<p>I'm very interested in aeronautical engineering cause I want to work for NASA. My problem is that i really don't like physics, but I'm good at and I like math. I know engineering is a lot of physics so I'm wondering if I should just go for it and switch majors if I hate it. If any of y'all are studying aerospace engineering please let me know if you like it. Thanks for the help.</p>
<p>Do you like problem solving? From what I hear, it’s basically problem solving with the aid of maths, the sciences and logic.</p>
<p>I think you will regret studying engineering if you “really don’t like physics,” but I seriously doubt that you have enough information to decide that you “really don’t like physics.”</p>
<p>Give it a shot and see what happens. Also look at electrical and mechanical.</p>
<p>As an Aero E student I will tell you physics is everywhere, also the fundamental physics ideas IMO are what drives engineering!</p>
<p>Maybe you should consider a less physics heavy engineering field. </p>
<p>What more, with decrease aerospace activties and the downsizing of NASA, don’t hope for too much when it comes to working for them unless you’re the best of the best.</p>
<p>My family friend who was an aerospace engineer for NASA helped make the Mars Rover definitely used a lot of physics. I think almost all of the math he did actually was physics. I believe that aerospace engineering may be the most physics-intensive but don’t quote me on this.</p>
<p>NASA has plenty of engineers of all disciplines. Chemical, electrical, environmental (for health and safety), they are all there. Of course, aerospace/mechanical/electrical are probably the biggest and most obvious ones.</p>
<p>^ j814wong is right. My family friend eventually left NASA because that every time they finished up something “good” they lost funding and couldn’t see it through. I know if that I spent years or months on a project and could never see it completed, I’d be really upset. </p>
<p>In the aerospace engineering world, if you know you want to work on spacecraft, it’s better in this day and age to go for a private sector company like SpaceX. NASA is better for the research/scientific side of things.</p>
<p>S did an internship with NASA as an EE JR. He also applied to JPL in CA for a permanent job. While he was there for his final interview, they were frantically calling around, trying to get enough funding to hire him. He chose to accept one of the jobs where funding was more secure.</p>
<p>S appears to really enjoy physics (it was a mystery to me & I didn’t like it much personally). His EE coursework seemed pretty physics-heavy as well. I agree it may be a bit early to KNOW if you really don’t like physics.</p>
<p>You can pursue a pure-math career if you’re really turned off by the physics, though I’m not really familiar with the field and the career market.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is not true. I am pretty sure people still fly all over the world, new planes are still being designed and built, new spacecraft are being designed and built, and research and development is still moving along as it has for decades. Nothing to see here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is also not true. NASA may not currently have an active manned space flight program (a discussion warranting its own separate topic), but when Constellation was cancelled, they didn’t lose that money. The budget simply increased in other areas, particularly unmanned exploration, Earth and planetary science and basic research. Compared to the 1980’s, NASA is smaller in terms of in-house workers, but part of that is because it utilizes a lot more contract work, such as that with SpaceX, so if you include the contractors working for NASA on various programs then the agency has actually grown.</p>
<p>Actuaries are still in pretty good demand, I believe and work for insurers. I believe they require a lot of math and perhaps little or no physics. Something to explore if that’s of interest, tho don’t think they do space work.</p>