I want an Astronomy career in WA - advice needed

[narky (Sam)]

Hi everyone,
Please .

I'd love an opportunity to work in Astronomy professionally. The problem, I'm old and I dont have qualifications, but I'm hoping to fix that if its not too late (well the qualifications, not sure what I can do about the old part). I've done a couple of free online Astronomy courses, but that doesn't count for much.

I'm 39. I've always had an interest in cosmology. Sadly I havent studied physics or math since Yr12 in 1993. (I've watched a lot of documentaries though - not the same I know).

As there isn't an Astronomy degree I've been looking at B Science (Physics). I spoke to UWA and they advised they have a 2yr part time Graduate Entry Diploma (I have a Business degree that would get me entry - hopefully) where I just study the Physics Major which they say can then lead to a Masters in Astronomy/Astrophysics. This looks great, its short, concentrates on physics, but sadly doesn't have much of a direct focus on Astronomy.

So I looked at Curtin's BSc (Physics) which whilst 3 years fulltime does have an astrophysics stream which includes an option to Study Astronomy and Planetary Science from the outset. Seems like a better course if Im honest, but as its full time and I work, it may take a while.

Anyone here knowledgable on these courses (or others) that might be able to point me in the right direction. Ideally I'd love to with/on the SKA.

in advance. (apologies if this is the wrong forum for such a question).

[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

Got to get a few years of physics and maths under your belt first, well before you can even think of doing astronomical research. If you can learn some astronomy while you are learning maths and physics, fine, but the main thing is to get that intensive quantitative background that distinguishes the professional astrophysicist from lesser mortals.

I think that, for most people, the additional effort of learning the vast edifice of astronomical science at the same time as learning the necessary physics and maths, is much too much.
Witness all those astronomy PhDs who come out of their 10 years of scientific apprenticeship with no ability to do good research. Of course, there are some people who are smart enough to manage to get that rigorous physics and maths background, plus to also start doing good astronomical research, without scrambling their brains and then being unable to continue as a real scientist.

Physics and maths are vast subjects, and astronomical knowledge is also vast;
so my advice would be to focus on getting the knowledge you need to get, no matter how long it takes. There are too many burnouts and no-shows at the end of the "standard learning path" of a degree plus a PhD.

What I am saying is that the existing knowledge of stars and galaxies is now so vast that trying to get that settled in the mind at the same time as becoming an expert in maths and physics, may not be desirable. It is perfectly OK, and probably the optimal path, to do maths/physics first and then start on astronomy later.

You have probably heard of the "ten year rule" , that is, that it takes ten years of intensive study to become an expert in a subject. But I think that for modern astrophysics, the learning timeframe may have to be extended to 15 years!

The standard path to becoming a professional astronomer is well described by Professor Duncan Forbes in the Following Document:
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~dforbes/mercury.pdf

[JB80 (Jarrod)]

What may be an easier entry to be a part of it in one way or another is to be an engineer or software developer. Even big science projects need admin staff as well so being involved in one way or another is a little bit easier to come by than the even more limited roles available for professional astronomers.

I would love to know where all the SKA jobs are, there are very few advertised on their sites and that leads me to believe they are filled in house by the government or by universities?
I don't know.

I assume there would be a number of contractors to that need jobs filled. Find where these are advertised and see what positions need filling.

[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

We discuss the SKA and radio astronomy, from an engineering perspective, in this thread:
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...&highlight=SKA

The engineering physics in itself, is pretty mind-boggling; in fact it is conceptually more interesting than some of the modest discoveries of Australian radio astronomers.

We have a couple of engineering guys, who contributed to that thread, who can shed some more light on approaching an astronomical career from an engineering angle
(e.g. gary, and mswhin63, and Barrykgerdes)

My personal view, given in that thread, is that the technical and financial and infrastructure and "country stability" hurdles have been so very much increased by the decision to site a lot of the SKA in Africa, that the SKA may never be built in its entirety.

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

There just might be work to be had here.
http://www.spacemart.com/reports/US_...ralia_999.html
Better start working on that degree asap.

