Aerospace vs aeronautical degrees (astrophysics)

Hi, I have always wanted to do astrophysics as I love physics and I love the stars, planets, stellar objects… however I have realised this is too much of a dream for me to go into. I do want to earn decent money and I do want to achieve things. I’m not saying with astro this isn’t possible. However to get anywhere in the field you want a Masters if not a doctorate and then there are only very specific and scarce jobs around that are 2-3 years before you are unemployed again. Of course if you do exceptionally well you are more likely to get tenure but it’s not guaranteed. While I still sometimes gone back to this and consider this as a degree it’s a very high effort, difficulty, long hours, high stress, low pay (unless you win grants and prizes or Nobel) and low reward. Which is why I decided to do aerospace as while this is to do with aircraft which I can’t say I’ve ever been to interested in. I’ve always enjoyed and been good at engineering and this seemed the branch that correlated with physics and space most. As aerospace is the study of aircraft both on land and in space there is still scope to end up in the space industry and it could also take me into aerodynamics and the motorsport industry which I do really enjoy. So I had finally decided on this. However the most convenient uni for me to go to considering I am not living there is Glasgow university. But Glasgow only offers aeronautical or aerospace systems and systems is way too specified for me to want to go into. So it’s either aeronautical at Glasgow or aerospace at Strathclyde. I’ve been to Glasgow before and really enjoyed it. I haven’t been to Strathclyde yet but I will this year. However I hear mixed reviews on Strathclyde and generally good ones for Glasgow. Does taking aeronautical limit my possibilities of Motorsport or space industry. Strathclyde is less convenient to get to but still doable if this means more possibilities are opened in these areas. Can anyone on these courses weigh in? Thanks

Hi, I have always wanted to do astrophysics as I love physics and I love the stars, planets, stellar objects… however I have realised this is too much of a dream for me to go into. I do want to earn decent money and I do want to achieve things. I’m not saying with astro this isn’t possible. However to get anywhere in the field you want a Masters if not a doctorate and then there are only very specific and scarce jobs around that are 2-3 years before you are unemployed again. Of course if you do exceptionally well you are more likely to get tenure but it’s not guaranteed. While I still sometimes gone back to this and consider this as a degree it’s a very high effort, difficulty, long hours, high stress, low pay (unless you win grants and prizes or Nobel) and low reward. Which is why I decided to do aerospace as while this is to do with aircraft which I can’t say I’ve ever been to interested in. I’ve always enjoyed and been good at engineering and this seemed the branch that correlated with physics and space most. As aerospace is the study of aircraft both on land and in space there is still scope to end up in the space industry and it could also take me into aerodynamics and the motorsport industry which I do really enjoy. So I had finally decided on this. However the most convenient uni for me to go to considering I am not living there is Glasgow university. But Glasgow only offers aeronautical or aerospace systems and systems is way too specified for me to want to go into. So it’s either aeronautical at Glasgow or aerospace at Strathclyde. I’ve been to Glasgow before and really enjoyed it. I haven’t been to Strathclyde yet but I will this year. However I hear mixed reviews on Strathclyde and generally good ones for Glasgow. Does taking aeronautical limit my possibilities of Motorsport or space industry. Strathclyde is less convenient to get to but still doable if this means more possibilities are opened in these areas. Can anyone on these courses weigh in? Thanks

Well, if you don't get into space, there's always the air. Plenty of employability in aerospace for any sort of engineering graduate and the advice from the folks above is good. I've plenty of colleagues over on the space delivery teams who went via aerospace, astrophysics and avionics academic routes and are working where they wish to be, along with many others here in aviation/air who did the same.
Follow your gut instincts and go for what you feel is right for you.
Best of luck and I hope you get to where you want to be. Welcome to the engineering profession.

Hello @lzzylynn!
It is not unsual to see Physics graduates making a transition into an aerospace-related company after they graduate. For example, there are roles for Flight Dynamics that are purely concerned with drag/perterbation modelling, debris avoidance, and orbit determination. You would not need sub-system knowledge for this field or an engineering degree, and you would be arguably better served by taking modules which feature a high level of Mathematics (which is the case in Astrophysics). In fact, a lot of graduate schemes do end up hiring graduates in Physical Sciences (primarily in Mathematics or Physics) for Aerospace roles.
In other words, if Physics is your true calling, I would study that 😉. Besides, have a look at the programs from different universities across the UK so that you have an idea of what the modules are about (in case you have an idea about University of Nottingham, feel free to ask us!).
All the best,
Abián.

