Realistic expectations to become an astrophysicist

[spaceodyssey]

Hi I'm 27 years old, and planning to return to university as a mature student to study physics/astrophysics as major. I have gone through websites, reading materials, articles, and I have not found any satisfactory answers for the job descriptions of an astrophysicist. So what to expect to be an actual astrophysicist ?(Usually some people daydream of finding a new planet, or discovering a new thing and getting world famous in a single day, but I would like to know how the job would be in reality). My second question is 'Is it possible for a mature student/non traditional student to become a researcher in physics or astrophysics?'. And the next question is 'Can people find jobs in astrophysics field by completing masters degree without doing Phd?' I am thinking of studying upto master's, then find a job on the same topic, and would be doing a Phd as a part time.
And my last question is 'What is the difference between astrophysicist, theoretical astrophysicist and cosmologist, and what are their job nature?'.

I can tell that I have the scientific curiosity, I enjoy science and my interest is in science so I want to be realistic, to achieve this dream. I don't want this to pursue this as a hobby, but to follow this as my career. I am not complaining, but most of the people I met indirectly discourage my idea of pursuing my studies. Please clarify my chances.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I read this, and I thought "Great!" there was someone here a few months ago who asked very similar questions in this thread. I'll just point him there. Then I saw the person who posted that thread was you.

Sadly, asking the same question over and over is not a characteristic common to successful students in the sciences.

 

[Asteropaeus]

PhD part-time? You either apply for a job as a technician, or get a PhD. With a PhD you can get a job as a scientist. Contracts last two to four years, because after that the grand money has dried up. This means you won't suffer age discrimination like you would when applying for a permanent position.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

If you have independent income streams, you can become any kind of scientist you want.

Earning a living at it is a dicier deal.

 

[symbolipoint]

Let me add another hopefully related question.
If someone studies for a degree in Astrophysics, does he somewhere along the pathway, function as a technician, and may he find a job (for pay) as a technician?

 

[spaceodyssey]

I read this, and I thought "Great!" there was someone here a few months ago who asked very similar questions in this thread. I'll just point him there. Then I saw the person who posted that thread was you.

Sadly, asking the same question over and over is not a characteristic common to successful students in the sciences.

I didn't ask the same questions, they are totally different questions.

 

[spaceodyssey]

If you have independent income streams, you can become any kind of scientist you want.

Earning a living at it is a dicier deal.

Sorry i don't understand what you mean, so for a scientist, is it not possible for him to survive with the earnings he get? If so then how do scientists without other income survive?

 

[CrysPhys]

Sorry i don't understand what you mean, so for a scientist, is it not possible for him to survive with the earnings he get? If so then how do scientists without other income survive?

The issue is that training in certain branches of science is more likely to lead to a job than other branches of science. For example, within physics, if you specialize in semiconductor or optical physics, there are positions available with manufacturers of semiconductor or optical devices. But if you specialize in astrophysics or string theory, the number of positions in the immediate field are much more limited; alternatively, you leverage the skills you have acquired and apply them to a different field to earn income. But if your heart and soul are set on a life-long career as an astrophysicist or string theorist, you'd better be among the elite (exceptions always apply), unless you have other income to support you.

 

[Choppy]

Hi I'm 27 years old, and planning to return to university as a mature student to study physics/astrophysics as major. I have gone through websites, reading materials, articles, and I have not found any satisfactory answers for the job descriptions of an astrophysicist. So what to expect to be an actual astrophysicist ?(Usually some people daydream of finding a new planet, or discovering a new thing and getting world famous in a single day, but I would like to know how the job would be in reality).

You're not likely to find much in the way of a job description because a lot of what astrophysicists do depends on the particular problems they are researching and the stage of their careers. Most astrophysicists work in academia: i.e. they are professors. Typically this involves both teaching at the undergraduate and graduate level as well as doing research and other administrative duties (sitting on various committees). For tenured professors the research is largely self-directed and funded by grants that the professor is expected to obtain - so a great deal of time and energy goes into preparing grant applications. In fact, once a professor's teaching obligations are done, the grants are applied for, the committee work is done, the graduate students and post-docs are all met with and moving in the right direction, there actually isn't as much time left over for personal research that one might think - unfortunately. There's also not an insignificant amount of time that goes into writing papers, preparing talks, acting as a journal referee, and general reading to keep up with the field.