[narky (Sam)]

Originally Posted by madbadgalaxyman

Got to get a few years of physics and maths under your belt first, well before you can even think of doing astronomical research. If you can learn some astronomy while you are learning maths and physics, fine, but the main thing is to get that intensive quantitative background that distinguishes the professional astrophysicist from lesser mortals.

Yep. That's the plan. I'm just concerned if I do the diploma at UWA I may not be considered for a Masters in Astrophysics/Astronomy where I would finally get to do some research that might get me to the SKA. And I'm worried if I do a full science degree at UWA my average may drop as I'd be forced to study subjects (chemistry seems hard to avoid) that i'm not a fan of. The electives available seem truly horrible outside two Level 1 Astronomy courses on the solar system and the universe, and the only other is Level 3 Astrophysics/space science. But NONE of those electives are even available if I were to do the Graduate diploma (only the core math/physics subjects are available).

Originally Posted by madbadgalaxyman

I think that, for most people, the additional effort of learning the vast edifice of astronomical science at the same time as learning the necessary physics and maths, is much too much... focus on getting the knowledge you need to get, no matter how long it takes.

Well, that's another issue. I'm already 39. I'm currently working, and I was planning to take my time, so lets say I choose the Curtin degree (it looks great) the bachelor degree would drag out. If I take 5 years to complete it I'll be 45 when I try to start my masters. I"m not too sure who'd be keen for that. much less have any hope at trying for a PhD. Which is why the 2yr diploma looks promising.

Originally Posted by JB80

What may be an easier entry to be a part of it in one way or another is to be an engineer or software developer...
I would love to know where all the SKA jobs are ... believe they are filled in house by the government or by universities?

I'm not a fan of engineering. Have worked in IT the past 3 years for an engineering firm. The work doesn't grab me. I too believe any opportunites will surely come through the unis. That's why I was hoping there might be someone from the project here who might have an indication on who and how many, and which course would be my best hope.

Sadly, I fear that I'm only a mere mortal, maybe I can just apply for a janitor spot when one becomes available. I was kind of hoping there'd be a few odd jobs going. I wasn't planning on running the place. Just helping out with the research if possible.

Thanks for the input everyone.

[narky (Sam)]

ICRAR looks promising for possible future SKA work. Until you realise there are only 7 people doing their masters there (and considering its a two year course), I guess they take 4 a year. Hmm. That's not a good sign.

FYI for anyone who stumbles across this thread or anyone who might be interested. Strangely the UWA Diploma in Science (Physics) covers all the prerequisite courses for their MSc Physics (Astronomy and Astrophysics) as long as you choose to study 'Quantum Mechanics 2 and Atomic Physics, rather than 'Astrophysics and Space Science' which strangely isn't a prerequisite for anything in the Masters course.

All things going well, one could do the diploma in 3 years (part time). And the Masters in 2 years full time.

Yup. I can see why people would burn out.

EDIT - Found a link with subject enrollment numbers at UWA - Seems there were 70 students enrolled in each year doing BSc(Physics) specific courses, and at Masters level that seems to drop to 12 or thereabouts. With only a small number of those doing Astronomy/Astrophysics. Maybe I'm reading the numbers wrong. I probably shouldn't be working this out at 1.40am on a schoolnight.

[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

Originally Posted by narky

Well, that's another issue. I'm already 39. I'm currently working, and I was planning to take my time, so lets say I choose the Curtin degree (it looks great) the bachelor degree would drag out. If I take 5 years to complete it I'll be 45 when I try to start my masters. I"m not too sure who'd be keen for that. much less have any hope at trying for a PhD.

The process of learning has to be enjoyable, at least to some extent, with the sensation of "discovery and new vistas" making up for the occasional pain of "having to shovel into my head all that massive knowledge". Many many people have "fallen by the wayside" along the long and rough and thorny path to becoming a professional astronomer, because they have had to learn so fast that they have not had time to properly integrate and become comfortable with the newly learnt knowledge, and also I think that frankly, the enormous stress and strain of it all made them reconsider the idea of becoming a professional astronomer.

