<p>So I got admitted to a few graduate programs in Physics and Aerospace Engineering where I could do research in computational astrophysics vs computational aerodynamics. I know its weird to decide between such different programs, but I like both subjects. Without considering job opportunities, I would like astrophysics more. I don't have much intention in going into academia after I finish the phD, but am interested in a research career in industrial R&D (but I heard these are a dying breed), the government labs (Los Alamos, LLNL, etc), military labs (Naval research lab, AFRL, etc) or the defense industry as well. </p>
<p>I heard that astrophysicists can get hired to do stuff like building bombs since they possess skills like using CFD. But how much of a disadvantage I would be at versus those with engineering degrees?
I know they could work on stuff like radar, etc but what about something more engineering-related, like aerodynamics and heat transfer analysis?
Is it important to have produced alot of publications in grad school?</p>
<p>I’m also curious about the positions at the FFRDC’s, such as at RAND, MITRE, John Hopkins Applied Physics Lab, etc. Do these companies look for physics phD’s ? Or is having an engineering degree alot more helpful? Are these positions as hard to obtain as becoming a professor in academia?</p>
<p>Physicists are indeed hired by military labs, but in much lower numbers than engineers. Thus you have to have done work that easily applies, or have done work in computational physics. </p>
<p>Physicists are in greater numbers at government labs, but again the competition is fiercer than for engineers (an engineer can find good work most places in the country, whereas physicists are much more limited if they want to work directly in their field). </p>
<p>As a general rule, the more theoretical your work is, the less likely you are to find a position. Lab positions are much easier to get than tenure-track faculty positions. A large publication record is not usually necessary, but you will likely have to give a talk on your research when interviewing for jobs.</p>
<p>One thing to note is that there is a very closed research culture at military labs, while at government labs you will have more chances to be part of an international research community.</p>
<p>I have worked at a FFRDC, and physicists were something like 5% of the research body. The highest future demand was for CS people, then EE’s, MechE’s… AeroE’s were a small component.</p>
<p>I was thinking of going into computational astrophysics, so I would gain skills and knowledge in CFD and fluids. So is it possible that I could do the same stuff that mechanical/aero engineers do?</p>
<p>For instance, every single component that goes into a satellite has to go through a finite element analysis and optimization to analyze how it will react to the stresses of space… I’m sure that the same thing goes for aerodynamics.</p>
<p>They do very low level things like this, but also very high level things like tracking all of the space refuse in orbit… Also, at the PhD level, you would have some ability/responsibility to come up with new ideas for projects and propose funding for them.</p>
<p>trout, I don’t think you are getting the gist of what he means by computational astrophysics.</p>
<p>creepypasta13, while I can’t say with 100% certainty, I would imagine computational astrophysics requires many of the same competencies as far as numerical and computational methods go as computational fluid dynamics. I would imagine that moving between the two would not be terribly difficult, but it would still be time consuming and take some effort. I bet you could make the move into something like that but not without at least some disadvantage with respect to a CFD guy, as he already is familiar with the application.</p>