And that's if and when you get to be a professor. You have to go through undergrad (4 years), graduate school (another ~ 6 years), and post-doctoral positions (4-6 years), and THEN you get to apply for a tenure track position. And even then you're not guaranteed tenure. You have to go through ~ 5 years as an assistant professor, after which time the university can still let you go.

So a master's degree in astrophysics is not going to get you very far in that race I'm afraid.

My second question is 'Is it possible for a mature student/non traditional student to become a researcher in physics or astrophysics?'

Sure. Your chances are not really any worse than for anyone else. But just remember, they're quite low for everyone. At lease as far as "mature" student goes. I don't know what you mean by "non-traditional." There are a lot of other bigger things to worry about than your age. It might be a slight disadvantage. It might also be a slight advantage - mature students tend to be a little more focused and sometimes relate a little better to their professors. There are enough obstacles in front of you that you don't have to make your age another one.

And the next question is 'Can people find jobs in astrophysics field by completing masters degree without doing Phd?'

As mentioned above, there are not a lot of jobs in astrophysics to begin with. Since most of them are university positions, they'll require a PhD. And even if a PhD is not required - there are a lot more PhD graduates than there are jobs - so you'll be competing against a pool of applicants who have PhDs. With an MSc, you might be able to find work as a research assistant for a given project somewhere, but that typically won't be a career-type job.

I am thinking of studying upto master's, then find a job on the same topic, and would be doing a Phd as a part time.

Why would you aim to do the PhD part time? A PhD is very difficult to do on a part-time basis. Remember that PhD students are usually supported by some kind of stipend or research assistanceship or teaching assistanceship.

And my last question is 'What is the difference between astrophysicist, theoretical astrophysicist and cosmologist, and what are their job nature?'

The difference really lies in the problems that they work on. It's not like a profession where you have to pass a credential examination to adopt a legally recognized title. An "astrophysicist" is someone who works within an astrophysics group, usually within a department of physics. A "cosmologist" is someone within that group that works on cosmology problems. Sometimes the department might me organized in a different way - the cosmologist might be part of a "theoretical physics" group.

EDIT: Sorry an earlier version of this post had a couple dragon pictures attached to it. That was just a copy and paste error from my kids playing around. Nothing wrong with dragons - just not relevant to the discussion.

 

[spaceodyssey]

The issue is that training in certain branches of science is more likely to lead to a job than other branches of science. For example, within physics, if you specialize in semiconductor or optical physics, there are positions available with manufacturers of semiconductor or optical devices. But if you specialize in astrophysics or string theory, the number of positions in the immediate field are much more limited; alternatively, you leverage the skills you have acquired and apply them to a different field to earn income. But if your heart and soul are set on a life-long career as an astrophysicist or string theorist, you'd better be among the elite (exceptions always apply), unless you have other income to support you.

Thank you. One of the best explanation.

 

[spaceodyssey]

You're not likely to find much in the way of a job description because a lot of what astrophysicists do depends on the particular problems they are researching and the stage of their careers. Most astrophysicists work in academia: i.e. they are professors. Typically this involves both teaching at the undergraduate and graduate level as well as doing research and other administrative duties (sitting on various committees). For tenured professors the research is largely self-directed and funded by grants that the professor is expected to obtain - so a great deal of time and energy goes into preparing grant applications. In fact, once a professor's teaching obligations are done, the grants are applied for, the committee work is done, the graduate students and post-docs are all met with and moving in the right direction, there actually isn't as much time left over for personal research that one might think - unfortunately. There's also not an insignificant amount of time that goes into writing papers, preparing talks, acting as a journal referee, and general reading to keep up with the field.

And that's if and when you get to be a professor. You have to go through undergrad (4 years), graduate school (another ~ 6 years), and post-doctoral positions (4-6 years), and THEN you get to apply for a tenure track position. And even then you're not guaranteed tenure. You have to go through ~ 5 years as an assistant professor, after which time the university can still let you go.