Originally Posted by narky

Sadly, I fear that I'm only a mere mortal, maybe I can just apply for a janitor spot when one becomes available. I was kind of hoping there'd be a few odd jobs going. I wasn't planning on running the place. Just helping out with the research if possible.

They say that these days you have to have a PhD and several published papers before they even let you sweep the floor at a major observatory, which is essentially the argument made by Dr Duncan Forbes in the document I linked to. However, he is very much an insider in the astronomical research game, and there do exist various counter-arguments to this view,
for instance:
it is not necessary to know everything and be omniscient in astronomical/physical knowledge in order to discover something new.
Indeed, many astronomers made major discoveries without necessarily knowing all of the maths and physics, and sometimes those professional scientists who did know everything were unable to discover much that was new!

A very good example, in this regard, is the utterly brilliant career of Fritz Zwicky, who was sometimes criticized for not knowing or even caring about all of the details of the physics, but who had great physical insight and also the ability to see and conceive new patterns and ideas which were instinctively rejected by lesser minds.

Other astronomers, such as Annie Jump Cannon, achieved very important advances in astronomy simply by spending their lives looking at and classifying a gigantic quantity of data, without actually fully understanding its meaning.
(this was the approach I took that lead to my discovery of a new Voorwerp-like object in GALEX imaging data; I simply looked at a whole lot of galaxy images with a view to finding anomalies and peculiarities)

A very good local example of people who discover important things without necessarily having all of the knowledge..... is of course our own BOSS collaboration of amateur astronomers.

So, from these types of examples, one can posit the observationally supported hypothesis that there do exist several pathways that can yield important astronomical discoveries, which are quite distinct from today's standard career trajectory to becoming a professional astronomer.
(though my argument still stands that you have to get your maths and physics sorted out in your head)

Here, for example, is an excellent Masters thesis that was good enough to land someone a job at a major observatory:
http://researchspace.ukzn.ac.za/xmlui/handle/10413/1943
(and it is about my favourite dust-lane elliptical galaxy!)

cheers,
Mad Galaxy Man

[gary]

Originally Posted by JB80

I would love to know where all the SKA jobs are, there are very few advertised on their sites and that leads me to believe they are filled in house by the government or by universities?
I don't know.

I assume there would be a number of contractors to that need jobs filled.

Hi Jarrod,

Currently SKA is in the pre-production phase.

There are 11 "Pre-construction Consortia Groups" around the world
divided into key engineering tasks and each of these Consortia consist
of partners drawn from observatories, research centers, universities
and private enterprise.

So for example the "Central Signal Processor" consortium is led by the
National Research Council of Canada but partners here in Australia
include organizations such as CSIRO, Swinburne and CISCO Australia.

A list of the Consortia and their partners can be found here :-
http://www.ska.gov.au/Industry/Pages...Consortia.aspx

This list is a useful resource for those seeking opportunities to be
involved in the project.

The South Africans are also busy hiring electrical engineers and software
engineers.

The Australian SKA offices are now headquartered within the Department
of industry in Canberra.

CSIRO Radiophysics in the suburb of Marsfield, not far from Macquarie
University here in Sydney, is a major campus for technical activity.

[gary]

Originally Posted by narky

ICRAR looks promising for possible future SKA work.

Hi Sam,

This would probably be your best bet in WA. I would suggest you contact
them for advice.

But at age 39 you would definitely want to get cracking.
I know of at least two bright and determined individuals who have managed to become professional
astronomers starting around that age and later in their studies, so it is possible.

Good luck!

[narky (Sam)]

Originally Posted by gary

Good luck!

Thanks Gary.
I would honestly be happy just to clean the floors at SKA. I haven't set my eyes on a big discovery by any means but I would love to be part of a team that does. And I'd be really happy if I could spend my time with people with similiar interests.

One of my very good friends is himself friends with an astronomer (although he just lost his job, hmm) Anyway, I asked him a few years ago if I could volunteer at his observatory, maybe just show the public around on tours or do whatever ****ty work I could help with. But he brought me back to reality by pointing out I'd need some qualifications for even that. But that's really what I'd be happy to do. Volunteering, learning, maybe sharing some knowledge with the general public.

