I’ll be graduating from HS very soon.
My goal in life can be simplified to - “I want to work at NASA. But I also want to be able to research astrophysics like Stephen Hawkings”
So that would split into my two most passionate subject: Astrophysics and Deep space exploration. Both experimental and theoretical.
Summary of my future desires:
- Astrophysics PhD
- At least a bachelors in astronautical engineering
- research and write on physics
- don’t want to be a college professor
- want to work for NASA as a researcher or engineer
My problem is that I don’t know whats the best way to attempt this as an upcoming undergraduate. Should I focus majoring Astrophysics, while taking engineering classes then go to an astrophysics graduate school? Should I do the reverse? I really want to work with NASA but at the same time I want to research theoretical physics.
I have been thinking over this for months and cannot decide on how I would attempt this. I’d appreciate any and every remarks.
Thank you
Enroll at engineering school and then major in either Mechanical or Chemical Engineering. Boeing, United Technologies Corporation, General Electric Aviation and NASA do hire ME and ChE majors. Or Alternatively, major in Physics and then go for a graduate degree in engineering.
Stephen Hawking doesn’t really research astrophysics. He researches cosmology, which is certainly related, but quite different. If you want to research the kinds of things that Stephen Hawking researches, you’re far better off pursuing a degree in physics, rather than astrophysics, and also taking a few electives in high energy physics and cosmology if possible.
I may be reading it wrong, but it sounds like you’re suggesting that astronautical engineering is experimental astrophysics. Although the two are very closely related, they aren’t really the same thing.
It’s typically not too practical to have a career in both experiment and theory as far as physics is concerned. There simply isn’t enough time to spread oneself across both fields. A graduate degree in astrophysics requires a lot of astronomy and a lot of physics. Astronautical engineering will cover a good amount of physics, but it’s not going to cover the depth of physics that would be covered in a physics or astrophysics degree. It’s worth noting here that there are only a handful of schools that even offer an undergraduate degree in ‘astrophysics.’ An astrophysics degree is really little more than the bulk of a physics degree with an astronomy minor though anyway.
Point being - If you’re going to grad school for astrophysics, it’s assumed that you know the relevant physics that gets covered in a bachelor’s degree. An astronautical engineering degree isn’t going to cover all of this. Similarly, an undergraduate astrophysics degree isn’t going to provide the necessary engineering courses required to pursue a graduate degree in engineering. It’s certainly possible to move from one undergraduate major to grad school in the other field, but there will be a good amount of catching up to do in the process of it.
At the freshman/sophomore level, there will be a great deal of overlap between the two. My advice would be to take the calculus and physics courses that are required for both majors at first, and also take a couple of electives in both fields to see which you prefer.
@comfortablycurt Yes what I meant was cosmology, but I smudged it in with astrophysics because cosmology isn’t a major. For experimental and theoretical, I meant science in general not astrophysics.
Thank you for your advice, it is indeed helpful. Quite a bummer to know that there isn’t much time in the world to study theoretical and experimental. I probably knew that all along, but even now I still want to do both.
There are only a few places in the U.S. that have astronautical engineering. I think they are MIT, the USAFA, and maybe one other. Astrophysics, I don’t know. Physics you can get almost anywhere.
Many people that come into physics/astrophysics etc. come in thinking in terms of a large distinction between theory and experiment in physics. This distinction isn’t always so clear. People often think that theoretical physics suggests “the theory of everything” and other such esoteric (some might say pseudoscientific) ideas such as those being researched by Professor Hawking. Point being…keep your options open. Don’t go into a physics major thinking you want to do research like Stephen Hawking. There are very few people doing this kind of research within the physics community, even though it’s the stuff that gets romanticized most. I’m not at all suggesting that this is the case for you, but some people read a Brief History of Time and Cosmos by Carl Sagan, then come in with a very skewed idea of what physics is or how one actually does physics.
Cosmology isn’t a major…but astrophysics is barely a major either. Astrophysics is really just a physics major with a few astronomy classes. It’s nothing fundamentally different. The majority of the astrophysicists in the world did not major in astrophysics. They majored in physics. Neither of the majors you’re showing interest in are very common, and that’s worth keeping in mind. There are only a few schools that I’m aware of that actually have an astrophysics degree, and there are only a handful that offer astronautical engineering.
Realistically, you are not yet even aware of the distinction between theoretical and experimental physics in any real way yet at this point, and the distinction doesn’t even matter at this point. An undergraduate degree is going to involve elements of both regardless. The distinction between theory and experiment is completely irrelevant until graduate school at the soonest.
@albert69 there are a handful of those in California (where I am).
@comfortablycurt I see, thank you. That’s probably why I was advised by a professor (formerly working at NASA) recommended me to not worry about much of the specifics while in undergrad and grad will be the most important.
Yes I am very likely those kind of people you’ve said that would read Brief History of Time (I have never read it but was planning to) and would romanticize about it.