So a master's degree in astrophysics is not going to get you very far in that race I'm afraid.
Sure. Your chances are not really any worse than for anyone else. But just remember, they're quite low for everyone. At lease as far as "mature" student goes. I don't know what you mean by "non-traditional." There are a lot of other bigger things to worry about than your age. It might be a slight disadvantage. It might also be a slight advantage - mature students tend to be a little more focused and sometimes relate a little better to their professors. There are enough obstacles in front of you that you don't have to make your age another one.
As mentioned above, there are not a lot of jobs in astrophysics to begin with. Since most of them are university positions, they'll require a PhD. And even if a PhD is not required - there are a lot more PhD graduates than there are jobs - so you'll be competing against a pool of applicants who have PhDs. With an MSc, you might be able to find work as a research assistant for a given project somewhere, but that typically won't be a career-type job.Why would you aim to do the PhD part time? A PhD is very difficult to do on a part-time basis. Remember that PhD students are usually supported by some kind of stipend or research assistanceship or teaching assistanceship.The difference really lies in the problems that they work on. It's not like a profession where you have to pass a credential examination to adopt a legally recognized title. An "astrophysicist" is someone who works within an astrophysics group, usually within a department of physics. A "cosmologist" is someone within that group that works on cosmology problems. Sometimes the department might me organized in a different way - the cosmologist might be part of a "theoretical physics" group.I can tell that I have the scientific curiosity, I enjoy science and my interest is in science so I want to be realistic, to achieve this dream. I don't want this to pursue this as a hobby, but to follow this as my career. I am not complaining, but most of the people I met indirectly discourage my idea of pursuing my studies. Please clarify my chances.

[/QUOTE]

thanks a lot for answering all my questions.. So is there a way to get into government agencies for research? I mean ESA, NASA, kind of agencies..

 

[Choppy]

thanks a lot for answering all my questions.. So is there a way to get into government agencies for research? I mean ESA, NASA, kind of agencies..

I'm sure there is. I wouldn't count on it as a career choice though. I suspect the number of astrophysicists such agencies employ is quite small. They likely employ a lot more engineers and technicians.

 

[spaceodyssey]

EDIT: Sorry an earlier version of this post had a couple dragon pictures attached to it. That was just a copy and paste error from my kids playing around. Nothing wrong with dragons - just not relevant to the discussion.

thats not a problem.

As mentioned above, there are not a lot of jobs in astrophysics to begin with. Since most of them are university positions, they'll require a PhD. And even if a PhD is not required - there are a lot more PhD graduates than there are jobs - so you'll be competing against a pool of applicants who have PhDs. With an MSc, you might be able to find work as a research assistant for a given project somewhere, but that typically won't be a career-type job.

So typically what are the qualities university look into the Phd graduates to give him/her a position in their university? And what are the qualities should be obtained through out the degree for a astrophysics student?

 

[CrysPhys]

[thanks a lot for answering all my questions.. So is there a way to get into government agencies for research? I mean ESA, NASA, kind of agencies..

I'm sure there is. I wouldn't count on it as a career choice though. I suspect the number of astrophysicists such agencies employ is quite small. They likely employ a lot more engineers and technicians.

Also keep in mind that government agencies are likely to have citizenship requirements for employees, further limiting opportunities in this sector.

 

[Choppy]

So typically what are the qualities university look into the Phd graduates to give him/her a position in their university? And what are the qualities should be obtained through out the degree for a astrophysics student?

If you're talking about a tenure-track position, it's not unheard of to have hundreds of applicants. Because the market is saturated, being selected is not so much a function of being hard-working enough, or smart enough. Out of those hundreds, most will be very smart and very hard-working just to be in a position to apply. To make the "short list" typically the search and selection committees will be looking for:

1. Evidence of outstanding research productivity. This is typically measured by the quality and quantity of your publications, although details depend on the specific field.
2. Demonstrated ability to bring in grant money.
3. Particular details of the research you do, how it fits into the existing framework of the department, and the department's long term vision. So, for example you could be spectacular at general relativity simulations, but if the department either has too many people working in that area you go to the bottom of the list. Similarly, if the department doesn't have anyone else working in their astrophysics group that has a lot of overlap with what you do - bottom of the list again. It's similar if the department or hiring committee doesn't see the opportunity for growth in your area of expertise.
4. Excellence in teaching.
5. Professional service (i.e. evidence you can work well on a committee).

As you obtain an education in astrophysics, it's important to obtain a skill set that you can use outside of academia.

 

[George Jones]

So typically what are the qualities university look into the Phd graduates to give him/her a position in their university? And what are the qualities should be obtained through out the degree for a astrophysics student?

A necessary (but not sufficient) condition is a research publication track record.