I've since moved to WA and I just thought there might be more chance of such work when the SKA gets up and running if I can get qualified. I've always had an interest in math (and was pretty damn good at it), but I havent done any serious math for a while, so I'm fearful. Space has always been a love of mine. It's something I've always had an interest in and I figure it is time I followed my bliss.

[sn1987a (Barry)]

I work on the mines and we fly over the SKA sometimes on the way to and from site. Does that help?.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

A couple of thoughts. As an up and coming scientist it's very difficult - well basically impossible - to decide in advance where you will work. With apparently up to 100 applicants to the job ambitious postdocs and ECRs (early career researchers) will go where ever they have to. I can't think of a UoW postgrad who is still in Wollongong and doing research (some are in govt departments or private consultancy companies). Some are at GA in Canberra, others in Melbourne, Adelaide, Wellington, Townsville, Saudi Arabia, China and the USA. On the other hand, our tea room is like the united nations (but without the conflict). Later on people mostly settle down and stay at one institution for decades, though I suspect not where they ever though they would end up.

As an earth scientist you don't chose research topics based on where you live or where the weather is nice. You think of what you can do with what you have available that no one else has done that will get you that paper in Nature, or at least a tier 1 journal. If that means going to Lake Eyre or the Gulf of Carpentaria or Argentina or Siberia - you go. I imagine astronomy is somewhat similar. You first chose a project based on the quality of research it will generate; then you decide how to carry out the research. Perhaps you need the SKA, but perhaps the Compact Array will do just as well - and getting time on it will be easier. Maybe you need time on an IR scope and some satellite x-ray data. You might be based in Perth but getting data from NSW, Chile and NASA.

When deciding where to do a PhD you need to look at the quality of the department and the quality of your supervisor. This is important not just for how it may affect the quality of your PhD, and more importantly your publications, but also for the people you will get to meet on the way. Picking up information from a 'guru' in a field can be invaluable but so also is them knowing who you are and what good things you are doing.

You might be want to look at the following.

http://www.arc.gov.au/era/
http://www.arc.gov.au/era/era_2012/outcomes_2012.htm

and maybe

http://www.teqsa.gov.au/

[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

Originally Posted by narky

Thanks Gary.
I would honestly be happy just to clean the floors at SKA. I haven't set my eyes on a big discovery by any means but I would love to be part of a team that does..

Hi Sam,
While it sounds most impressive to use multi-million dollar instruments to get data on one or more astronomical objects, the reality is that there is already much much much more data available online than the extant numbers of professional astronomers are able to handle.

Just in my own specialized area of interest, which is relatively normal, mildly-to-moderately morphologically disturbed galaxies within a redshift of 7000 km/s, the number of imaging and measurement surveys of galaxies (that have been undertaken at many wavelengths) is very large, and the number of new surveys coming online is so great that most people cannot even keep track of them! It truly is a data deluge.

So, in line with my interests, in this forum, I try to give information about some of the more important sources of galaxy data and imagery, and I also maintain my own personal galaxy databases and catalogs [e.g. I have put together my own n=30,000 (very-high-quality & multi-wavelength) galaxy images database that is my baseline truth for my studies of galaxy morphology]

See some of my threads listed here, for some essential data resources and very helpful review papers in Galactic & extragalactic astronomy::

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...highlight=SDSS
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...d.php?t=123335
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...d.php?t=122305
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...d.php?t=121295
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...d.php?t=114610
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...d.php?t=113629
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...d.php?t=104075
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...d.php?t=104637
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...d.php?t=101814
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ad.php?t=95207
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ad.php?t=93498
http:/www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/sh...ad.php?t=83243
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...adbadgalaxyman

The point I am making is that there will be strange things, and new discoveries, hidden in the exponentially increasing flow of data which is now mostly uploaded onto the internet. You don't need a big telescope, just a web browser!