So would you say that a degree in astrophysics opens all the same doors and more that one in aero eng does?

So would you say that a degree in astrophysics opens all the same doors and more that one in aero eng does?

Hi @Izzylynn!
As @Grim_Squeaker has pointed out, a Physics degree (or Astrophysics) will introduce you to pretty much all the mathematics that you need to know for engineering. In terms of the doors that it opens, it is hard to tell as it depends on the type of jobs that you would like to do. One could argue that you would lacking knowledge with regards to manufacturing techniques, materials, subsystem design and so forth. In other words, if you are interested in how things are made, then do Aerospace.
The ultimate difference for me is that aerospace is not about the science so much as building the infrastructure that ends up in space (such as satellites, launchers, etc), and astrophysicists are the ones using them to then do science. It is worth noting as well that a lot of astrophysics graduates do work on the instrumentation side. For example, a new camera for a telescope on the ground is typically developed by an astronomy laboratory.
All the best,
Abian.

Hi, essentially I would love to do astrophysics and love the more science based side of things and why things work and understanding the universe and such as all who take phyiscs want to know however it’s a competitive field with minimal jobs, it’s not the most stable and tje pay is mediocre, as such I decided I should go into aerospace as this could lead me into areas still involved in space, or if not aircraft, or motorsport. As all of these fields interest me and as much as I enjoy the phyiscs of why do things work the way they do I also enjoy the engineering of how can we use this physics to fix a real life problem plus engineering is better money and more stable, so I as of now intend to do the engineering degree with the hoped I can still if I choose to end up in a field relevant to space. Are you saying though that with the astrophysics degree I could just as easily go into the jobs and fields mentioned with the additional of actual physics?

Hi @Izzylynn!
As @Grim_Squeaker has pointed out, a Physics degree (or Astrophysics) will introduce you to pretty much all the mathematics that you need to know for engineering. In terms of the doors that it opens, it is hard to tell as it depends on the type of jobs that you would like to do. One could argue that you would be lacking knowledge with regards to manufacturing techniques, materials, subsystem design and so forth. In other words, if you are interested in how things are made, then do Aerospace.
The ultimate difference for me is that aerospace is not about the science so much as building the infrastructure that ends up in space (such as satellites, launchers, etc), and astrophysicists are the ones using them to then do science. It is worth noting as well that a lot of astrophysics graduates do work on the instrumentation side. For example, a new camera for a telescope on the ground is typically developed by an astronomy laboratory.
All the best,
Abian.

Hi, I have always wanted to do astrophysics as I love physics and I love the stars, planets, stellar objects… however I have realised this is too much of a dream for me to go into. I do want to earn decent money and I do want to achieve things. I’m not saying with astro this isn’t possible. However to get anywhere in the field you want a Masters if not a doctorate and then there are only very specific and scarce jobs around that are 2-3 years before you are unemployed again. Of course if you do exceptionally well you are more likely to get tenure but it’s not guaranteed. While I still sometimes gone back to this and consider this as a degree it’s a very high effort, difficulty, long hours, high stress, low pay (unless you win grants and prizes or Nobel) and low reward. Which is why I decided to do aerospace as while this is to do with aircraft which I can’t say I’ve ever been to interested in. I’ve always enjoyed and been good at engineering and this seemed the branch that correlated with physics and space most. As aerospace is the study of aircraft both on land and in space there is still scope to end up in the space industry and it could also take me into aerodynamics and the motorsport industry which I do really enjoy. So I had finally decided on this. However the most convenient uni for me to go to considering I am not living there is Glasgow university. But Glasgow only offers aeronautical or aerospace systems and systems is way too specified for me to want to go into. So it’s either aeronautical at Glasgow or aerospace at Strathclyde. I’ve been to Glasgow before and really enjoyed it. I haven’t been to Strathclyde yet but I will this year. However I hear mixed reviews on Strathclyde and generally good ones for Glasgow. Does taking aeronautical limit my possibilities of Motorsport or space industry. Strathclyde is less convenient to get to but still doable if this means more possibilities are opened in these areas. Can anyone on these courses weigh in? Thanks