 

[spaceodyssey]

If you're talking about a tenure-track position, it's not unheard of to have hundreds of applicants. Because the market is saturated, being selected is not so much a function of being hard-working enough, or smart enough. Out of those hundreds, most will be very smart and very hard-working just to be in a position to apply. To make the "short list" typically the search and selection committees will be looking for:

1. Evidence of outstanding research productivity. This is typically measured by the quality and quantity of your publications, although details depend on the specific field.
2. Demonstrated ability to bring in grant money.
3. Particular details of the research you do, how it fits into the existing framework of the department, and the department's long term vision. So, for example you could be spectacular at general relativity simulations, but if the department either has too many people working in that area you go to the bottom of the list. Similarly, if the department doesn't have anyone else working in their astrophysics group that has a lot of overlap with what you do - bottom of the list again. It's similar if the department or hiring committee doesn't see the opportunity for growth in your area of expertise.
4. Excellence in teaching.
5. Professional service (i.e. evidence you can work well on a committee).

As you obtain an education in astrophysics, it's important to obtain a skill set that you can use outside of academia.

Thanks for the explanation. So if a person gets accepted into a Phd position, is it possible to afford himself/herself with the stipend given by the university? And will the stipend continue for the whole Phd duration?

If you're talking about a tenure-track position, it's not unheard of to have hundreds of applicants. Because the market is saturated, being selected is not so much a function of being hard-working enough, or smart enough. Out of those hundreds, most will be very smart and very hard-working just to be in a position to apply.

Is this applicable to all around the world? And what are the best countries around the globe that supports well on research in astrophysics? I am assesing on few countries in europe(germany, sweden, netherlands, france), UK and U.S to study.

 

[Choppy]

Thanks for the explanation. So if a person gets accepted into a Phd position, is it possible to afford himself/herself with the stipend given by the university? And will the stipend continue for the whole Phd duration?

Generally it's enough money to live off of if you live a pretty simple lifestyle and don't have any dependents. Details vary depending on the school and the local cost of living. And the support is usually not indefinite. Most school will only guarantee the funding for so many years, but in most cases students can finish in that time. And when they can't, alternative funding is often available.

Is this applicable to all around the world? And what are the best countries around the globe that supports well on research in astrophysics? I am assesing on few countries in europe(germany, sweden, netherlands, france), UK and U.S to study.

Well my experience is primarily in Canada, but my understanding is that it's true in most "first world" countries. Others may have more input on which countries are the better ones.

 

[spaceodyssey]

Generally it's enough money to live off of if you live a pretty simple lifestyle and don't have any dependents. Details vary depending on the school and the local cost of living. And the support is usually not indefinite. Most school will only guarantee the funding for so many years, but in most cases students can finish in that time. And when they can't, alternative funding is often available.Well my experience is primarily in Canada, but my understanding is that it's true in most "first world" countries. Others may have more input on which countries are the better ones.

Thanks a lot for the clear explanations.

 

[CrysPhys]

Thanks for the explanation. So if a person gets accepted into a Phd position, is it possible to afford himself/herself with the stipend given by the university? And will the stipend continue for the whole Phd duration?

(a) With respect to funding/financial support in the US, refer to this recent thread and the reference cited within:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/phd-funding.895137/

(b) The stipend is not guaranteed for the entirety of the your PhD program. In particular, once you are accepted into a thesis research program for your dissertation, you are typically funded via your advisor's research grants. There are occasions in which an advisor runs out of research grant funds (e.g, existing grants expire, but new proposals get rejected). I've known several grad students in that situation. What happens then is very case specific. If you are within several months of finishing, e.g., and the department has discretionary reserve funds, the department may come up with funds. In other instances, you may need to revert to a teaching assistantship for support. That will keep you going, but your teaching responsibilities, of course, will take time away from your research.

(c) US universities readily provide funding/financial support for non-US citizens. For other countries, you should check whether funding/financial support is available for non-citizens.

 

[spaceodyssey]

Hi,

I had gone through the below threads and I am really unhappy and shocked what i read there.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/salary-of-an-astrophysicist-with-a-phd.656787/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-physics-phd-becoming-unemployable.774233/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/are-really-scientists-earning-this-much.431781/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-astrophysics-risky-for-career.195545/page-3
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/astrophysics-safe-choice-vs-risky-choice.739113/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/astrophysics-as-an-career.16706/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/careers-in-astrophysics.214812/

Most of the threads here and other forums advise not to follow a Phd in physics(especially astro and cosomology) as they are less employable ? I am confused right now as I cannot risk my life studying what I love and being underemployed or worse unemployed.
So I would like clarifications for some questions,

Do all physics Phd's are less employable? and what sub field of physics(like atomic,optics,computational) are satisfactorily employed?

