Actually the missions to the moon would be considered feats of engineering, although science plays a large part in the engineering process. The byproducts of the space race come from engineers attempting to solve the smaller peices of the problem in their attempt to get the whole thing done. In actuality science alone is usually not intended to improve the present state of man. Most scientific persuits are purely intellectual/academic in nature. When someone takes scientific knowledge, and uses it to accomplish something (go to the moon, make money, win a war, etc.) useful devices result, either directly or more often indirectly. For some reason we've put science on some pedestal for making the world a better place, but it really is the engineers that deserve the credit.
I should also mention that in a lot of cases science and engineering can be accomplished by the same person, group, etc. It more has to do with the task at hand and what he is trying to accomplish.
Also, science should not have good or bad results. Science should just have results, either expected or unexpected, it's just results. As such, true scientific journals really only contain these opinion neutral type experiments. Engineering journals on the other hand do contain only "good" results, and rightfully so. There's no point in telling someone how not to build something. Besides, that kind of stuff is usually contained is MS Theses and conference proceedings.
Slashdot Mirror
a decent cable modem can be less than $50, try here.
Actually the missions to the moon would be considered feats of engineering, although science plays a large part in the engineering process. The byproducts of the space race come from engineers attempting to solve the smaller peices of the problem in their attempt to get the whole thing done. In actuality science alone is usually not intended to improve the present state of man. Most scientific persuits are purely intellectual/academic in nature. When someone takes scientific knowledge, and uses it to accomplish something (go to the moon, make money, win a war, etc.) useful devices result, either directly or more often indirectly. For some reason we've put science on some pedestal for making the world a better place, but it really is the engineers that deserve the credit.
I should also mention that in a lot of cases science and engineering can be accomplished by the same person, group, etc. It more has to do with the task at hand and what he is trying to accomplish.
Also, science should not have good or bad results. Science should just have results, either expected or unexpected, it's just results. As such, true scientific journals really only contain these opinion neutral type experiments. Engineering journals on the other hand do contain only "good" results, and rightfully so. There's no point in telling someone how not to build something. Besides, that kind of stuff is usually contained is MS Theses and conference proceedings.