For now I am more convinced that engineering is probably the best idea out of my interest to be the most successful in joining NASA. I may be wrong. However I still cannot ignore my huge desire to be directly involved in researching the origin of the universe.
Why do you say it is better to pursue a physics major than an astrophysics major if you claim that “Astrophysics is really just a physics major with a few astronomy classes”
Because researching the origins of the universe is not what astrophysicists really do. That’s what a cosmologist does. Astrophysicists work on a lot of things that are very closely related to origins research, but it’s not the same. Cosmology is more closely related to particle physics than it is to astrophysics. Astrophysics is the study of astronomical bodies and astronomical phenomenon. Cosmology is the study of space and the universe…not astronomical bodies as such. For instance, an astrophysicist is likely to spend time analyzing orbital periods of distant astronomical bodies to see how they interact with the bodies around them. They’re likely to study things like supernovas and quasars and such. A cosmologist doesn’t really do this. They study things like why the universe is expanding, what occurs when we trace back universal expansion, what happens to the actual space around highly massive bodies, and other such topics. These are closely related fields, but they are very distinct.
An astrophysics degree typically involves about 3/4 of a physics degree, with 5-6 astronomy courses occupying those empty slots. Astronomy is certainly beneficial for working in cosmology, but the things learned in those classes are not really what one would use to do work in cosmology. To do work in cosmology, it’s more important to take as much physics as possible, and to take on as many high energy/particle physics electives as possible.
It’s also worth noting that there are very few people actually researching the origins of the universe in the way that the public often perceives. There are many people doing work that has connections to universal origins hypotheses and such, but this isn’t quite the same as “researching the origin of the universe.” There are probably a handful of people in the world that when asked “what are you researching?,” can legitimately respond with “the origin of the universe.” This is such a fantastically broad topic that it really says nothing about what one actually does. One could be referring to the neutrino mass hierarchy(requiring wide knowledge of high energy/particle physics and quantum field theory) or one could be referring to black hole cosmology(involving quantum field theory and general relativity); these are significantly different areas of study that both have connections to the origins of the universe. Neither of these topics really require much in the way of knowledge of astronomy aside from the general basics.
Astronomy/astrophysics is an interesting field, but it may not be quite what you think it is. I’d recommend researching the differences between cosmology, astrophysics, and astronomy. They’re all related fields, but are distinct in their own ways.
@comfortablycurt I will research on the differences and take classes on them but at the moment I won’t be able to decide which field I want to be in. You can say that I am fine with any field as long as I am able to study and contribute to the knowledge of the universe.
If I may ask, what are your background/career in physics? You seem to be quite knowledgeable on this topic. So much so that I am very surprised that I am lost in words and see my ignorance.
Another question would be, how would I juggle physics and astronautical engineering. You’ve told me to take classes as an undergrad on both but there is the barrier (Junior year) that I have to choose one or the other.
My background in physics thus far is just that I’m an undergraduate physics major. I intend to complete a PhD in physics, somewhere in the area of particle physics. I’ve managed to get pretty familiar with the field throughout my undergrad years so far.
Physics majors often come into their major with a grand idea of unraveling the mysteries of the cosmos and uniting quantum mechanics with general relativity and such. I was one of them. I came into physics wanting to research string theory someday. Over time I’ve realized that string theory is most likely a dead end, and it’s almost certainly a dead end as far as careers are concerned for the majority of up and coming physicists. However, physics is an amazingly broad field. The more useful aspects of physics tend to be in the area of optics, condensed matter, and materials science in general. The least useful aspects of physics tend to be the areas that are most romanticized. That doesn’t mean that these areas of physics aren’t worth studying. The Big Bang, elementary particle physics, universal expansion, and all of these other questions are some of “the big questions” in science, and they’re definitely worth researching. But they tend not to be the most funded areas of scientific research. Getting into positions and getting funding to do research pertaining to the origins of the universe (in any direct sense) is going to be very difficult. These positions are very competitive. However, there are countless areas of physics that are incredibly fascinating and worth researching.
Point being, I’m halfway through my undergraduate degree and I still don’t really know what area of physics I’d like to pursue in graduate school and beyond. My biggest interests are in particle physics, and namely the intersection of particle physics and cosmology. I’m currently writing a paper on neutrino oscillations, and I’ve found myself very interested in the field of neutrino cosmology in general. Perhaps enough to pursue some area of that field in my graduate studies. At the beginning of a physics degree it is really difficult to say with any certainty what area of physics you want to pursue later. Many of us go in dreaming of uniting QM and GR or something like that, and almost all of us find that our academic passions and strengths lie elsewhere. You might find later that the theory of superconducting materials is incredibly interesting. This is an area of physics that quite often falls into a distinct intersection of theory, experiment, and engineering. It could certainly have applications to deep space travel in the future as well. And that’s but one of the hundreds of areas of physics. As you take your classes, you’ll figure out where your main interests lie.