Is this situation same all around the world? (europe, australia or other countries)

Is there any specific degree available to work in an astronomy or space research centres to work as a support person like telescope operators or IT support?

Is it possible to do astrophysics semi-professionally as stated in the below link by twofish-quant in the below thread?
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/careers-in-astrophysics.214812/

I would be grateful if someone replies these questions.

 

[PeroK]

Hi,

I had gone through the below threads and I am really unhappy and shocked what i read there.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/salary-of-an-astrophysicist-with-a-phd.656787/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-physics-phd-becoming-unemployable.774233/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/are-really-scientists-earning-this-much.431781/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-astrophysics-risky-for-career.195545/page-3
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/astrophysics-safe-choice-vs-risky-choice.739113/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/astrophysics-as-an-career.16706/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/careers-in-astrophysics.214812/

Most of the threads here and other forums advise not to follow a Phd in physics(especially astro and cosomology) as they are less employable ? I am confused right now as I cannot risk my life studying what I love and being underemployed or worse unemployed.
So I would like clarifications for some questions,

Do all physics Phd's are less employable? and what sub field of physics(like atomic,optics,computational) are satisfactorily employed?

Is this situation same all around the world? (europe, australia or other countries)

Is there any specific degree available to work in an astronomy or space research centres to work as a support person like telescope operators or IT support?

Is it possible to do astrophysics semi-professionally as stated in the below link by twofish-quant in the below thread?
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/careers-in-astrophysics.214812/

I would be grateful if someone replies these questions.

When I was a child, everyone wanted to be an astronaut when they grew up. Now, it seems, everyone wants to be an astrophysicist. If the evidence of this forum is to be believed, there will be far too many astrophysicists for the jobs available.

 

[spaceodyssey]

When I was a child, everyone wanted to be an astronaut when they grew up. Now, it seems, everyone wants to be an astrophysicist. If the evidence of this forum is to be believed, there will be far too many astrophysicists for the jobs available.

sorry i don't understand, these forums should not be considered before making a decision?

 

[PeroK]

sorry i don't understand, these forums should not be considered before making a decision?

I'm only suggesting that so many people want to be astrophysicists that there won't be jobs for all of you.

 

[spaceodyssey]

I'm only suggesting that so many people want to be astrophysicists that there won't be jobs for all of you.

Thank you.

 

[Choppy]

Do all physics Phd's are less employable? and what sub field of physics(like atomic,optics,computational) are satisfactorily employed?

A lot depends on what you mean by "employable." It's important to remember that most physics PhDs tend to do fairly well in terms of salary, job satisfaction, etc. But they often won't end up doing research in physics, or at least not in an academic sense. What tends to happen is that they go out into the commercial industry and make a living using tangential skills that they've picked up through their education: programming, number crunching, etc. Some people are really put off by this and take the attitude that doing a PhD is a waste of time if you're not going to end up as a professor. (And it certainly doesn't help when the economy is slow, and everyone is hard-pressed for jobs.) If that's how you see things, then the PhD probably isn't the right path for you. On the other hand, it does give you a chance at academia. And it gives you the opportunity to do cutting edge research while you're a student, develop a unique skill set including the skills to independently conduct your own research.

With respect to subfields, it's important to remember there is still no meal ticket these days. Just having a particular credential is unlikely to have people knocking down your door. However, some subfields have professional opportunities outside of academia: medical physics, geophysics, and accelerator physics, for example.

Is this situation same all around the world? (europe, australia or other countries)

I can't say for sure, but it's highly likely. China seems to be investing more in academia lately, so there might be more opportunities there.

Is there any specific degree available to work in an astronomy or space research centres to work as a support person like telescope operators or IT support?

It's probably not a specific degree. Lot's of people get into IT through different avenues, for example. This who end up working for NASA, probably didn't get in because they took a specific program. They just happened to have the right balance of experience and qualifications when an opening came up.

Is it possible to do astrophysics semi-professionally as stated in the below link by twofish-quant in the below thread?
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/careers-in-astrophysics.214812/

Possible - sure. But it's probably rare.