So.....start now to look at massive amounts of quantitative astronomical data, read some good review papers, and become familiar with astronomical knowledge. (after all, 'Spoon feeding' knowledge at university seems not to have worked for a lot of people who failed in their quest to become astronomers)

I also suggest some 'self-teaching' using some astronomy textbooks. As a guide to what is available in this area, at amazon.com (american amazon) I have reviewed most of the reasonably accessible textbooks (at up to the lower-graduate level) on galaxies, and I have also reviewed several other essential explanatory texts on essential parts of the 'big picture' such as star formation and stellar populations. To find my astro book reviews, just google on 'madbadgalaxyman' to find a book review by me, and then you can link to my other astro book reviews at American amazon.

In my view, the difficult and extended process of becoming a scientific researcher is less about the "career" , and more about getting the knowledge and mindset that are necessary for the making of astronomical discoveries, as well as somehow maintaining that enthusiasm (which so many lose along that difficult path!).

Certainly, as Forbes wrote in his article about becoming an astronomer, 'publish or perish' is still an essential rite of passage for the Doctoral and Post-Doctoral researcher in astronomy, and those who do go on to have successful astronomical careers tend to have published several good papers by the time they have finished their PhDs.

But the 'standard path to becoming an astronomer' of being rapidly spoon fed the knowledge at uni..... seems not to work for many!
(in contrast, the members of the BOSS collaboration, who 'are amateurs', now individually have citation records , which is the mark of a real scientist!)

While not a practising astrophysicist myself, I have followed the careers of many doctoral candidates and Post Doctoral researchers and Early Career Scientists in extragalactic astronomy, and I do read a lot of PhD theses in astronomy (some good, some not so good, and some poor), so I am well aware of those people who succeed and those people who fail, and I am aware of the reasons why.

Best Regards,
Robert

[narky (Sam)]

I'll check those books out. Will give me something to read until I hopefully start a course next year.
You're very right about the job opportunities. Those courses I'm looking at are closely tied with the SKA so I assumed they'd have opportunities for students at some stage of the course (rather than expecting or wanting a full time research career there).

[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

Originally Posted by narky

I'll check those books out. Will give me something to read until I hopefully start a course next year.

As mentioned, all of my astro book reviews are on American amazon. Once you find any amazon book review by me, just click on "madbadgalaxyman"(the reviewer's name), and up comes my Profile, which lists all of my reviews.

My primary focus has been to review the sort of astronomy books which are understandable to readers having existing knowledge levels ranging from: a good 'advanced' school mathematics through to people with a year or two of maths and physics at the university level. The readership level of the reviewed astronomy books varies from semi-popular ( 'enthusiast') level through to some of the simpler graduate texts.

There is also a very new popular-level book about the Milky Way by Waller, which is supposed to be quite substantial, but I have not read it.

Amazon are xxxxy, so do shop around, perhaps by using some of the book price search engines on the internet.

cheers, Robert

P.S,
I would like to emphasize, again, that a good comprehensive review paper about some aspect of astronomy, while "technical" in language and tone, and needing some deciphering of the jargon used, is extremely valuable for quickly and efficiently generating understanding without too much stress on the reader; these reviews tend to give results, sparing us the sweat and toil of working out the detailed derivations of said results.
(for instance, I have most every overview paper that is worth anything, on the subject of the morphologies and properties of normal galaxies)

P.P.S
As I am not currently associated with any university, I have also found it helpful to build up my own personal library of "most every" relevant book on galaxies (and their constituents) that I need to use as a reference work. An expensive pastime, but I now own a better library for supporting astronomical research than any library in Queensland (which also says something about the pathetic nature of university libraries in Qld)

[narky (Sam)]

If you could suggest one book what would it be ..?
If you could suggest one doco what would it be ..?

[narky (Sam)]

Also, how dare you question the state of libraries in Australia. I've found most have at least one harry potter book and two if not more copies of 50 shades of grey.

But in all seriousnes, libraries are dead. They mostly exist to provide computers to the unemployed or porn for the homeless.

[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

Originally Posted by narky

If you could suggest one book what would it be ..?

OK Sam,

Firstly, several well-regarded 'general astronomy' textbooks that I have bought invariably lack sufficent detail; they are useful for those who need a quick & broad overview of astronomical knowledge, but not of much value for someone intending to become a professional astronomer...... the necessity to cover "the universe in 700 pages" means that even well-regarded first-year university level "astronomical overviews" are out-of-date in parts, and sometimes incorrect, and much too shallow in some important chapters.

