<p>How much do engineers play a role in research? Or in other words, I realize that an engineer will help to build a space craft that's investigating Mars, but will they be involved in the actual interpretation of the data?</p>
<p>Yes. They will.</p>
<p>wouldnt that be the job of a specialized scientist?
the engineer would get the lander working, but would not be the one to analyze the soil/air/whatever data.</p>
<p>They'd have to work in conjunction with the specialized scientists, usually. My dad worked on the mass spectrometer that hopped aboard Pioneer Venus when he was a mechanical engineering grad student. While the specialized scientists would be the ones to make the call as to what the implications of what they were seeing would be, it's not like the engineers who design the scientific equipment finish their designs and then walk away. They'll collaborate with the scientists, particularly if anything went a little awry with the testing equipment that they'd designed. To that effect, they're involved in the interpretation of the data.</p>
<p>So, no, they're not the ones who are saying, "Hey! There's water here!" but they are the ones who are saying, "Yeah, from what we can tell, the data looks consistent with what we'd expect our equipment to say when there's water here, and we don't think anything went wrong. You can tell the press that there's water here!"</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That's what I thought, or is there some overlap?</p>
<p>What is the difference between engineering research vs. science research?</p>
<p>
[quote]
What is the difference between engineering research vs. science research?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It kind of smooshes together once you get to the PhD level, from what I've seen.</p>
<p>Can you elaborate on that?</p>
<p>I have to agree with aibarr that engineering research and scientific research basically goes hand in hand for the most part. And with respect to the post about PhD level research being smooshed together, I think aibarr is basically saying that when the research is being done at a high level, both engineers and scientists tend to have a good knowledge of the area being investigated; therefore, both sides play a major role in conducting the research.</p>
<p>If there is any difference, the difference lies in how the data is interpreted. Engineers tend to interpret data using physical information, while scientists tend to interpret the data by making comparisions with models, empirical data, etc. It is when the two are combined that the data from spacecrafts/landers can be properly interpreted. The line between engineering research and scientific research is probably drawn when further investigation of the topic is developed through laboratory simulations and other such methods.</p>
<p>For example, a scientist knows that methane can absorb a certain wavelength of radiation and lets the engineer know this fact. The engineer then uses this information to interpret Ultra-Violet Imaging Spectrograph data sent from Cassini. The engineer first makes adjustments to the incoming data for the known errors that the data contains due to the limitations of conducting the experiment at a far away distance. The engineer then creates a table of all the varying levels of UV reflection off the surface of the investigating object. The scientist and engineer both analyze the data to see whether that specific wavelength mentioned above is being absorbed and if so, where that absorption is being taken place. The engineer uses the information of the spacecraft orientation, flight trajectory, angle of attack, etc. to determine the coordinates of the area with more methane. The scientist then uses this map to make inferences or to use the data to create further simulations on Earth.</p>
<p>Well some of you can say that an engineer alone could have come up with the conclusion that methane was present at so and so location because of the large amount of absorption of UV radiation at that altitude. Although that inference may be true with respect to the data sent from the spacecraft, there may be other factors that the data does not explicitly state that can make it false. For example, the varying temperature and pressure conditions can elimate the possibility of methane gas being present at that altitude, the characteristics of absorption and reflection/diffraction can be inconsistent with methane gas on Earth, etc. On the flip side, scientists alone cannot interpret the data properly because the scientists may not have an understanding of the mechanics behind space flight that can affect the data of certain instruments. For example, the orientation of the spacecraft with respect to the sun and the object being observed can create a layer of brightness to the imaging data that must be accounted for before interpreting it.</p>
<p>It's almost a symbiotic relationship of sorts.</p>