Just a note, tenure doesn't exist in the UK as far as I'm aware - it's a US thing. The closest thing are permanent salaried academic positions (usually professorships and lectureships). The are very competitive in just about any field in academia and usually the culmination of a career in academia would be getting one of those to then spend the rest of your career in that one place.
That said, fixed term contracts (FTCs) exist across most if not all sectors including at more senior levels and it's not unique to academia. I suspect even in engineering there are plenty of FTCs that come up around specific projects or missions for contractors to come in and work on them, then they will figure out what to do next as their contract comes to a close. Also bear in mind once you have a "foot in the door" you can sometimes parlay your FTC into either an extended contract, another FTC, or a permanent role.
Of course there are knock on effects from this - you need to be proactive in planning for your career both on the whole and as it comes to the end of a given FTC, and you likely need to be flexible in being ready to potentially move to go to the new location for a different FTC (unless it's purely remote, which wouldn't realistically be the case in academia and these days every company seems to think remote working is the greatest sin committed by man and are desperately trying to force all their employees back into the office even though nobody actually wants to do that). Obviously if you have a family or caring commitments this can be a barrier, but I imagine for people in their 20s and early 30s it's typically not an issue and can be feasible otherwise later depending on your situation.
Bear in mind also physics grads (including astrophysics) may well work in areas not related to physics and this is probably more common than not. People with an undergrad/masters in physics may well go on to work in a variety of roles including in the engineering sector, particularly that use their numerate skills. For example I know someone for example who went into a software development grad scheme with the met office after graduating - nothing to do with the science/modelling side, purely software dev/engineering side of things (and before that she did an internship at a company that designed and launched satellite missions in fact...). I also know 3 physics PhD grads, none of whom ended up choosing to stay in academia long term - one went into a data science role with a major international insurance company (he actually did an astrophysics PhD in fact), and two who went into different roles at the same company in the automotive sector (one a modelling/numerate role and the other in a business function/managerial type role).
So unless you specifically want to be an engineer, you can certainly potentially work in those sectors you noted (and others) as a physics grad. You could also e.g. go into the civil service, any number of more general business function/managerial grad schemes, financial services roles including accountancy, investment banking or management consulting, or actuarial work, etc.
If you want to do astrophysics, do astrophysics. Don't do something you don't want to study because you think it has "better" career outcomes - as in the end, you are going to be applying to most of the same jobs and your employability will come down to you as an individual and what you've done to make yourself employable, not what degree subject you studied. Unless the specific role you want to do requires the specific degree (e.g. engineering design roles will normally require an engineering degree, but lots of modelling and computational roles in the engineering sector may consider people with any numerate degree), you don't need to constrain your choices.
Also of note, STEM and non-STEM graduates have been found by research to have equivalent career outcomes in terms of salary and role within 10 years of graduation (including non-STEM graduates working in higher skilled roles in STEM fields). So the difference between two similar STEM degrees will be essentially non-existent when it comes to any role that doesn't specifically require an accredited engineering degree.

Hi as much as I love physics and would enjoy studying it, I only enjoy the gruelling mathematics when it’s being used to understand the universe or at least something I care about such as spacecraft or even cars (motorsport) I never want to end up in finance or even something data science. Yes I know many jobs in astrophysics involve sitting and staring at a screen and data however this task becomes easier to me if it’s for something I care about. This is why I’m leaning towards enginwering. Overall I love physics and moreover space and want to devote my life learning about the workings of it all but at the end of the day enginwering has much greater career prospects and I fear the roles I may want in this wouldn’t be as likely to accept astrophysics than the specific role of engineering degree

I definitely understand the feeling Ironically this was part of how I felt out of love with engineering...I just realised I didn't really care about the much more mundane things I was applying the maths to.
I would recommend you go for physics - the thing is you can do a computational modelling kind of role in the aerospace sector with a physics degree, you don't need an engineering degree unless you're doing the engineering design side of it. If you really want to hedge your bets a bit, Loughborough does an engineering physics course which kind of straddles the two areas, although I don't think it emphasises the areas of physics you're interested in!
Equally, at the end of the day people can and do accept a lower salary or less job security to keep doing what they love - academics don't like the fixed term contract model for endless postdocs trying to get a permanent role, but they stick with it (sometimes) because they just can't imagine doing anything else and at the end of the day for them, they are happy to accept that in order to continue doing what they love to do