 

[spaceodyssey]

A lot depends on what you mean by "employable." It's important to remember that most physics PhDs tend to do fairly well in terms of salary, job satisfaction, etc. But they often won't end up doing research in physics, or at least not in an academic sense. What tends to happen is that they go out into the commercial industry and make a living using tangential skills that they've picked up through their education: programming, number crunching, etc. Some people are really put off by this and take the attitude that doing a PhD is a waste of time if you're not going to end up as a professor. (And it certainly doesn't help when the economy is slow, and everyone is hard-pressed for jobs.) If that's how you see things, then the PhD probably isn't the right path for you. On the other hand, it does give you a chance at academia. And it gives you the opportunity to do cutting edge research while you're a student, develop a unique skill set including the skills to independently conduct your own research.

Okay. By employable I meant the person who does the research or work related to their PhD or degree. Because to get into a finance or programming I don't need to strive to get another degree, as the one I have now is enough. I want to work or research related to physics and that's the reason I am continuing my education again. If I am going to work for finance or I.T which doesn't relate to the physics or any other science after finishing a degree, its not worth pursuing for me.

With respect to subfields, it's important to remember there is still no meal ticket these days. Just having a particular credential is unlikely to have people knocking down your door. However, some subfields have professional opportunities outside of academia: medical physics, geophysics, and accelerator physics, for example.

On the topic of sub fields, do people work relevant to their PhD or degree in the private/govt organizations? Are they paid enough?

From the links I have provided, those were discussed years back, are there any chances that now or in near future the situation would be better for astro PhD candidates?

It's probably not a specific degree. Lot's of people get into IT through different avenues, for example. This who end up working for NASA, probably didn't get in because they took a specific program. They just happened to have the right balance of experience and qualifications when an opening came up.

Does computational astrophysics come under support job?? Does it have the same employ-ability as general astrophysics degree?

 

[Anindya Mondal]

For theoretical physics & astronomy, UCLA & Cambridge are best options. Funding is available by the university itself & obviously by the country to which the student belong.

 

[Choppy]

On the topic of sub fields, do people work relevant to their PhD or degree in the private/govt organizations? Are they paid enough?

This is job and organization-specific. Once you get outside of academia, professional scientist positions exist for the purpose of solving very specific problems where this is a financial, practical or political interest in solving them. Generally speaking, there is not much of an immediate incentive to figure out problems in astrophysics. There are, on the other hand, reasons why people might need to improve their ability to detect oil during explorations, better monitor environmental conditions, improve the quality of their medical images, build a faster microchip, calibrate the output of a linear accelerator, etc. So people who leave academia with skills in these areas can often end up doing work directly related to their PhD.

Pay ranges by job. I don't know what your definition of "enough" is. Medical physicists and geophysicists tend to do quite well in terms of salary, but remember that they put in a lot of time and energy up front before they get to a position where they earn the high salaries.

From the links I have provided, those were discussed years back, are there any chances that now or in near future the situation would be better for astro PhD candidates?

No one has a crystal ball, but I'd say it's unlikely. Professors tend to train way more students than the number required to replace them when they retire. While there may be some growth in academia, it is generally not enough to swallow up all the extra students. And it's unlikely that anyone is going to stop enrollment of the extra students anyway.

 

[spaceodyssey]

This is job and organization-specific. Once you get outside of academia, professional scientist positions exist for the purpose of solving very specific problems where this is a financial, practical or political interest in solving them. Generally speaking, there is not much of an immediate incentive to figure out problems in astrophysics. There are, on the other hand, reasons why people might need to improve their ability to detect oil during explorations, better monitor environmental conditions, improve the quality of their medical images, build a faster microchip, calibrate the output of a linear accelerator, etc. So people who leave academia with skills in these areas can often end up doing work directly related to their PhD.

Pay ranges by job. I don't know what your definition of "enough" is. Medical physicists and geophysicists tend to do quite well in terms of salary, but remember that they put in a lot of time and energy up front before they get to a position where they earn the high salaries.
No one has a crystal ball, but I'd say it's unlikely. Professors tend to train way more students than the number required to replace them when they retire. While there may be some growth in academia, it is generally not enough to swallow up all the extra students. And it's unlikely that anyone is going to stop enrollment of the extra students anyway.

thank you,