In my opinion, a comprehensive course of personal study in astronomy, for a person aiming for professional-level knowledge, would include one textbook (or the equivalent amount of knowledge that is obtained from other sources) on each of the following topics:
- astrophysics
- multiwavelength observational astronomy (including: instrumentation, telescopes, detectors, spectroscopy, photometry, astrometry, image analysis, interferometry, measurement and statistics.)
- stellar properties and stellar structure and stellar evolution
- star formation
- the interstellar medium
- the Milky Way and its structure and contents
- star clusters, and stellar populations
- Galaxies and Extragalactic Astronomy
- nucleosynthesis and chemical evolution in galaxies
- Dynamics & Kinematics of galaxies
- Cosmology

This is a lot to chew on, on top of all the mathematics and physics that you have to learn! In fact, I can say with certainty (based on experience) that good numbers of professional astronomers do not know some of these topics as well as they should , which seems to be one of the reasons why too many of the pros tend to work within narrow & very-specialized areas within astronomical science. Over-specialization implies that it is surprisingly rare to find great breadth of astronomical knowledge amongst the professional astronomers....so maybe these people aren't as smart as they seem to be?

I could recommend one or two astronomy textbooks for you, but I need to ask you some questions in order to assess your existing background and your level of knowledge.....

Q1. What kind of astronomy (and other sciences) books have you read?
Broadly speaking, what was their intended readership level, and on what topics?
Q2. How comfortable are you with algebra, with cartesian geometry, and with the graphical display of bivariate and trivariate relations ?.... Do you have any statistics, and/or Calculus & Analysis? Are you comfortable with the logarithmic display of data?(nearly all astronomical data is displayed in this way)
Q3. Are you familiar with any of the other sciences, in considerable detail? (this could be an indicator of the sort of background that you might bring to reading an astronomy textbook.)
Q4. How much physics did you do at school, and did you learn, or use, much mathematics and/or physics after you left school?
I assume that you were good at maths and physics at school.(given that you want to become an astronomer, this would have to be the case, I guess.)

Thanks,
Robert

[narky (Sam)]

Originally Posted by madbadgalaxyman

Q1. What kind of astronomy (and other sciences) books have you read?
Broadly speaking, what was their intended readership level, and on what topics?
Q2. How comfortable are you with algebra, with cartesian geometry, and with the graphical display of bivariate and trivariate relations ?.... Do you have any statistics, and/or Calculus & Analysis? Are you comfortable with the logarithmic display of data?(nearly all astronomical data is displayed in this way)
Q3. Are you familiar with any of the other sciences, in considerable detail? (this could be an indicator of the sort of background that you might bring to reading an astronomy textbook.)
Q4. How much physics did you do at school, and did you learn, or use, much mathematics and/or physics after you left school?
I assume that you were good at maths and physics at school.(given that you want to become an astronomer, this would have to be the case, I guess.)

Thanks,
Robert

Books read, pretty much nothing. Does A brief history of time help.
I mostly just watch any/all docos and have done a few online Astrononomy courses. The most recent of these was Astronomy - State of the Art

Happy with all the maths mentioned but I am not a big fan of statistics - at least not off the top of my head, but I can easily look for what I need and work something out if I had too - I dont have much trouble reading/interpreting statistics.

My knowledge of biology, chemistry, and geology is pretty much non-existant. No troubles with basics of any but my knowledge of all three is very limited. I can follow along with concepts normally, but I wouldn't be able to say work out what happens in a chemical reaction. But if I see it written out for me I can see how it was worked out.

I have done zero physics since leaving school. Pretty close to no maths also. However I occassionally do polish up my math skills and school level math comes back to me very quickly. I follow a couple of math youtube channels. I figured If I start uni next year I have 5 months to skill up on each. I honestly dont know how I'll handle the math, but I wont know unless I give it a shot. My ex-gf just completed a math degree and I always had a better understanding of math than she did, so I figure I should be okay if I apply myself.