tools, automation, and digital technologies become more visible in engineering, what human qualities remain essential for responsible engineering?

Despite rapid advances, human qualities remain irreplaceable:

• Ethical accountability: An AI optimizes a metric; an engineer decides which metric matters for safety;
• Physical intuition: In space or nuclear environments, data is sparse and often misleading. An engineer’s deep understanding of physics catches what a neural network might miss;
• Responsible risk-taking: Knowing when to trust an autonomous system—and when to override it—requires human judgment;
• Empathy for end-users: Designing for astronauts, mission controllers, or nuclear decommissioning teams means understanding their constraints and fears;

I tell my students: use AI and automation aggressively but never outsource your reasoning or your conscience.

5. Could you share one project, discovery, design, publication, or collaboration that best demonstrates intelligent engineering in action?

One example I am particularly proud of is our Dual Reciprocating Drilling (DRD) technology, also known as the “wasp drill.” Inspired by how a wasp’s ovipositor drills into wood, we developed a low‑mass, energy‑efficient drilling mechanism that allows deep sampling in low‑gravity environments with flexible deployment. It won the COSPAR Outstanding Paper Award in 2016 and was a finalist for the IEEE/ASME AIM Best Paper Award in 2019. The knowledge accumulated through this technological development has been applied in ESA’s Lunar Polar Sample Return mission as well as transferred to the utility sector on Earth for trenchless deployment of fiber cables. To me, this is engineering intelligence at its best: a bio‑inspired solution that solves a hard constraint (low mass, low power, uncertain terrain) through clever mechanical design and autonomous control—not brute force.

6. What distinctive strengths do female engineers bring to academic research, and what strategies would you recommend for leveraging these advantages in career development?

From my experience leading large research centers and mentoring UN’s Space4Women program, female engineers often bring systematic risk assessment, inclusive leadership, and a tendency to ask “what could go wrong?” early and thoroughly—which is essential in safety‑critical fields like space robotics. Strategies I recommend:

• Own your risk‑awareness as a technical strength. Put it front and center in design reviews and funding proposals;
• Build peer networks across institutions—women are still under‑represented in some technical committees. Create your own “shadow” board of trusted reviewers;
• Seek mentorship from multiple sources—including male colleagues. My own career benefited from support across genders and institutions.

7. What concrete actions could academic publishers like MDPI take to better support and amplify the work of women in STEM fields?

Publishers have significant leverage. As an Editor-in-Chief of a major journal myself, I recommend:

• Double‑blind peer review as a default—reduces unconscious bias, especially for early‑career female authors;
• Actively recruit women into editorial boards as decision‑makers, not tokens. Track and publish gender representation data transparently;
• Celebrate technical excellence in newsletters and social media—focus on the science, not the gender. Feature female‑led research prominently but on merit;
• Provide flexible review deadlines and childcare grants for major conference‑journal collaborations—many female researchers carry disproportionate care responsibilities;
• Invite women to write editorials, perspective pieces, and reviews not just as authors but as thought leaders shaping the journal’s direction;
• Ensure diverse speaker line‑ups at publisher‑sponsored webinars and events.