I do get that. For me I either want to study and research physics or apply it/engineering to spacecraft and satellites or even motorsport as I do have an interest in f1. However one thing I don’t like is the computational modelling kind of role you can get within engineering when you have a physics degree- the problem I’m facing. Also tjat does sound like a nice course to have two combined but even if I wanted to I live in Scotland and we get free university here so it makes a lot more sense to study here at either Glasgow or Strathclyde for me

I mean to be fair, a lot of what engineers do in those jobs is computational modelling anyway as I understand it. Engineering is fundamentally an office based job where a lot of the time you're probably going to be on a computer doing CAD related stuff, computational modelling stuff, or looking at spreadsheets of things to my knowledge. So this may be a mismatch with what you think engineers actually do professionally anyway?
Especially for stuff involving satellite missions and so on, a lot of it is going to be instrumentation (which a physicist can probably be involved in) or modelling stuff. Not quite sure what you're expecting engineers do in those situations specifically otherwise...?
Also I think it's important to recognise that as far as "spacecraft engineering" goes, this is not NASA. You aren't realistically going to be working on manned rocket ships with or without an engineering degree in the UK for the most part I don't think.

I mean to be fair, a lot of what engineers do in those jobs is computational modelling anyway as I understand it. Engineering is fundamentally an office based job where a lot of the time you're probably going to be on a computer doing CAD related stuff, computational modelling stuff, or looking at spreadsheets of things to my knowledge. So this may be a mismatch with what you think engineers actually do professionally anyway?
Especially for stuff involving satellite missions and so on, a lot of it is going to be instrumentation (which a physicist can probably be involved in) or modelling stuff. Not quite sure what you're expecting engineers do in those situations specifically otherwise...?
Also I think it's important to recognise that as far as "spacecraft engineering" goes, this is not NASA. You aren't realistically going to be working on manned rocket ships with or without an engineering degree in the UK for the most part I don't think.

yeah, I struggle with knowing what to do honestly. I love the theory of physics, mainly astrophysics, I’ve always had an interest in space, but I’d say I’m better at engineering and I also enjoy it, it’s hard for me to consider it as a cad based job even though I know it is because in the higher engineering courses you don’t really do much of that it’s mainly calculations. I don’t know what to do I just figured enginwering was the broadest path I could go down and aerospace could take me somewhere involving space. The ESA has a base in England but that’s telecommunications centre not one of the most riveting ones they have but I’ve always thought maybe I could work with them or go and work at one in another country. I don’t really know what I want out of a career except I’m good at maths but I don’t want a solely desk oriented job? Even if it is a mostly computational job I could be fine with that as long as there’s something more to it I don’t know what more to it I want. I don’t think anyone really knows what they want to do at this point in life all I know is I like engineering physics and theory but I also like some hands on work or just slight changes to sitting on a computer all day

You say you like "engineering" but this is not something you have qualified - what is it about it you like? What even is your experience of "engineering" to this point? I think this may be part of the confusion.
Also the thing is engineering isn't a hands on job really? Engineers have technicians and technologists to do the hands on stuff. It's a desk based, computer based job by and large for most engineers, or at least that was certainly the impression I got when I was doing engineering at uni.I don't actually think there is a significant difference in the day to day nature of the work of a graduate physicist working in the engineering sector, and a graduate engineer working in the engineering sector. The specific things they work on may be different but I think the way they do that work is broadly similar.
You've also said directly that you're not really that interested in the space side of things that is in the UK and I think you are imposing a romantic ideal of what an aerospace engineer at e.g. NASA does onto it. Also I will be blunt: you are not going to work at NASA, at least above relatively junior roles, as a non-American. NASA is a civil service organisation in the US which is part of the defence side of things. They do not let people from other countries work on defence matters for national security reasons. Even private sector stuff (such as Elon Musk crashing rockets into the ground every few years) is inextricably tied to this and you will run into limits on what you can do and at what level due to security clearance restrictions necessitating the post holder be a US citizen.
More generally I think you need to square the fact that realistically most if not all graduate jobs are desk based jobs (engineering or otherwise). The joke is your job is that you're either an "emails" person, a "spreadsheets" person, or a "meetings" person. Sometimes more than one of them. While I gather in smaller companies engineers may get more "stuck in" with some hands on stuff sometimes, the reality is anything aerospace immediately removes it from the sphere of "smaller companies" by the nature of it I think - that's stuff done by big companies and (especially for the space side), governments.